Re: [ubl-ndrsc] UN/CEFACT ATG "Generic Header" Project

[Mavis Cournane <mavis.cournane@cognitran.com>]

Arofan
we sure missed you last week!
I will add this to our agenda for NDR call. If you could give us any
concrete examples of what this thing would look like in the meantime that
would be helpful.

Thanks
Mavis
----- Original Message -----
From: "A Gregory" <agregory@aeon-llc.com>
To: "UBL-NDR" <ubl-ndrsc@lists.oasis-open.org>
Cc: "UBL LCSC" <ubl-lcsc@lists.oasis-open.org>; <agregory@aeon-llc.com>;
<mkudela@uc-council.org>
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2003 5:06 PM
Subject: [ubl-ndrsc] UN/CEFACT ATG "Generic Header" Project


> Folks:
>
> I didn't want to raise this during the rush to meet the deadline, and
sadly
> I was unable to make the face-to-face, but there is an item I'd like to
put
> on the agenda for NDR.
>
> This concerns a project that is in progress in UN/CEFACT ATG, headed by
> Melanie Kudela (mkudela@uc-council.org ) that is proposing to standardize
> the basic fields used within e-business documents to carry envelope
> information to applications either creating or digesting messages, but
> without access to the actual envelope data itself.
>
> This is an incredibly common set of data - we found ourselves adding it in
> xCBL, and every other major e-business vocabulary lists this data,
typically
> as a set of attributes on the document-level element. It includes such
> information as who sent the message, who is receiving it, what business
> process it is part of (correlation IDs), and similar. It is very similar
to
> some of the control fields found in EDI messages.
>
> The generic header project is standardizing the names and datatypes for
> these fields. It would be fairly simple to adopt the proposed standard,
and
> fit this information in as a set of standard, optional attributes at the
> document level. (And I can guarantee that of we don't include this basic
> information in our version 1.0, we'll have requests to include it in our
1.1
> release...)
>
> Typically, these fields are used by translators that are communicating
with
> a back office application, and which are capable of only performing the
> translation on a single XML document at a time. If the envelope
information
> isn't present, then the translator has to make calls out to a database or
> other place where the envelope information is stored. This is often not
> possible, especially for users with less sophisticated systems, since a
link
> to the envelope received and opened at a corporate gateway doesn't always
> exist.
>
> Melanie and her group can supply materials describing the project, but I
> think it would be great if we could adopt this standard as a part of the
UBL
> library, and figure out how to implement it. At the very least, I'd like
to
> add it to the agenda for discussion at the next NDR con-call.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Arofan Gregory
>
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
>