Re: Comments to UBL SBS and UBP by JPLSC

["Stephen Green" <stephengreenubl@gmail.com>]

Greetings Saito San,

I have created a draft set of UBL 2 SBS schema files with content which
adds many of the features very kindly suggested by JPLSC and these can be
found as attachments to the archived email (publicly available) here:

http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl-sbsc/200607/msg00004.html

I have submitted the JPLSC comments related to the SBS to the SBSC;
many thanks:

http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl-sbsc/200607/msg00003.html

Many of the comments, especially those which are related as indispensible
and semi-indispensible, seem to add obvious value to the SBS. There has to
be a balance between this added value and the intrinsic value of keeping the
SBS for UBL 2 as close as possible to that for UBL 1.0 (so that mapping back
to UBL 1.0 results in minimal loss of information for UBL instances, etc).
I note particularly though that adding PartyIdentification/ID was found to
be necessary to Denmark's scenario examples among others too so this
is an example of a much needed further subset development. Adding the
BuyerItemIdentification to Item is another BIE that could be added with little
implementation burden. An aspect of adding to the subset is notable - that
it involves placing a requirement on ALL implementers of the SBS, it being
a part of the normative SBS business rules that the subset is the minimum
that MUST be implemented. One could add further BIEs by trading agreement
for certain situational requirements without breaking SBS compatibility but
one cannot eliminate BIEs with the same compliance. However, where there
is an obvious value to be added to the SBS and its implemenations through
the inclusion of certain well considered extra BIEs then it seems likely that
the benefits of such will outway the inconvenience of introducing differences
in content from the UBL 1.0 SBS and its implementations.

Please would you pass on to JPLSC this message along with expression
of much gratitude for your comments, on behalf of the UBL SBSC.

I hope we can follow through with JPLSC's valuable and very welcome comments
to improve the relevance of the SBS to the needs of small (and medium)
businesses and enterprises around the globe.

I would very much welcome any further comments as we move towards
the content aspects of the UBL 2 SBS.

