[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [ubl-dev] UBL / XBRL / ebXML / UN-CEFACT
Mark, UBL documents are an XML representation of document that you exchange between business partners. This documents are
then received in the accounting systems of the businesses, and there they are resulting in entries in the appropriate ledgers. XBRL is specifically designed for generating reports based on those ledgers to show cumulative figures based on those individual
entries. In the past business were creating those reports using their own standards, rules and layouts. XBRL is now changing that to a more formalized approach that are no longer system specific. So you can see that UBL and XBRL are really used at the two opposite ends of business systems. If I need to report spending
then I do not send out a documents with all the individual invoices that I received but a summary per some categorie with what I have spend. That is also why I always refer to UBL documents as ¨transactional¨ because they generally apply to a specific business
transaction. An ¨Award Notice¨ is not really a report but more the conclusion of a business transaction (the tendering process) where the final outcome if communicated to the business that was awarded the tender with a ¨Award Notice¨ transactional document. If I need to report how many tenders I have been awarded then as a business I need to prepare a XBRL report that will
show the cumulative value of all the awards and maybe a number specifying how many awards I have won etc etc. But again … that is a report, not the individual award itself. So the requirements of the data elements that should be included in a transactional UBL document is much more detailed
then what would be required in a report and at a completely different detail level then required in report. Then about ebXML Core Specifications. There can be many standards that are using ebXML Core specifications to define
XML structures. You can even use it to define data structures that will never be used in an XML context based on that standard. (like designing database tables) The reverse is also true. I can define a standard based on ebXML Core specification but never use
that within a ebXML infrastructure, just like UBL is doing. At my employer we are exchanging thousands and thousands of UBL documents, but we do not use an ebXML infrastructure to do that. We even use SFTP file transfers when that was appropriate to use. So
they are exclusive and therefor the use of UBL in an ebXML infrastructure is optional (you can use a different standard) and also not a requirement to exchange UBL documents. As far as I can tell the development of UBL was never ¨taken over¨ by UN-CEFACT and it has always been an OASIS managed
project. But I´m only actively involved in UBL since a couple of years. ebXML and UBL will not converge as you state because they are at different levels. They both cover different needs and
therefor will remain separate. ebXML can be seen as something that defines how far apart the railtracks are (or maybe even that you might need railtracks, but you can decide how far apart they are). The UBL TC defined the railcar that can ride on those railtracks.
But I can take a different railcar not designed by the UBL TC and still ride over those tracks. And I can take a UBL railcar and let it roll down the street without railtracks, or I can take the metal wheels off and replace them with car tires, but keep the
same top structure (the UBL Document) I hope this explains at least my view on these subjects and why I feel that XBRL and UBL are two separate things, and
also why UBL and ebXML are separate. Kees Duvekot Van: Mark Ballard [mailto:markjballard@googlemail.com]
Thank you, Kees. Would you be kind enough to clarify further?
The US Data Act stipulated last year that federal agencies report spending using given xbrl schema.
Regarding what you say about transactions, though, what does this mean in layman's terms? What data elements do you get in a transactional document that you don't get in a notice?
What difference does it make?
Ah...
I thought the point of UBL was that it implemented ebXML Core Components. How then could its "use within an ebXML infrastructure" be optional?
Apart from the fact that UN-CEFACT took over development of UBL in 2005?
As I understand it, ebXML grew out of EDIFCACT and UBL grew out of ebXML, roughtly speaking. And in fact, ebXML and UBL were to be converged under UN-CEFACT?
The original purpose of UBL was stated to be twofold: the extend the use of EDI to small businesses, and to remove the need to have multiple translators to handle business documents from different sources. This
implies a single syntax, although it is possible to imagine a continuing need to translate between EDI and UBL. So bearing in mind the growth of xbrl for financial reporting, and UBL's stated common-sense aims, it seemed reasonable to ask whether xbrl might become the dominant method of expressing procurement data, since
it all ultimately is about finance. Mark.
|
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]