[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: [ubl-comment] [Fwd: FW: UBL and UN/CEFACT]
UBL TC, I sent this message to the CEFACT management that authored the email of last week and the proposal from Friday. We at OASIS are very pleased, along with the many other positive statements, that CEFACT is recognizing the positive results of the UBL work that has been accomplished as an OASIS TC, and that CEFACT wants to advance UBL as their endorsed payload of choice. In order to respond to the CEFACT proposal, it is important for those affected by the proposal be aware of the facts, motives and impacts from such a move and that all transitional issues be addressed up front. Patrick Gannon -----Original Message----- From: Patrick Gannon [mailto:patrick.gannon@oasis-open.org] Sent: Friday, September 13, 2002 5:03 PM To: ebxml-mgmt@lists.ebxml.org; ebtwg@lists.ebtwg.org; un-tmwg@gefeg.com; cefact-ewg@list.unicc.org; ubl-comment@lists.oasis-open.org; James Bryce Clark Cc: Carol Geyer; Karl Best; ebxml-mgmt@lists.ebxml.org; KNaujok@attglobal.net; jamie.clark@mmiec.com; raywalker@attglobal.net; rberwanger@btrade.com; mcrawford@lmi.org; jon.bosak@sun.com Subject: RE: UBL and UN/CEFACT Jamie, Ralph, Ray and Klaus, After meeting with Ray and Klaus at the CEFACT meeting in Geneva on Thursday, I took their recommendation to heart and talked with as many of the UBL members and CEFACT ATG members as possible. One thing I discovered is that there is NO ACTUAL overlap between the UBL work and the Core Components work. This reinforces my assertion that we (OASIS, UBL TC and CEFACT) need to do a better job of educating our members and the larger community of interested parties on exactly what the charters and work products of these two groups are and how they fit together in a complementary fashion. Acquisition of a TC is not a substitution for clear, unified communication on scope of work. However, I did find UBL members and industry org reps who stated that we need to find a way to better link the work of UBL with the industry domain experts that will be doing industry specific work in the CEFACT ATG. This is an area of resource utilization and coordination that certainly is open for creative dialog on how to bridge these efforts using the limited resources from companies who participate in both CEFACT ATG and OASIS UBL. I also expressed my views that widespread adoption of standards (such as UBL) is a function of "sanction" and "traction". Any solution on this issues needs to address both axis of the adoption curve. Time-to-market is still as much a part of the issue today as it was in 1997 when I worked with Bob Glushko to champion the original NIST-sponsored CBL effort between CommerceNet and Veo Systems. A "UBL" was needed then and is still a gapping hole in the family of e-Business standards. I look forward to receiving the proposal from CEFACT and hope that it will be based on the facts of the matter, and consider all issues related to the development AND adoption of UBL. Respectfully submitted, Patrick Gannon President & CEO OASIS PO Box 455, Billerica, MA 01821 +1-978-667-5115 x201 (Office) +1-408-242-1018 (Mobile) +1-978-667-5114 (Fax) patrick.gannon@oasis-open.org http://www.oasis-open.org http://www.xml.org http://xml.coverpages.org/ http://www.ebxml.org http://www.legalxml.org http://www.uddi.org -----Original Message----- From: James Bryce Clark [mailto:jbc@lawyer.com] Sent: Friday, September 06, 2002 9:59 PM To: ubl-comment@lists.oasis-open.org; cefact-ewg@list.unicc.org; un-tmwg@gefeg.com; ebtwg@lists.ebtwg.org; ebxml-mgmt@lists.ebxml.org Cc: jon.bosak@sun.com; mcrawford@lmi.org; rberwanger@btrade.com; raywalker@attglobal.net; jamie.clark@mmiec.com; KNaujok@attglobal.net; ebxml-mgmt@lists.ebxml.org; patrick.gannon@oasis-open.org Subject: UBL and UN/CEFACT Experts and business user communities have expressed concern to us about the duplication of resources between the OASIS UBL project and UN/CEFACT's ebXML Core Components project. Many implementers are uncertain about whether the two projects are complementary or divergent. We have also received many inquiries about whether the two projects can be combined. Ultimately, whether to recombine is a question for the members of UBL and the participants in the relevant UN/CEFACT work groups. However, the personal opinion of the undersigned is that we should seek to promote it. The underlying harmonization work and message is diluted by division, and would be enhanced by being unified. Some UBL representatives have indicated that UBL would be pleased to work within UN/CEFACT under specific conditions, among which were a separate work group for UBL, continuation of the current UBL leadership, and continuation of procedural operating rules currently employed by UBL and/or OASIS. If these accurately reflect the wishes of UBL's membership, UN/CEFACT may be able to accommodate some of them. We will recommend that the appropriate bodies explore those options at the upcoming Forum meeting in Geneva next week. The CC team and its work currently reside in UN/CEFACT's TMG group (along with the UMM and most other UN/CEFACT ebXML projects). There may be other equally appropriate solutions. Several UBL leaders are candidates for UN/CEFACT group leadership positions. We welcome their participation. There appear to be a sufficient number of positions and projects, and opportunities to define additional projects, to accommodate as many of the UBL members as care to participate. Our own review of the OASIS, UBL and UN/CEFACT procedural rules suggests that there are very few differences. We would be happy to bring any recommended changes to the Forum for discussion and ultimately to UN/CEFACT's plenary (its member delegations). However, we may need to understand better any specific concerns about UN rules. As an international inter-governmental organization, UN/CEFACT must take formal actions based on articulated reasons if it is to alter its voting, procedural or public consultation rules. There may be other organizational ways to align these efforts. UBL's current venue is OASIS, our partner in the ebXML project, which may also be able to contribute suggestions for better coordination. We believe strongly that open, public discussion of these issues is the best way to address and resolve them. As a community, we have a short window of opportunity to cooperatively create a unified suite of open, nonproprietary and international e-business standards. In our view it is the right time for open conversations and compromise, and the wrong time for splintered efforts. We look forward to discussing these issues with UBL and UN/CEFACT participants alike during the upcoming Geneva meetings. Ralph Berwanger Jamie Clark Klaus-Dieter Naujok Ray Walker -- __________________________________________________________ Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup ---------------------------------------------------------------- To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription manager:
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC