[ubl-lsc] Fwd: eBTWG payload recommendations

[Jon Bosak <Jon.Bosak@sun.com>]

UBL Liaisons,

Here is the text of the message sent to Patrick Gannon regarding
the eBTWG payload recommendations.

Jon

==================================================================

To: patrick.gannon@oasis-open.org
CC: simon.nicholson@sun.com,
	raywalker@attglobal.net,
	Jennifer.Hamilton@rosettanet.org,
	Jean.Kubler@unece.org
Subject: eBTWG payload recommendations

Patrick,

The OASIS UBL Liaison Subcommittee wishes to express its concern
over the recent approval by the UN/CEFACT Steering Group of an
eBTWG statement regarding payload syntaxes to be used with the
ebXML infrastructure.  The eBTWG statement purports to identify
"payloads that support adoption of the ebXML proposed standards"
and specifically recommends the following five "industry
recognized payloads" for use with the ebXML infrastructure:

   BoleroXML Messages
   EAN.UCC XML Schemas
   Open Applications Group, Inc. (OAGI) Business Object Documents
   Open Travel Alliance (OTA) Message Specifications
   SWIFT (ISO 15022 XML)

As you know, the UBL Liaison Subcommittee consists of liaisons
appointed by several vertical and horizontal industry data
standards associations, including ACORD (insurance), ARTS (retail
sales), EIDX (electronics), XBRL (accounting), RosettaNet (IT),
ASC X12, and the UN/EDIFACT Working Group.  The LSC finds the
eBTWG statement to be arbitrary, misleading, and unfair.  Further,
we fear that it may expose OASIS and UN/CEFACT to legal action on
the part of commercial organizations damaged by the endorsement of
competing technologies in a way that prejudices buyers against the
use of their products.

The eBTWG endorsement of five XML payloads "that support the
adoption of the ebXML proposed standards" is arbitrary because it
suggests that there are in existence other payloads that do not
"support the adoption of the ebXML proposed standards."  In fact,
the ebXML framework was designed to work with any business data
syntax whatsoever, including non-XML syntaxes, as is illustrated
by the approval of UN/EDIFACT EDI syntax in the same document.
Since it is impossible for any workable business syntax to not
"support the adoption of the ebXML proposed standards," the
selection of these five particular payload syntaxes from among the
many available is arbitrary and capricious.

Furthermore, the ebTWG endorsement is misleading because it
suggests that the five payloads named are somehow better suited
for use with the ebXML infrastructure than others that have not
been named.  The fact that ebXML products now beginning to appear
on the market actually use RosettaNet and xCBL as their primary
payloads shows that this implication is untrue.

The eBTWG endorsement is particularly unfair because it excludes
at least two suitable XML payload syntaxes (RosettaNet and xCBL)
whose representatives were actively involved in the work that
created ebXML.  It appears that the eBTWG made no attempt to reach
out to these stalwart supporters of the ebXML initiative or even
to inform them that an approval list was being considered.  In
fact, the eBTWG list excludes the payload syntax that was used in
the ebXML Proof of Concept itself.

Beyond these considerations of accuracy and basic fairness, there
is also the possibility that the recommendation of certain
standards for use with ebXML may expose OASIS and UN/CEFACT to
legal action.  While it is clear to anyone knowledgeable about
ebXML that the endorsement of certain payload syntaxes is
technically meaningless, this will not be the case for members of
the general user community who may happen to encounter these
recommendations in mailing lists or press releases.  On the
contrary, this statement issuing forth under the banner of
UN/CEFACT will strongly influence a large class of technology
buyers, particularly government buyers, to make large-scale
purchasing decisions in a way that may cause direct and
substantial financial harm to companies that have built fully
compliant ebXML products that use payloads other than the ones
recommended by UN/CEFACT.

In approving the eBTWG statement, the CSG appears to have
overlooked one of the most fundamental tenets of antitrust law as
it relates to industrial standards, which is that standards must
not be used to encourage any person or business entity to refrain
from dealing with a particular supplier.  The members of the UBL
LSC are not lawyers, but this apparent disregard for what is
generally considered a basic principle of standards work cannot
but make us feel deep concern about the wisdom of its approval by
UN/CEFACT, and while we understand that the ebXML Joint
Coordination Committee did not approve the eBTWG statement and
that it therefore does not represent the position of the ebXML
initiative, we fear that OASIS may be exposed to some of the
fallout from this ill-conceived action simply by association.

In light of these considerations, we request that you convey this
expression of concern via the ebXML JCC to UN/CEFACT and urge the
CSG to reconsider their approval of the eBTWG statement.  We also
request that clarification be sought from OASIS counsel regarding
the legal ramifications of recommending particular technologies
for use with ebXML and that this matter be brought to the
attention of the UN office of legal affairs, which appears to be
the responsible agency in matters pertaining to decisions of the
CSG.

Sincerely,

Jon Bosak
Chair, OASIS UBL Liaison Subcommittee