ubl-csc message

Subject: Re: Fw: [ebsoa] IBM BI-ICS

From: Tim McGrath <tmcgrath@portcomm.com.au>
To: David RR Webber <david@drrw.info>
Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2004 16:18:01 +0800

I agree that the common thread in these intiatives and CAM is the need for customization.

My assessment on this is that it appears to be restating the same old objectives, but not offering anything practical to help solve them except a formal way of definition. In other words, these are just tools for customization. Which is why you only need 65 lines of schema code to address it. To borrow David's analogy - comparing BI-ICS and CAM is not showing a kid two shiny new bikes - it is showing them how to define a shiny new bike. How they actually get the bike is still frustratingly unexplained.

What UBL (and any other business vocabulary) needs is 'how to do it' specifications. UBL sees this as the major objective in the next phase of our project.

Where UBL is at right now is finalising the 1.0 specification, this will contain guidelines dealing with the mechanics of customizing XSD schema. This also explains why we don't have much bandwidth to deal with this right now. However, we do plan to liaise more closely with CAM and other initiatives as we start to construct a more holistic approach to customization.

David RR Webber wrote:

Jon,

We're definately trail blazing here (again).

I just answered some questions over on the WashDC XML UG listserver
and posted the attached example CAM template XML.

This is mostly all new territory for people - the EDI-old-hacks  -
intuitively
see the merits and the needs - because they've had to code this up in
COBOL, then C, now Java and XML.   So having XML scripting for
this is a giant leap forward for mankind there.

However - I sense that people that have just been doing XSD and
documents are taken aback by this - because this level of precision
and detail coupling is not in their experience matrix.

Unfortunately this does not make it easy for people to judge the
merits and longer term consequences - like showing a kid two shiny new
bikes - do they pick the red one or the green one?!

Anyway - at least all this ruckus is helping people see the
"why do we need this anyway?" - that they'd otherwise
passed over.

Thanks, DW.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <jon.bosak@sun.com>
To: <david@drrw.info>
Cc: <jon.bosak@sun.com>; <monica.martin@sun.com>; <farrukh.najmi@sun.com>;
<tmcgrath@portcomm.com.au>
Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2004 6:32 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: [ebsoa] IBM BI-ICS

David,

I have no idea what to make of this.  I'll see whether I can get
some other opinions.

Jon

   From: "David RR Webber" <david@drrw.info>
   Cc: "Farrukh Najmi" <farrukh.najmi@sun.com>,
   "tim mcgrath" <tmcgrath@portcomm.com.au>
   Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 23:21:54 -0500

   Jon,

   I'd been expecting this development below.  And in fact
   I purposely did not go to the XMLWG meeting held at
   the IBM offices today on principle.

   Of course CAM is about to become a fully fledged
   OASIS specification - and we are integrating these
   capabilities into BPSS, ebMS and Registry.  And
   utlimately we can anticipate an ISO specification
   as well.

   We've done the hard work here - and IBM have
   woken up to the fact that by providing information
   integration - with linkage to the ebXML Registry - that
   CAM provides as critical an adoption path as
   ebMS does.  I.e. once people start using CAM its
   almost certain they will also eventually adopt all
   or part of the ebXML stack.

   Hence this development of ICS.

   I know the UBL and CAM teams have not worked
   closely together too this point - but right now I see
   that this development of ICS by IBM places us
   under the same shadow - and we need to figure
   out a clear and unified go forward.

   I'm sure Martin Roberts can facilitate this here too,
   since his open source jCAM processor gives
   people a tool today that they can start using
   with CAM templates for UBL transactions.

   I've done a couple of old examples of OP70
   transactions in CAM - but now is the time to start in
   earnest building a business catalogue of UBL and
   CAM transaction sets together - and then
   beyond that planning to leverage the Registry SCM
   noun dictionary work to include UBL element
   definitions too.

   How do we facilitate this and make this happen
   expeditiously together?

   Thanks, DW.

   ----- Original Message ----- 
   From: "David RR Webber" <david@drrw.info>
   To: "Chiusano Joseph" <chiusano_joseph@bah.com>
   Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2004 11:07 PM
   Subject: Re: [ebsoa] IBM BI-ICS

   > Joe,
   >
   > Any which way you slice this - its devisive and
   > being driven by the fact that Scott Hinkleman is under
   > strict orders not to have anything to do with
   > anything that is remotely connected to ebXML
   > in any way.
   >
   > He flat out told me this himself - if there is anything
   > to do with ebXML - IBM will have nothing whatsoever
   > to do with it.
   >
   > The UBL people need to urgently move to adopting
   > CAM - and helping the CAM team improve and
   > enhance this base.
   >
   > ICS is intended to drive a wedge into our work - pure
   > and simple - and to create FUD with industry groups
   > such as ACORD, OAGi and more - all of whom are
   > being courted and woed to use ICS - and therefore
   > diverted away from CAM.  Scott fully realizes that
   > anyone adopting CAM is ultimately very likely
   > to then adopt ebXML Registry and more too.
   >
   > Thanks, DW.
   >
   > ----- Original Message ----- 
   > From: "Chiusano Joseph" <chiusano_joseph@bah.com>
   > To: <david.burdett@commerceone.com>
   > Cc: <ebsoa@lists.oasis-open.org>;

