I agree with you,
I was just mentioning the actual scope, and I like to underline that
UBL is not however covering the eFinance world which is already
standardized according ISO20022-UNIFI.
Other domains of course could be supported if necessary.
Resources are the main problem.
Regards,
Roberto
Stephen Green ha scritto:
92040e120907220602p5e161730s904575f9888585a9@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">Not sure about that Roberto. I read an XBRL book a few
years ago which
argued that ebXML might compete with XBRL and efforts like UBL had a
chance of successfully doing this. Back then there was no intention of
CEFACT producing its own XML messages - nothing definite anyway -
so the only likely candidate for competing with XBRL from the ebXML
technology 'side' was UBL (probably not GS1-XML or OAGIS, in other
words).
The name of UBL as Universal Business Language and its design as a
fully extensible library of BIEs meant it could be as broad in its
coverage
of business domains as the demand required. The domains side of it with
its early adoption of the context methodology (even to the extent that
we
have context columns in the spreadsheets to allow as many contexts
as required beyond Procurement, Transport, etc) meant it could grow and
grow. We never knew (still don't, I guess) whether UN/CEFACT messages
would fill any of the gaps like eGovernment, Accounting, etc. The NDR
allows domains not even considered by UBL to adopt the same methods
in producing documents. Seminal in all of this was an early paper and
government recommendation for XML messages by Hong Kong Uni
(by guys on this list I expect) to say how UBL methodology combined with
a harmonisation system could cater for producing electronic versions of
every kind of paper form used in the Hong Kong public sector and this
got
taken up as an influencer of the UBL approach. Back then eGov TC had
thoughts that all sorts of things could be done using the UBL approach,
not just procurement. I think it might have been the CEFACT message
design projects which curtailed these ideas as TBGs were set up for all
sorts of things. But they don't cover even as many areas as OASIS covers
and seem to have been slowing down. OASIS was forum for areas like
emergency response messages, elections, tax, CRM contact details, etc
which don't seem to have been replicated in CEFACT. So UBL was a
little bit unique in the extent to which its efforts have been
duplicated and
that has been mainly in two related domains - procurement / transport.
So I think it is a little bit of an exaggeration to say that CEFACT has
been the preferred forum because it can encompass more domains.
That isn't even true to date if you compare CEFACT's TBGs with OASIS
coverage in general of business and government domains. The answer is
more political than that. CEFACT is preferred by governments which are
very pro-UN and maybe a little ambivilent about OASIS - perhaps also by
those more pro-EDI and XML-phobic. That's my guess anyway. The
politics rather than technical reasons behind that are hidden from me.
I guess it might be a matter of preserving one's existing investments
but
not necessarily future-looking in a technological sense. I'm not all
that
convinced that CEFACT is the only forum, even looking forward, which
can cover many domains. Depends where people want to direct their
resources, in my opinion (not necessarily those of my employers!).
---
Stephen D Green
2009/7/22 JAVEST by Roberto Cisternino <roberto@javest.com>
Hello,
I think I already answered this question.
UBL is covering just the commercial part of the electronic business.
Of course supported documents are the most common in the world but not
the only one. eFinance messages for instance are not in the scope of
UBL.
UN/EDIFact was embracing almost *ALL* documents/messages used all over
the world.
This is why CEFACT has been always considered the preferred place to
drive an ISO standardization of an eBusiness Global Standard.
Best regards
Roberto
---
Danny Gaethofs ha scritto:
Dear Robert and Andreas,
Although UN/EDIFACT - and also ANSI X12 if we are just going to look
into what WAS available - is one of the oldest EDI standards we have
seen with the advent of XML a boost of new XML standards (semantics and
syntaxes) coming up such as the OAGI standard, BASDA, RosettaNet, cXML
and moreover 150 other XML standards.
We can turn the phrase around and say UN/CEFACT vs UBL but that is not
what ultimately it is about. The question is why after all these 150
XML standards were developed including cXML and UBL have people decided
to start the development of UN/CEFACT ?
kind regards
Danny Gaethofs
From:
Robert Lemense <r.lemense@skynet.be>
To:
andreas.schultz@dkv.com; roberto@javest.com;
dgaethofs@yahoo.com
Cc:
ubl-dev@lists.oasis-open.org
Sent: Wednesday,
July
22, 2009 12:37:26 PM
Subject: Re:
[ubl-dev]
UBL vs UN/CEFACT
Well done Andreas,
Those who cannot remember
the
past are condemned to repeat it. (George Santayana - The Life of
Reason)
Best Regards,
Robert Lemense
Past Chair TBG12 (Accounting
&
Audit)
UN/CEFACT
-----
Original Message -----
Sent:
Wednesday, July 22, 2009 10:20 AM
Subject:
AW: [ubl-dev] UBL vs UN/CEFACT
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
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
Email analysé par Spyware Doctor (6.0.1.441)
Version de la base de données : 6.12870
http://www.pctools.com/fr/spyware-doctor-antivirus/
Email analysé par Spyware Doctor (6.0.1.441)
Version de la base de données : 6.12870
http://www.pctools.com/spyware-doctor-antivirus/
Nessun virus nel messaggio in arrivo.
Controllato da AVG - www.avg.com
Nessun virus nel messaggio in arrivo.
Controllato da AVG - www.avg.com
Versione: 8.5.375 / Database dei virus: 270.13.22/2253 - Data di rilascio: 07/21/09 18:02:00
|