Re: [ubl-dev] Re: [ebxml-dev] Invoice message: UN/EDIFACT and UBL

[Duane Nickull <dnickull@adobe.com>]

What is the use case for mapping EDIFACT to UBL?  Is it to simply use 
UBL over the wire between two applciations that use EDIFACT natively 
within their environments?  Is true, why do you want to use UBL on the wire?

Duane


David Webber (XML) wrote:

>Jon,
>
>If I were to attempt to reverse engineer something - the
>original xCBL work was based heavily on SimplEDI - that
>is the most commonly used elements of the most commonly
>used EDIFACT message formats (invoice / PO / ship notice).
>
>You can find documentation on EDIFACT SimplEDI.  It's
>value is that is saves a lot of time mapping to the EDIFACT
>transactions as it provides a minimal set.
>
>Linking UBL transactions to those SimplEDI elements would
>probably not be too ardious - and certainly helpful for people
>needing to co-exist between existing EDIFACT transactions
>and UBL.
>
>DW
>
>----- Original Message ----- 
>From: <jon.bosak@sun.com>
>To: <ubl-dev@lists.oasis-open.org>; <ebxml-dev@lists.ebxml.org>
>Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 12:52 PM
>Subject: [ubl-dev] Re: [ebxml-dev] Invoice message: UN/EDIFACT and UBL
>
>
>  
>
>>[aron@ik.bme.hu:]
>>
>>| This is written on the homepage of UBL v1.0:
>>| "The initial UBL library of data components was based upon the xCBL 3.0
>>| schema library, which was itself based on the UN/EDIFACT and ANSI X12
>>    
>>
>EDI
>  
>
>>| component libraries."
>>| (source: http://docs.oasis-open.org/ubl/cd-UBL-1.0/)
>>|
>>| If UBL messages (e.g. Invoice) are based on UN/EDIFACT standard
>>| (e.g. INVOIC message) then I suspect that there must exist a
>>| mapping (EDIFACT-to-UBL and UBL-to-EDIFACT). Is this mapping
>>| accessible somewhere? Or shall I ask xCBL experts?
>>
>>I'm open to correction from people who worked closely with CBL,
>>but I believe that "based on" was used pretty loosely in the
>>passage you quote above.  It's my understanding that there is
>>(somewhere) a formal mapping of xCBL 3.0 to EDI standards, but UBL
>>has evolved so far beyond its roots in xCBL that I doubt whether
>>such a mapping would be very useful.  The point is that UBL
>>inherits the relevant semantics of traditional EDI message
>>standards, not that there is a formal mapping to those standards.
>>
>>UBL's grounding in the ISO 15000-5 Core Components Technical
>>Specification together with the harmonization work currently
>>underway in UN/CEFACT will eventually provide a semantic basis
>>that should (in theory) enable us to generate the kind of mapping
>>you're looking for.
>>
>>Jon
>>
>>
>>
>>    
>>
>
>
>  
>

-- 
***********
Senior Standards Strategist - Adobe Systems, Inc. - http://www.adobe.com
Vice Chair - UN/CEFACT Bureau Plenary - http://www.unece.org/cefact/
Adobe Enterprise Developer Resources  - http://www.adobe.com/enterprise/developer/main.html
***********