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

2009/7/23 Stephen Green <stephengreenubl@gmail.com>

[OK, I'll bite the bullet and stop 'beating about the bush'. No employer endorsement
of what follows, it is just my own questioning and discussion points.]

Say I work for a local authority. If such an organisation were to purchase an Oracle
or SAP financial system, what XML format would they be getting to do their ordering
and invoicing? Not UBL, I guess (unless requested). What then? OAGIS? GS1-XML?
cXML? xCBL? BASDA's eBIS-XML? Or would they be expected to just use EDI?
How would that position them regarding any small business office stationary suppliers
etc? How would it affect by knock-on effect those small business suppliers when they
trade with other small businesses or, say, smaller local authorities or local charities?
What kind of infrastructure does it start to create? In UK the central gov answers to
these kinds of questions might have influenced the recommendation to use UBL or,
for invoices and orders only, locally developed BASDA eBIS-XML (or its government-
modelled flavour). Likewise influencing the development of the NES UBL subset since
what is good for the UK is probably good for other EU countries too and for anything
used to create common standards across EU government departments (IDABC
territory/concern) AFAIK.
---
Stephen D Green

2009/7/23 Stephen Green <stephengreenubl@gmail.com>

Oracle were working on OAGIS as an implementation of CCTS at the same time
as UBL (actually sharing datatypes at one stage). Oracle have always focussed
on OAGIS while UBL, in the days of UBL 1.0 development, was trying hard to ensure
the UBL and OAGIS work was aligned even though CCTS was still a bit of a moving
target (regarding interpretation at least).

http://markmail.org/message/7uyzj5w6albn7iic , etc is evidence of this collaboration.
This was where Oracle's/OAGi's Garret Minakawa was working closely with UBL TC
in the years leading up to UBL 1.0 beta.

Of course, during this time SAP's Gunther Stuhec was a key player indeed in UBL TC
in interpreting CCTS and applying it to the XML Schema design (NDR).

So SAP and Oracle were a key part of the development of UBL 1.0, especially during
the years of the pre-beta drafts.

Since UBL 1.0 was released I don't think Garret or Gunter were involved in UBL. It
seems the interest in UBL shifted from being part-led/evangelised by companies
like Oracle and SAP to being part-led/evangelised by governments consultants
like those form UK, EU(IDABC), Denmark and then those involved in UBL NES
(et moi from lowly local gov in UK). These 'took up the slack' it seems to me. So
now it seems that UBL is customer-led, which is cool IMO. The customer, after all,
"is always right" :-) It was these consultants and others like those in DES who
ensured UBL got submitted properly to TBG17 for CCL and are now engaged in
CEN-based projects to further advance UBL-related requirements into CEFACT, etc.

All this is just my take on things as I remember them and not the opinion
necessarily of my employers or of the companies and individuals I have mentioned .

---
Stephen D Green

2009/7/23 Richard Furze <Richard.Furze@pisces.co.uk>

You would think there would be a large set of domain specific core components by now, available in a UN/CEFACT supported library or libraries.

I know there is a process for submitting new components or changes, but is it used much by industry specific standards organisations and companies?

Have SAP and Oracle defined their own in addition to those in the CEFACT CC library? If so, are these publicly available or is there IPR attached?

Regards

Richard Furze, B.A., M.Sc
Technical Manager

PISCES – Connecting Real Estate ... Now!
+44 191 230 8094 Office
+44 7884 077268 Mobile
Email: richard.furze@pisces.co.uk

Office address: Churchill House 12 Mosley Street, Newcastle-upon-Tyne NE1 1DE

PISCES Limited is responsible for the development and adoption of the international OSCRE Standards within Europe, Middle East and Africa. PISCES Limited is the trading name of Property Information Systems Common Exchange Standard Limited, a non-profit company registered in England & Wales and limited by guarantee. Registered number: 3582333. Registered office: Euro House, 1394 High Road, London N20 9YZ. VAT number: 711128970. Please refer to www.pisces.co.uk for further information

The contents of this email and any file attachments are confidential to the intended recipient and may not be disclosed or used or copied in any way by anyone other than the intended recipient unless such usage is authorised. If you have received this email in error please notify us either by return e-mail or via the numbers above. Any views or opinions expressed are solely those of the author. Please note that we do not accept any responsibility for software viruses or the content, accuracy or completeness of this email or its file attachments as it has been delivered over a public network. It is the recipients responsibility to scan or otherwise check this email and any file attachments.

From: Crawford, Mark [mailto:mark.crawford@sap.com]
Sent: 22 July 2009 17:25
To: ubl-dev@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [ubl-dev] RE: [LIKELY JUNK]Re: [ubl-dev] UBL vs UN/CEFACT

[Richard Furze] 8ß---------snip

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.

8ß-------------------------snip

…however it is clear that at least from SAP and Oracle which horse they are riding - and it is not UBL…

[Richard Furze] 8ß---------snip

ubl-dev message