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

["Stephen Green" <stephen_green@bristol-city.gov.uk>]

I participated in the CEN/ISSS EEG1 e-Invoice Project last
year where we did conduct some gap analysis between
standards such as EDIFACT and UBL (besides significant
industry-related standards, it being the purpose to develop 
cross-industry messages). From this it seemed that there was
little difference to speak of between the semantic elements of
an EDIFACT Invoice payload and a UBL Invoice payload.
In line with Jon's advice, this work has since become part of
one of the submissions to TBG17 for production of the TBG17
Core Components. (Freddy de Vos and Mounir El-Khoury lead
the EEG1 e-Invoice Project).

All the best

Stephen Green


>>> "David Webber (XML)" <david@drrw.info> 03/03/05 19:00:27 >>>
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
>
>
>