Re: [ubl-dev] UBL and ISO 20022 mapping

[Tim McGrath <tim.mcgrath@documentengineeringservices.com>]

without wishing to be too picky we should get the terminology correct to 
avoid misunderstandings.

there is no such thing as an "ISO 20022 Invoice".  There is a Financial 
Invoice message definition created using ISO 20022 methodology and 
library by a community of users from the finance sector.  It was not 
created or approved by ISO/TC 68.  It is important to understand that 
the methodology and library are the ISO 20022 standard NOT the message 
definitions.

what has happened is that the Financial Invoice message definition has 
been published by the ISO 20022 Registration Authority (RA) - operated 
by S.W.I.F.T. (http://www.iso20022.org/trade_services_messages.page)

so lets stop staying "ISO 20022 Invoice" - it suggests something it is 
not. A more correct title is "Financial Invoice message definition based 
on ISO 20022".


PS.
ISO/TC 154 has never published a Invoice document standard of any type.  
I am not sure what you are referring to there.


On 7/08/12 5:40 PM, Roberto Cisternino wrote:
> Hello Marcel,
> the fact the ISO invoice is a subset of CII is in line with my assertion
>
> > The young ISO20022 invoice is a banking thing thousand miles from real
> > invoice needs around the globe.
> So the banking sector seems to be interested to a subset of the
> e-invoicing market :)
>
> Also please note the overlapping between ISO TC 68 and TC 154 as the
> Invoice IS a Commercial business document not a financial one.
>
> Banking is only committed to earn money and not strictly interested on
> interoperability achievements.
>
> They still miss the origin of the Invoice (Quotation, PO, ...) so they are
> also breaking several simplifications provided by using a consistent set
> of business documents like Universal Business Language.
>
> I am still convinced the way is the *complementary* use of trade standards
> with financial standards (UBL-ISO20022) because they are best-in-class on
> their respective kernels and there is no reason to OVERLAP.
>
> It is the history... EDIFACT was a pool of several messages coming from
> different kernels... but the time has demonstrated the need of more
> specialized (advanced) kernels for Trade, Finance, Customs, Health, ...
>
> We do not have to come back to a unique standard just because it is called
> ISO20022.
>
> This is my opinion,
>
> Best regards
>
> Roberto Cisternino, JAVEST
>
> > Hello Roberto,
> >
> > many thanks for your mail and your time.
> >
> > Am 03.08.2012 17:14, schrieb Roberto Cisternino:
> > > Hello Marcel,
> > >
> > > for an ontology that is mapping UBL with other standards you could
> > > review the OASIS SET TC and their deliverables.
> > Thanks, I'll have a look.
> > > UBL 2.0 and CII 2.0 can be mapped through the CCTS semantic
> > > annotations available into their XSDs, but I have nothing ready for
> > > this.
> > > There have been several attempts to make a gap analysis or map between
> > > these formats but a real and precise XPATH map is not available I think.
> > Sorry, I made a little mistake, what I meant to say is ISO 20022 and CII
> > V2 mapping.
> >
> > > ISO 20022 : eFinance = UBL : eBusiness
> > I know that the invoices are different, but I think (I hope) they have a
> > similarly subset. The main focus from my work is on the kinds of
> > transformation and secondary of the standards.
> >
> > > The upcoming UBL 2.1 can be used together ISO 20022 for end-to-end
> > > Financial Supply Chain applications in a complementary way, but they
> > > are different kernels.
> > >
> > > The young ISO20022 invoice is a banking thing thousand miles from real
> > > invoice needs around the globe.
> > Too bad, I had the hope that anyone have done this before. Because
> > ISO20022 said that the ISO-invoice based on CII v2 data model. (See
> > summer 2011 http://www.iso20022.org/newsletter_archive.page)
> > > Semantically ISO20022 and UBL are very different as they come from
> > > different repositories.  UBL is an excellent ISO15000-5 (CCTS)
> > > implementation and its bricks are harmonized and persisted in the
> > > UN/CCL library.
> > >
> > > The "CII" Invoice is a different assembly of the UN/CCL semantic
> > > bricks, but I think UBL has a better structure.  (two different walls
> > > made up several common bricks).
> > >
> > > CII is more a semantic work used to fit the European requirements but
> > > it can be implemented using any other CCTS-based language like UBL,
> > > GS1, CDX, PDX, ...
> > > It could be more hard to map other proprietary formats, EDIFACT, so
> > > on...
> > > UBL 2.0 Invoice is compatible with the core CII set requested by EU.
> > >
> > > I would suggest to keep your eyes on the European e-procurement
> > > project named "PEPPOL", that is an implementation of the CEN WS/BII
> > > Abstract model for e-procurement using the UBL 2.0 syntax.
> > >
> > > PEPPOL implements the core invoice model described by CEN-BII.
> > >
> > > You will note these days that the shift is provided by using mature
> > > XML languages for business like UBL, that can be easely customized
> > > (reduced) and profiled to fit several industry needs.
> > >
> > > I would like to present you an analogy with the past:
> > >
> > > *Standard Syntax* 	*Standard Abstract Profiles* 	*User Group
> > > Implementations*
> > > UN/EDIFACT
> > > 	none 	EANCOM, SMDG, ITIGG, ...
> > > UBL 	*CEN/WS BII* 	*PEPPOL*
> > > CII 	CII 	???
> > > ISO-20022 	none 	EPC, CGI
> > >
> > >
> > > As you note both CEN-BII and CII are abstract models that are
> > > implemented through user groups.
> > And again, many thanks for your mail. Can I use your mail or some quotes
> > for my work?
> >
> > Kind regards,
> > Marcel Trawny
> >
> > > Hope this is of any help.
> > >
> > > Roberto Cisternino, JAVEST
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > i am writing my diploma thesis about transformation (XSD and ontology)
> > > > of invoice documents, especially UBL and IS0 20022. Unfortunately, my
> > > > domain knowledge about the invoice domain is insufficiently. Have
> > > > anybody a mapping for the both standards for me or perhaps a mapping
> > > for
> > > > UBL and CII V2.0?
> > > >
> > > > I am eternally in your debt.
> > > >
> > > > Many thanks.
> > > >
> > > > Best regards,
> > > > Marcel
> > > > **
> > >
> > > --
> > > * JAVEST by Roberto Cisternino
> > > *
> > > * Document Engineering Services Ltd. - Alliance Member
> > > * UBL Italian Localization SubCommittee (ITLSC), co-Chair
> > > * UBL Online Community editorial board member (ubl.xml.org)
> > > * Italian UBL Advisor
> > >
> > > Roberto Cisternino
> > >
> > > mobile: +39 328 2148123
> > > skype: roberto.cisternino.ubl-itlsc
> > >
> > > [UBL Technical Committee]
> > > http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/ubl
> > >
> > > [UBL Online Community]
> > > http://ubl.xml.org
> > >
> > > [UBL International Conferences]
> > > http://www.ublconference.org
> > >
> > > [UBL Italian Localization Subcommittee]
> > > http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/ubl-itlsc
> > >
> > > [Iniziativa divulgativa UBL Italia]
> > > http://www.ubl-italia.org


begin:vcard
fn:Tim McGrath
n:McGrath;Tim
org:Document Engineering Services
email;internet:tim.mcgrath@documentengineeringservices.com
title:Managing Director
tel;work:+61893352228
tel;home:+61438352228
tel;cell:+61438352228
url:www.documentengineeringservices.com
version:2.1
end:vcard