All the best

Stephen Green
co-Chair UBL Small Business SubCommittee

On 07/07/06, Stephen Green <stephengreenubl@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks Saito San
>
> I'll bring this up on the SBSC list then. If we do produce an
> SBS for UBL 2, maybe you'd like to cooment then too on
> how much we adapt it to ECOM requirements.
>
> On behalf of SBSC then, I'd give much thanks to all who've
> contributed to these comments.
>
> All the best
>
> Stephen Green
>
> On 07/07/06, Yukinori Saito <saito-yukinori@fujielectric.co.jp> wrote:
> > Dear Stephen Green,
> > Thank you very much for your reply.
> > I understand your answers.
> > I don't know whether SBSC will develop next SBS version (for example: V2.0)
> > or not.
> > If SBSC will develop next SBS version, I think that it will be better to
> > consider our JPLSC's comments. For example: SBS business documents
> > (including reusable ABIEs) will add some BIEs which are pointed out by our
> > mapping study.
> > Best Regards,
> > Yukinori Saito
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Stephen Green" <stephengreenubl@gmail.com>
> > To: "Yukinori Saito" <saito-yukinori@fujielectric.co.jp>
> > Cc: <stephengreenubl@gmail.com>; "Monica J. Martin" <Monica.Martin@sun.com>;
> > "Noboru Itoh" <nitoh@attglobal.net>; <kueno@iea.att.ne.jp>;
> > <naitoh@is.oit.ac.jp>; "Dale Moberg" <dmoberg@cyclonecommerce.com>; "UBL
> > JPLSC" <ubl-jplsc@lists.oasis-open.org>
> > Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2006 8:37 PM
> > Subject: Re: Comments to UBL SBS and UBP by JPLSC
> >
> >
> > Saito-San
> >
> > Many thanks for such detailed comments. These are of great interest
> > with regard to SBSC development. Of course, I hope you will consider
> > whether to submit these to UBL formally. At present I take it that these
> > are submitted for my perusal only until I hear otherwise from you.
> >
> > I will try to answer some of the questions (not official answers, just my
> > own):
> >
> > Questions
> > Scope of SBS adoption
> >     Who are users of SBS?
> >
> > I believe they will be software developers and project managers developing
> > e-solutions for small businesses who trade with other small businesses and
> > with larger businesses
> >
> >
> >     Which described below is a suitable scope regarding SBS adoption?
> >
> > SBS will be used by a small business which is conducted by within SMEs
> > (Small and Medium sized enterprises) only.
> > SBS will be used by a small business which is conducted by not only
> > within SMEs (Small and Medium sized enterprises), but also between
> > large enterprises and SMEs.
> >
> > Both of these are considered and the SBS package seeks to provide for both
> > but the main consideration is not the larger but the smaller business who
> > need
> > to keep the costs of development to a minimum and may not be already using
> > elaborate and expensive (to maintain) EDI solutions. Primarily the
> > consideration
> > is to cater for those who are moving to UBL not from EDI but from
> > paper-based
> > systems (paper invoices and orders input manually into low-end and bespoke
> > business applications).
> >
> >
> > Methodologies to develop SBS from UBL
> >  SBS is a subset of fullset UBL.
> >
> >     What is a methodology or algorism to develop SBS from UBL?
> >
> > Is the methodology or algorism (to have developed SBS) based on some
> > research or investigation?
> >
> > Yes, there has been much research in the area of conversion of paper-based
> > procurement systems (invoice and order based) to electronic equivalents.
> > Some
> > of the work on which the SBS was based was done by PriceWaterhouse Coopers
> > for the EU Commission and also considered was the similar study by APEC.
> > Particular consideration was given to feedback in UBL from members (such as
> > yourself) and liaisons such as PWC and from early adopters of UBL and
> > Government Offices standardising on UBL. All these gave the same message,
> > that
> > small businesses needed the identification of a core subset and
> > special treatment
> > to ensure that the subset could be used by as many as possible and with as
> > little difficulty as possible.
> >
> >
> > Remarks: Methodologies to develop Manufacturing SMS business document
> > in ECOM, Japan.
> >
> > ECOM has researched the current operational business documents (Order)
> > using by some big enterprises in Japan. The number of the big
> > enterprises is 17 companies. By evaluating and summarizing these
> > business documents, ECOM has developed Manufacturing SME business
> > document. Therefore, the scope to use this Manufacturing SME business
> > document is e-businesses not only within SMEs, but also between big
> > enterprises and SMEs.
> >
> >
> > Yes, this is an important comment and it may be that the next thing to
> > address
> > within UBL is the need to provide for larger businesses too who still cannot
> > be
> > expected to cater in their software for all of UBL. That was out of
> > scope for the
> > SBSC except that we sought to provide some of the first attempt mechanisms
> > for defining subsets which might be resued for suchuse cases too.
> >
> >
> > Regarding the observation of no diagrams in the UBP, I personally didn't see
> > the need for these as the processes were in most cases just a single message
> > (deliberately so, to allow virtually everyone to use these same processes
> > and
> > if they needed to ellaborate then they could do so be combining the atomic
> > processes and adding choreography, etc in the Collaborations, etc).
> >
> > I personally regard the BPSS 2.0.3 as a key way to identify the party's
> > desire
> > to limit trade to the subset so that they can be sure to receive only
> > messages
> > which take the their limits of catering for just the subset into
> > account. I suppose
> > that this would apply not just to the SBS but to any use of subsets, unless
> > a new namespace has been created to distinguish subset use (which I think is
> > less than optimal for use of available software). Maybe in time there
> > will be some
> > recognition of these things by users of ebXML in general. I do wonder what
> > is
> > being used in the meantime and how the features compare with use of BPSS.
> >
> >
> > Thanks you very much Saito-san and JPLSC for these comments. I eagerly
