UN/CEFACT
in 1999 started ebXML in part to determine how to move EDIFACT forward into
XML. UBL did not come along until two years later, and only as an
outgrowth of the lack of any actual content work being conducted in
ebXML. Initial discussions in having UBL in the EWG were not successful
as much for political reasons on both sides as anything else and that is why
it was started in OASIS. The majority of the content in UBL was
developed by UN/CEFACT personnel who fully expected UBL to be subsumed by
UN/CEFACT at some point as promised in the initial UBL meetings and its formal
documentation. The technical solutions were contributed to, and at times led
by, UN/CEFACT personnel.
> It was back then mainly
Mike Adcock, Sue
Probert, Tim McGrath and few others contributing content, beside the initial
xCBL
starting point (though I missed the first year or so).
Mike
Adcock - UN/CEFACT
Sue
Probert - UN/CEFACT
Stig K
- UN/CEFACT
James
Whittle - UN/CEFACT
and so
on
In UBL's
defense, the divergence by UBL from CCTS is as much a function of timing in
the delivery of the specifications as anything else - although both UBL and
UN/CEFACT would have been better served if UBL had developed Core
Components rather than just BIEs as that part of the spec was fairly mature at
the time UBL started.
Why is that? (asking for curiosity since it's academic now after all
this time)
Actually, it is not academic - it is at the heart of the problem you have
uncovered in trying to move artefacts between the CCL and UBL spreadsheet.
The fundemental concept of CCTS is of a single conceptual data
model from which logical data
models are derived. The logical data models are not just semantically
equivalent to the conceptual data model - they are the semantics of the
conceptual data model with additional semantic qualifiers that together with
qualified (restricted) data types restrict the value domain of the logical
data model artefact to a subset of its parent conceptual data model
artefact value domain. If UBL had developed CCs, some of the
inconsistencies in the UBL model would not exist, and the CCs would have become
the UN/CEFACT CCs.
UN/CEFACT
took a more conservative approach than UBL and finished the first version of
the specifications before publishing the CCL and the subsequent standard
schema. UN/CEFACT continues to publish CCTS and NDR conformant XML
schema independent of UBL and will do so for the forseeable future - while
simultaneously working with UBL to finalize the transfer for responsibility of
all future development work into UN/CEFACT. UBL has publicly stated it
supports such a transfer and is only currently engaged in maintenance on UBL
2.
But there were provisos ...
Yes
there are. And those should be publicly shared on a routine basis
whenver a UBLer claims in some briefing trying to sell UBL that it will
become the business language of
UN/CEFACT.
Any
comparison of UN/CEFACT and OASIS is like comparing apples and oranges - given
their structure, policies, and stated objectives. UN/CEFACT is a recognized de
jure international cross-industry business standards organization and
certainly carries much weight with solution providors and others. OASIS
is a consortium of individual not necessarily harmonized standards initiatives
- with a primary focus on technical vice business standards many of whom
operate in an incubator role. The technical standards carry much weight
with solution providors and others, whereas the business
standards generally do not. Each organization has their
own purpose and their own pluses and minuses.
Well that is self-fulfilling and if Mark doesn't mind me saying so
'anecdotal'. Actually, it is only partially anecdotal
- the part about who is supporting which standard I grant is
anecdotal - however it is clear that at least from SAP and Oracle which horse
they are riding - and it is not UBL. The same can be said for the various
B2B standards organizations and government agencies who are working on
alignment and convergence with UN/CEFACT B2B content and UN/CEFACT B2B
methodologies. As for the matter of the purpose and intent - It is a
simple matter to look at the charters and operating policies of UN/CEFACT and
OASIS, and the public pronouncements of their leadership which state exactly the
foregoing. In fact OASIS was initially established much differently.
Recommended reading would be the original documents created by Jon which
actually detailed two levels of OASIS standards. I think part of what gets
lost in these discussions is that UBL is only one of many TC' within OASIS -
each with their own objectives and work programs and architecture concepts,
whereas the UN/CEFACT Forum's primary purpose is B2B standards supported by the
other permanent groups under the auspecis of the UN/CEFACT Plenary, Bureau, and
Forum Management Group.
If at the end of the day it is only
UBL delivering on its undertakings regarding business
content then which is
most 'de jure'? As far as I know it the main deliverable actually
completed
in CEFACT is the NDR and that isn't content. By Mark's argument it would
figure
that the OASIS Standard for an NDR would trimp
CEFACT's
I am
not sure I understand why this continued assertion that UN/CEFACT is not
delivering XML business content. the UN/CEFACT CCL is much more robust
that its UBL counterpart, and UN/CEFACT has already delivered a significant
number of XML B2B schema. I see the XML NDR as a business standard, as it
is nothing more than a profile of XSD for B2B messages.
Mark argues,
is 'de jure' for business content and OASIS is incubating
technical standards. CEFACT
seems to be very much trailing UBL regarding the
business messages/content so which
one is 'de jure'? I guess if you want 'de
jure' you might have to wait a long time. In the
meantime there is what isn't
'de jure' but is 'out there' and usable/in use. So does that make
CEFACT
still the 'de jure' and OASIS the 'incubator'? I think not :-)
I guess it's for others 'outside' to decide
what is 'de jure' not those of us 'inside'.
True enough. Lets start with the MOUMG -
voting members consist of four globally recognized de jure standards
organizations: ISO, IEC, ITU, and UNECE (UN/CEFACT). OASIS is a
liaison member and UBL an invited guest. Has UBL been mandated by
governments thus giving it de jure status: Yes. Is it of the same
stature as ISO, IEC, ITU, and UNECE - I thing you would be hard pressed to
convince anyone of that.
Best Regards,
Mark