Re: [ubl-dev] UBL vs UN/CEFACT

[Stephen Green <stephengreenubl@gmail.com>]

Should we then regard UN/CEFACT messages as a kind of successor to EDIFACT?
I guess UBL is really a successor to xCBL. Though of course both EDIFACT and xCBL
are still in wide use. I'm sure some will be thinking that xCBL in some ways is already

a successor to EDIFACT too. If actual usage is taken into account then why have any
other language than cXML? The perception of it being proprietary (I'm not sure whether
that is just a matter of how you define proprietary) doesn't stop loads of people using it.

So why have several 'standards' at all? Why not just encourage everyone to use cXML?
Does UBL fill a gap? What gap exactly? I'm not sure it technically fills a gap since 
anyone, it seems to me, can use cXML. I think the 'gap' is partly one of preference.

Everyone wants a choice but non-one wants too much choice. Create UBL and it just
forces people to create UN/CEFACT message just to provide the choice to allow for
preferences. No matter that choices already exist: Seems to be something in the human

psyche (is it the same thing that caused the Tower of Babel variations in languages?)
that makes us ignore the choices we used to have and keep looking for new ones. If
this is a correct observation then there will likely be those who see UN/CEFACT messages

and say "We want an alternative to these to provide a choice and room for preference",
ignoring the fact UBL is already a choice. Perhaps it is just as well the messages are
still not ready for use; as soon as they are people will probably want to replace them

with something else. Perhaps it is just that so many like producing new languages.
Tower of Babel may be now built into the human psyche, like I say. In the old days there
were empires which could clamp down on such frivolities - like the early days of the

great Chinese empire when everything had to adhere to the same standards - or else!
Nowadays it is all by consensus and persuasion. That has its downsides but the benefits
of the freedom probably far outweigh the inconvenience of having diverse standards.

---
Stephen D Green

2009/7/22 <andreas.schultz@dkv.com>

Hello Danny and Roberto,

 

especially, mentioning  UN/EDIFACT the point is, that UN/EDIFACT was there for a long time before UBL came up. As far as I remember, UBL came up, during the time of the ebXML project. So indeed, you could turn the question just the other way round.

 

Best regards

Andreas Schultz

Chair TBG8 (Insurance)

UN/CEFACT Forum

---

Von: JAVEST by Roberto Cisternino [mailto:roberto@javest.com]
Gesendet: Dienstag, 21. Juli 2009 18:52
An: Danny Gaethofs
Cc: ubl-dev@lists.oasis-open.org
Betreff: Re: [ubl-dev] UBL vs UN/CEFACT

Hello Danny,

probably you can find some answers into the MoU for eBusiness where OASIS has been invited:
http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/e-business/mou/

and following the link "Key Standards" under Resources, you will find UBL too:

http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/e-business/mou/MoUMG-standards.html

In few words the MoU on eBusiness is promoting collaboration and re-use of existing standards within partecipants.

UBL was in the agenda of the MoU/Management Group

http://xml.coverpages.org/MoU-MG-OASIS2002.pdf
http://xml.coverpages.org/MOU-OASIS-200202.html

Compared to UN/EDIFact, UBL can be considered as the eBusiness kernel, just like ISO20022-UNIFI is the eFinance kernel and WCO is the Customs kernel, so on...

So I understood it was a logic path to create a unique integrated set of business documents & messages for the whole Financial Supply Chain.

UBL was effectively into this path from a long time, expecially due to the MoU.

Today the possibility to endorse OASIS and W3C Standards by European Standardization bodies is providing new instruments to protect the best practices and standardization efforts provided by relevant Open Consortium (aka User Groups).

http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/ict/policy/standards/whitepaper.pdf

Hope this helps,

Best regards,

Roberto Cisternino
---

Danny Gaethofs ha scritto:

Dear all,

I just recently got the question what has been the reason for starting the development of UN/CEFACT whereas UBL was already available. I have been reading a lot about this but apart from the CCTS approach that has been worked out much further within UN/CEFACT I do not really find the answer.

Any one out there that has been there from the start remembers why ?

kind regards
Danny Gaethofs

Nessun virus nel messaggio in arrivo.
Controllato da AVG - www.avg.com 
Versione: 8.5.375 / Database dei virus: 270.13.20/2251 -  Data di rilascio: 07/20/09 18:29:00