OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

ubl-dev message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: RE: FW: FW: [ubl-dev] looking for practical examples


The two enemies of standards adoption are particularity and legacy,
including legacy standards.

Particularity tends to dominate, because in the short term it is quicker and
easier to accommodate and exploit particularity than to standardize it. Two
huge enemies of eBusiness standards are fax and b2b reuse of consumer
"self-service" approaches (e.g., customers forcing vendors to rekey invoice
data into "portals").

Vanilla XML has a role to play in making the "particular" more palatable and
useful by conveying in tags the particularity embedded in the payload data.
It of course also has a role in industry standards, so it wins both ways.

"Industry standards" sit between "particularity" and "standards." Industry
groups such as RosettaNet, PIDX and CIDX (petroleum and chemical) were
somewhat self-limiting and confusing - e.g., a chemical company often will
also be in both the petroleum and electronics business, but their legacy
lives on.

UBL is general, but is competing not only with particularity and industry
standards, but with its own legacy (xCBL - from CommerceOne) as well as with
its legacy competitor (cXML - from Ariba) and of course with classic EDI.
Once trading partners have put an eBusiness standard trading relationship
into production, it is pretty tough to get that successful relationship
migrated to the next generation.

Today, xCBL continues to be propagated or at least supported by the hubs
like Quadrem (aligned with the mining industry) and Hubspan (somewhat
oriented toward electronics), but with no apparent move to UBL.

The obvious synergies between open systems and open source software are, in
my estimation, not exploited very effectively because many open source
vertical software efforts are SME in nature (small and medium company). The
various standards groups (not only eBusiness, but in fields such as
workflow) represent a bonanza of intellectual property useful in building a
fresh start ERP or other system, but that IP addresses problems or offers
competitive advantages that open source vertical software designers may not
see as problems or opportunities.

All of the standards organizations have significant channel problems,
because there is no one "selling" standards in the same sense that, for
example, SAP and Oracle and IBM sell products. Instead various IT products
and solutions providers pull in either particularity or sometimes a
particular subset of "standard," but rarely the whole standard.


					Fulton Wilcox
					Colts Neck Solutions LLC

 




-----Original Message-----
From: stephengreenubl@gmail.com [mailto:stephengreenubl@gmail.com] On Behalf
Of Stephen Green
Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2009 7:30 AM
To: Alexander Whillas
Cc: ubl-dev@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: FW: FW: [ubl-dev] looking for practical examples

Hi Alex

I agree things are static. There seems to me to be a valid reason:
although UBL is an open standard, most of the implementations
are probably not all that open, in the community sense of the word.

The uptake from the open source world isn't all that great (there
does seem to be some antithesis between open source and open
standards - mainly on the open source side I would say - and I've
not much idea why). This is not the same with XML where there
are still people being very vocal about what they do with XML. I
would accept that most UBL implementations are going to be
guarded by intellectual property concerns, etc. People don't tend to
tell the world what they are doing when it comes to the detail of
their systems when those systems are financial and legal in their
nature. Perhaps it is worry about the tax man just as much about the
competition :-) I guess most folk using UBL will have made it a requirement
to the customisation work on their SAP or similar system and that
their SAP consultants aren't allowed to talk about it on open lists.

Certainly UBL adoption isn't static. I guess it's out of the hype phase
though. I've looked from time to time at other languages like GS1-XML
to see what their profile is on Google: They are hardly 'visible' that way
at all. That certainly doesn't reflect their adoption rate and activity
though.
UBL is relatively more open and has a much higher profile but it is
likely it doesn't get as much adoption because the EDI world (less open
and high profile) tends to go with the same standards organisations they
are used to when it comes to the XML equivalent - that's my guess.
They don't make any song and dance about using XML in an EDI way
though. They just do it quietly or choose to announce it in the news
rather than blogs. UBL is quite different because it is an open standard
and has to do its own advertising rather than relying on existing EDI
traditional adopters. It is seeking to make inroads into another area -
getting paper to move to electronic rather than just EDI to move to XML.

Best regards

Steve

2009/2/19 Alexander Whillas <whillas@gmail.com>:
> Hi Stephen,
>
> I did a search for "ubl xml" in google:
> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=ubl+xml&btnG=Search
>
> and just found a whole bunch of static pages. Most disturbing was
> httP://ubl.xml.org which looks like it was setup a number of years ago
> and there is zero activity in the forums, and no information that
> isn't already on the http://docs.oasis-open.org pages. Particularly I
> found it hard to find examples of usage, particular for the Catalogue.
> I would expect to at least finds blog posts or forum discussions about
> peoples experiences with UBL. I found none.
>
> I didn't see any results from the mailing list in that search. Given
> that I've been on here for two weeks and this is the only discussion
> going on (perhaps there is a more active list I'm not aware of?), in
> my estimate there isn't much life in the UBL community, at least
> online anyway.
>
> I guess the trouble with mail list is they aren't very SEO friendly
> and require a commitment (i.e. the signup process and willingness to
> receive large amounts of mail most irrelevant to the individual who
> will have a particular topic of interest within the larger community).
> Online forums and RSS have reversed this community model from push to
> pull.
>
> alex
>
> 2009/2/18 Stephen Green <stephengreenubl@gmail.com>:
>> Alexander
>>
>> On point 3, what criteria do you use for this one? I thought there
>> was overwhelming coverage of UBL/its mailing lists on Google
>> searches.
>>
>> On point 1, I agree.
>>
>> On point 2, there has been talk of such a guild, maybe more coming
>> soon but there is ubl.xml.org
>>
>>
>>
>> 2009/2/18 Alexander Whillas <whillas@gmail.com>:
>> ...
>>
>>> I was then take-a-back at:
>>> 1. the immensity of the UBL 2.0 specification,
>>> 2. the lack of any apparent guild to comprehend it (save for the good
>>> work of Crane Softwrights Ltd., but still nothing like anything the
>>> W3C publish),
>>> 3. almost complete lack of web presence or penetration of online
>>> communities given its age/"maturity" (which makes me fear for my time
>>> investment).
>>>
>> ...
>>>
>>> with complements
>>>
>>> A R B Whillas BsCS
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: ubl-dev-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: ubl-dev-help@lists.oasis-open.org
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Stephen D. Green
>>
>> Document Engineering Services Ltd
>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew+22:37 .. and voice
>>
>
>
>
> --
>  _.,-*~'``'~*-,._.,-*~'``'~*-,._
> SKYPE: awhillas
> mobile: +49 176 651 33969
> http://alex.tsd.net.au/cpill
>  _.,-*~'``'~*-,._.,-*~'``'~*-,._
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: ubl-dev-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: ubl-dev-help@lists.oasis-open.org
>
>



-- 
Stephen D. Green

Document Engineering Services Ltd



http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew+22:37 .. and voice

---------------------------------------------------------------------
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]