OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

ubl-dev message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: RE: [ubl-dev] UBL / XBRL / ebXML / UN-CEFACT


Mark,

just my 2 cents on this subject:

XBRL stand for eXtensible Business Reporting Language and is by definition used for REPORTING.
UBL is more based on interactions between business entities so it is more of a transaction basis and not so much for reporting.
So I feel these two standards cover two different requirements and it does not make sense to try to use XBRL for these transaction interactions.

ebXML is a OASIS standard (just like UBL) that was created in cooperation with UN-CEFACT. UBL document can be used within an ebXML infrastructure, but it is not a requirement.
While creating UBL the ebXML Core Components Technical Specification was used for creating the Business Information Entities.
for more information please see: http://ubl.xml.org/ebXML

UN-CEFACT is a organisation that defines standards and recommendations just like OASIS is doing, so there is no direct relation between UBL and UN-CEFACT.

If by UN-CEFACT you actually mean UN/EDIFACT then there will be by definition overlap and similarities between EDIFACT and UBL because they try to describe the same business ifnroamtion entities in different "languages".
That does not mean that you will not loose information when you try to translate between these two languages, just as translating between English and Dutch might loose some language specific nuances.
And that also implies that there is a UBL-EDIFACT and EDIFACT-UBL dictionary available for translation. As far as I'm aware there is no such thing. And a dictionary alone is not enough because you also have different grammar rules between the two different languages.

What you see happening is that specific trading communities try to bridge this. CEN/BII is now publishing both a UBL and EDIFACT mapping for their specifications:
http://www.cenbii.eu/deliverables/cen-bii-2/cwa-16562-post-award/

So there you have all the requirements to be able to map from one language to the other, but that does not mean you can just apply that to any UBL or EDIFACT document

So you will always have translators that will use a different interpretation of the language to come to a different translation from one to the other and there is no single truth. So I think both your statements will be just as inaccurate as saying English and Dutch should converge because we both have words to describe the same things. And because both languages uses words that were derived from each other (eg Ship vs Schip etc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English_words_of_Dutch_origin) does mean it is easier to translate.

Kees Duvekot


________________________________________
Van: Mark Ballard [markjballard@googlemail.com]
Verzonden: donderdag 18 februari 2016 19:19
Aan: ubl-dev@lists.oasis-open.org
Onderwerp: [ubl-dev] UBL / XBRL / ebXML / UN-CEFACT

Would the list please tell me how UBL has been related to XBRL, ebXML and UN-CEFACT?

From what I have read around the topic, it seems work has been done to converge these different standards/formats. But I have found no ready statements on how this has been done and to what end.

So would I be correct to assume that:

(i) in those areas where UBL, ebXML, xbrl and UN-CEFACT map, they will or have been made syntactically identical, and
(ii) in those areas where they merely overlap, they would be / have been made as semantically identical as possible?

Assuming, that is, that everyone agrees it is desirable to have the least translation as possible when matching data from different sources...

So if you have an invoice (or indeed a contract award notice) in UBL, would it be as sensible as I imagine to to make it identical *in those parts of each data set in each language that overlap*? So a supplier or contractor or business entity field is always the same name, in the same place, with the same characteristics?

I have retained from what I had read of UBL's relationship with UN-CEFACT and ebXML the impression that they are identical where they overlap. How accurate is this?

I understand from what I've read of xbrl, however, that it contains the facility for referring elements to different regulatory schema or whatever, so that at least it can be recorded that a contract value, eg, has been entered according to particular accounting rules. Looks complicated. But since the world (the accounting profession and the US government, at least) is adopting XBRL, wouldn't it make sense for UBL to simply to describe everything in XBRL?

If these questions are clearly the product of utter ignorance, I would be very grateful if you would say so and how.

Mark Ballard.


[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]