<regrep-cc-review@lists.oasis-open.org>;

   > <cam@lists.oasis-open.org>; "Registry TC - SCM SC"
   > <regrep-semantic@lists.oasis-open.org>
   > Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2004 5:52 PM
   > Subject: Re: [ebsoa] IBM BI-ICS
   >
   >
   > > David,
   > >
   > > I concur with your assessment of potential UBL overlap with their
   > > Context efforts. The UBL Context Methodology subcommittee has not

yet

   > > released a document, but [1] indicates that "the latest date for
   > > delivery of the CM document is March 29.". Of course, this overlap

will

   > > become clearer once IBM releases the Business Payload Composition

piece

   > > - no available date yet (I asked Scott Hinkleman).
   > >
   > > Joe
   > >
   > > [1]

http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl-cmsc/200403/msg00009.html

   > >
   > > david.burdett@commerceone.com wrote:
   > > >
   > > > There's more information on this initiative available at [1] and

[2]

   and
   > a specification at [3]. However Business Payload Composition bit

sounds to

   > me awfully similar in scope to work being done by UBL see [4] which

says

   > "The TC will then design a mechanism for the generation of
   context-specific
   > business schemas through the application of transformation rules to

the

   > common UBL source library".
   > > >
   > > > ... or am I missing something.
   > > >
   > > > David
   > > >
   > > > [1] http://xml.coverpages.org/ni2004-02-02-a.html
   > > > [2] http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/xml/library/x-biics/
   > > > [3]
   >

ftp://www6.software.ibm.com/software/developer/library/x-biics/BI-ICSSpec_v1.html

   > > > [4]

http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tc_home.php?wg_abbrev=ubl

   > > >
   > > > -----Original Message-----
   > > > From: Chiusano Joseph [mailto:chiusano_joseph@bah.com]
   > > > Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2004 2:26 PM
   > > > To: ebsoa@lists.oasis-open.org; CCRev; CAM; Registry TC - SCM SC
   > > > Subject: [ebsoa] IBM BI-ICS
   > > >
   > > > This morning at the XML.gov monthly meeting[1] I saw a

presentation

   > > > given by Scott Hinkleman of IBM on IBM's new "Business

Integration -

   > > > Information Conformance Standards (BI-ICS)" specification[2]. I

found

   it
   > > > quite interesting, and thought I'd provide a few comments here.
   Although
   > > > not available as of this e-mail, the presentation should be

available

   at
   > > > the XML.gov site[3] within the next few days, if IBM does make it
   > > > available.
   > > >
   > > > BI-ICS essentially lives at what IBM calls the "Business Level"

of the

   > > > Web Services stack, above "Service Composition" (where WS BPEL,
   > > > WS-Transaction, etc. live). I know - it sounds like the "ebXML

area"

   of
   > > > the stack, so we might very well expect some overlap in this and
   future
   > > > specs - as BI-ICS is apparently one of 4 planned "specification

areas"

   > > > for this "framework" (my own use of this term) which is as of yet
   > > > unnamed.
   > > >
   > > > Another area will be "Business Payload Composition", which -

Scott

   > > > Hinkleman stated - "has its roots in ebXML Core Components", and
   > > > specifies a "context-driven approach" to payload composition
   (overlaps,
   > > > anyone?). Scott did, however, state that BI-ICS is "not IBM's

answer

   to
   > > > OASIS CAM".
   > > >
   > > > IBM is soliciting interest in advancing BI-ICS to an open

standards

   > > > consortium.
   > > >
   > > > Let the discussions begin...
   > > >
   > > > Kind Regards,
   > > > Joe
   > > >
   > > > [1] http://xml.gov/agenda/20040317.htm
   > > > [2] http://xml.coverpages.org/ni2004-02-02-a.html
   > > > [3] http://xml.gov/presentations.asp
   > >
   >


