[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [ubl-dev] UBL Processes
I'll comment on the "SLA service management" issue. An SLA between a customer company and a telecommunications provider might have both service provisioning commitments and service performance commitments. A service provisioning commitment might be, for example, that if the customer company opens up a new retail branch, the communications provider will provision it within some committed lead time after receiving a service request. The various UBL processes and transactions support that process scenario. If the service is "configurable" (e.g., the particular branch has to choose more or less capacity, pick from a menu of service or hardware options), UBL offers the "punchout" option. On the other hand, a vendor's SLA might include day-to-day performance commitments, for example, 99.9% service availability or a bit rate error of no more than X. Current UBL transactions are not applicable to actual performance monitoring and threshold violation detection although the processing of the penalty payments would fit. If, for example, the customer company monitors the service (rarely the case although certainly desirable), then the monitoring process could pass violation data to a business process that sends the appropriate transaction (e.g., an invoice) to the vendor. If the vendor performs the service monitoring, the same process could happen, with the vendor sending a remittance and remittance advice. Getting vendors to pay is often, for no good reason, often a "high touch" drawn out activity, so the scenario of having monitoring devices kick off compensation payments is more technically doable that commercially doable. Fulton Wilcox Colts Neck Solutions LLC -----Original Message----- From: Jan Algermissen [mailto:algermissen1971@mac.com] Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2008 11:01 AM To: ubl-dev@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: [ubl-dev] UBL Processes Hi, I have read occasionally that the processes defined by UBL (which I understand to cover the order-acceptance 'pattern' and by that effectively the complete supply chain management domain) do actually cover most of the collaboration kinds found in general business communication. Related to this understanding I have a couple of questions: - is the above somewhere near to a correct understanding? - can someone point me to metarial that shows the heritage of UBL (or should I just dig into ebXML, EDI or RosettaNet?) - does anyone have any practical experience of applying UBL outside the "ordering goods or services" domain I think that a domain not covered by the order-acceptance pattern is the domain of service provisioning and the related issues of service management. My understanding is that in this domain, the essential aspect is the service promise made by the service provider (manifested in an SLA for example) and that the collaborations of servicemanagement are essentially different from the ones made in the SCM patterns. Does this make any sense? Has anyone applied UBL to service management (can a service promise be seen as an offer?). Thanks in advance for any hints or resources to help me find a reasonable start into the above issues. For something completely different: My aim is to apply UBL to HTTP-based interactions (=> REST) and naturally I am troubled with UBL not having its own MIME type. Would anyone be interested in going through the effort of having e.g. application/ubl+xml regsitered with the IETF? Jan --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: ubl-dev-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org For additional commands, e-mail: ubl-dev-help@lists.oasis-open.org
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]