Re: Punchout in UBL 2.0

[Tim McGrath <tmcgrath@portcomm.com.au>]

thanks for the comment,  but i  am not sure that we  are leaving 
interoperability as "someone else's problem".  it is that we see punch 
out as a tightly coupled activity that is outside UBL's scope as a 
document exchange standard.   we certainly try to address 
interoperability at the document exchnage level.

in case i missed something i will pass this onto our procurement 
subcommittee who may have more to add.

Rundgren, Anders wrote:

>http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl/200507/msg00033.html
>
>It is a bit pity that the UBL people disregard close to
>ten years of experience with "punchout" schemes that have
>showed that interoperability of this part is pretty hard,
>including agreeing on security issues (buyer authentication
>is indeed an integral part of such schemes).
>
>Even the now defunct OBI standard, in its earliest (96-97)
>incarnations, addressed both catalog interoperability and
>security, while UBL leaves those thorny issues for
>"somebody else to fix".
>
>But, OTOH a "genuine" punchout scheme would IMHO not build
>on simply recasting a few messages because then you would
>not be able to unleash the full power of the "punchout"
>process.
>
>regards
>Anders Rundgren
>Principal Engineer
>RSA Security
>
>
>  
>

-- 
regards
tim mcgrath
phone: +618 93352228  
postal: po box 1289   fremantle    western australia 6160

DOCUMENT ENGINEERING: Analyzing and Designing Documents for Business Informatics and Web Services
http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?sid=632C40AB-4E94-4930-A94E-22FF8CA5641F&ttype=2&tid=10476