<!-- Example Assembly for Address and Order items -->
<CAM xmlns:as="http://www.oasis-open.org/CAM">
 <AssemblyStructure >
   <Header>
     <CAMlevel value="1"/>
     <Description>Example using XML structure with choices</Description>
   </Header>
  <Structure>
   <Items CatalogueRef="2002">
     <SoccerGear>
       <Item as:makeRepeatable="true">
        <RefCode as:makeMandatory="true" as:setLength="10">%%</RefCode>
        <Description>%%</Description>
        <Style>WorldCupSoccer</Style>
        <UnitPrice as:setMask="'decimal','ZZ9.99'">%%</UnitPrice>
       </Item>
       <QuantityOrdered as:setMask="'integer','ZZ9'">%%</QuantityOrdered>
       <SupplierID as:makeMandatory="true">%%</SupplierID>
       <DistributorID>%%</DistributorID>
       <OrderDelivery>Normal</OrderDelivery>
       <DeliveryAddress as:choiceID="USA-Street">
          <FullName>%%</FullName>
          <Street>%%</Street>
          <City>%%</City>
          <State as:setLength="2" as:makeMandatory="true">%%</State>
       </DeliveryAddress>
       <DeliveryAddress as:choiceID="USA-APObox">
          <FullName>%%</FullName>
          <APOBox>%%</APOBox>
          <City>%%</City>
          <State as:setLength="2">%%</State>
          <Country>%%</Country>
       </DeliveryAddress>

       <DeliveryAddress as:choiceID="Canada">
          <PersonName>%%</PersonName>
          <Street1>%%</Street1>
          <Street2>%%</Street2>
          <TownCity>%%</TownCity>
          <PostCode>%%</PostCode>
          <Province>%%</Province>
          <Country>Canada</Country>
       </DeliveryAddress>
     </SoccerGear>
   </Items>
  </Structure>
 </AssemblyStructure>

 <BusinessUseContext>
   <Rules>
    <default>
      <context> <!-- default structure constraints -->
       <constraint action="makeRepeatable(//SoccerGear)" />
       <constraint action="makeMandatory(//SoccerGear/Items/*)" />
       <constraint action="makeOptional(//Description)" />
       <constraint action="makeMandatory(//Items@CatalogueRef)" />
       <constraint action="makeOptional(//DistributorID)" />
       <constraint action="makeOptional(//SoccerGear/DeliveryAddress)" />
      </context>
    </default>
    <context condition="//SoccerGear/SupplierID = 'SuperMaxSoccer'">
      <constraint action="makeMandatory(//SoccerGear/DeliveryAddress)"/>
    </context>
    <context condition="$DeliveryCountry = 'USA'">
      <constraint action="useChoiceByID(//SoccerGear/DeliveryAddress(#USA-Street))"/>
    </context>
    <context condition="$DeliveryCountry = 'APO'">
      <constraint action="useChoiceByID(//SoccerGear/DeliveryAddress(#USA-APObox))"/>
    </context>
    <context condition="$DeliveryCountry = 'CANADA'">
      <constraint action="useChoiceByID(//SoccerGear/DeliveryAddress(#Canada))"/>
    </context>
   </Rules>
 </BusinessUseContext>

 <ContentReference>
   <Addressing>
    <registry name="SGIR" access="registry.sgir.org:1023" method="URL"
              description="Sporting Goods Industry Registry"/>
    <registry name="SGIRWSDL" access="registry.sgir.org:1025" method="WSDL"
              description="Sporting Goods Industry Registry"/>
    <registry name="UN" access="registry.un.org:9090" method="ebXML"
              description="United Nations EDIFACT Registry"/>
    <registry name="UPS" access="registry.ups.com:7001" method="URL"
              description="United Parcels Service Registry"/>
    <registry name="USPS" access="registry.usps.gov:8080" method="URL"
              description="United States Postal Service Registry"/>
    <registry name="Local" access="rdbms.mybusiness.com:4040" method="SQL"
              description="Local Product Database stored procedures"/>
   </Addressing>

   <item type="noun" name="RefCode"
         UIDReference="SGIR010027" taxonomy="UID" registry="SGIR"/>
   <item type="noun" name="Description"
         UIDReference="SGIR010050" taxonomy="UID" registry="SGIR"/>
   <item type="noun" name="Style"
         UIDReference="SGIR010028" taxonomy="UID" registry="SGIR"/>
   <item type="noun" name="SupplierID"
         UIDReference="SGIR010029" taxonomy="UID" registry="SGIR"/>
   <item type="noun" name="CatalogueRef" UIDReference="none" taxonomy="none"
         datatype="string" setlength="4" setmask="'UUUU'" />
   <item type="noun" name="DistributorID" UIDReference="none" taxonomy="none"
         datatype="string" setlength="30" />
   <item type="noun" name="UnitPrice"
         UIDReference="070010" taxonomy="EDIFACT" registry="UN"/>
   <item type="noun" name="QuantityOrdered"
         UIDReference="070011" taxonomy="EDIFACT" registry="UN"/>
   <item type="noun" name="OrderDelivery"
         UIDReference="UPS050050" taxonomy="UID" registry="UPS"/>
   <item type="defaultAssembly" name="DeliveryAddress"
         UIDReference="USPS090081:01:05" taxonomy="UID" registry="USPS"/>
 </ContentReference>

</CAM>

-- 
regards
tim mcgrath
phone: +618 93352228  
postal: po box 1289   fremantle    western australia 6160