> > wait to see how these matters will develope with time.
> >
> > All the best
> >
> > Stephen Green
> >
> >
> >
> > On 06/07/06, Yukinori Saito <saito-yukinori@fujielectric.co.jp> wrote:
> > > Dear Stephen Green
> > > Dear Monica J. Martin
> > >
> > > We (UBL JPLSC) have held F2F meeting on May 24, 2006 in Tokyo.
> > > We discussed about your inquiry about UBL SBS and UBP at this F2F meeting.
> > > We decided to study UBL SBS and UBP by ourselves in JPLSC members.
> > > We studied UBL SBS and UBP by ourselves in JPLSC members.
> > > I send you our studied comments by the attached documents.
> > > If you have any questions or comments, please let us know.
> > > Best Regards,
> > > Yukinori Saito
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Stephen Green" <stephengreenubl@gmail.com>
> > > To: "Yukinori Saito" <saito-yukinori@fujielectric.co.jp>; "Monica J.
> > Martin"
> > > <Monica.Martin@sun.com>
> > > Cc: "Noboru Itoh" <nitoh@attglobal.net>; <kueno@iea.att.ne.jp>;
> > > <naitoh@is.oit.ac.jp>; "Dale Moberg" <dmoberg@cyclonecommerce.com>; "UBL
> > > JPLSC" <ubl-jplsc@lists.oasis-open.org>
> > > Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2006 3:12 AM
> > > Subject: Re: [ubl] Re: Report of JPLSC
> > >
> > >
> > > Greetings Saito-San
> > >
> > > If you would like any help to produce BPSS 2.0 (ebBP) definitions for
> > > the ECOM's UBL subsets similar to those I produced for the SBS
> > > or if you've questions about it I'd be more than happy to help.
> > >
> > > The UBP stands for Universal Business Process and is a name we
> > > gave to the BPSS definitions we designed applying the standard
> > > UMM patterns to each of the UBL subsets we produced (such
> > > as Notification for Invoice, Despatch Advice, etc and something
> > > a little more complex for Order + OrderResponse, etc). We also
> > > generated template CPAs for folk to use with minimal editing with
> > > these ebBP definitions. The package is included as support
> > > directories in the UBL 1.0 SBS package. The ebBP TC also has
> > > links to the two directories (one for the process definitions and one
> > > for the CPA templates and some examples) on the TC home page.
> > > There was a formal collaboration to produce them between UBL
> > > TC/SBSC and ebBP TC.
> > >
> > > I think it would be great if the same thing could be provided for the
> > > Japanese SME subsets and if this could lead to an ECOM use
> > > of the BPSS 2.0 and statement to that effect it would be excellent.
> > > Let me known if there's anything I can do to help. It might also
> > > act as a good opportunity to compare the SBS with your subset
> > > work.
> > >
> > > All the best
> > >
> > > Stephen Green
> > > UBL SBSC Chair,
> > > UBL / ebBP Liaison
> > >
> > >
> > > On 16/05/06, Monica J. Martin <Monica.Martin@sun.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >>Saito san: Dear Monica J. Martin,
> > > > >>Thank you for your inquiry.
> > > > >>What is "UBP"?
> > > > >>Is UBP a UBL SBS 1.0?
> > > > >>
> > > > >mm1: Universal business processes (UBP) are modular process definitions
> > > > >included as part of the UBL SBS v1.0 and approved as a Committee
> > > > >Specification. They support ebBP (ebXML BPSS) v2.0.x and utilize the
> > SBS
> > > > >business documents. Stephen Green participates in UBL and ebBP. Thanks
> > > > >and look forward to hearing from you.
> > > > >
> > > > >See at
> > > http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tc_home.php?wg_abbrev=ebxml-bp
> > > > >(under Working ebBP Process Definition and Business Signal Examples).
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > mm2: Yukinori, it would be great if ECOM can apply its UBL related
> > > > subset to a set of process definitions similar to UBP. I encourage you
> > > > to review the Universal Business Processes at the location provided
> > > > (that links back to UBL). We feel the capability to take these process
> > > > definition, building blocks to compose to support key domains is very
> > > > important to the adoption of UBL and ebBP. We look forward to hearing
> > > > from you soon. I may also note that ebBP is moving to OASIS Standard. If
> > > > ECOM is interested in greating sample UBL for your subset, those could
> > > > be valuable as examples for other interested user communities or early
> > > > adopters, and could serve as one of our supporters [1] as required for
> > > > OASIS standardization. I truly believe we have the same goal in mind -
> > > > to enable eBusiness for SME, across the world.  Thanks, Yukinori for the
> > > > information and your interest.
> > > >
> > > > [1] Creating your own process definitions using the UBP concept, ebBP
> > > > v2.0.3 and UBL (and your subset) are actually sufficient for an
> > > > implementation reference. We do have a draft open source tool at:
> > > > http://sourceforge.net/projects/freebxmlbp
> > > >
> > > > >>We are interest in subset of UBL.
> > > > >>As I said in "Related activities concerning UBL in Japan" in my
> > > presentation
> > > > >>PPT file, ECOM did mapping study from 'Business document model for
> > the
> > > > >>manufacturing domain (ECALGA based)' to UBL in 2004.
> > > > >>In this mapping studying process, ECOM developed a UBL subset for
> > > > >>e-business between SMEs and big enterprises in Japan.
> > > > >>This ECOM's activity is similar to UBL SBS approach.
> > > > >>However, we did not check or evaluate UBL SBS 1.0, yet.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>Best Regards,
> > > > >>Yukinori Saito
> > > > >>
> > > > >>----- Original Message -----
> > > > >>From: "Monica J. Martin" <Monica.Martin@Sun.COM>
> > > > >>To: "Yukinori Saito" <saito-yukinori@fujielectric.co.jp>
> > > > >>Cc: "Noboru Itoh" <nitoh@attglobal.net>; <kueno@iea.att.ne.jp>;
> > > > >><naitoh@is.oit.ac.jp>; "Dale Moberg" <dmoberg@cyclonecommerce.com>;
> > > "Stephen
> > > > >>Green" <stephengreenubl@gmail.com>
> > > > >>Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2006 12:36 AM
> > > > >>Subject: Re: [ubl] Re: Report of JPLSC
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>Yukinori,
> > > > >>Given the progress for v2.0 and the approval of UBL SBS 1.0 with the
> > > > >>Universal Business Processes, is there Japanese interest in UBP?
> > Thanks.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>>saito: Dear Mavis Cournane,
> > > > >>>I send you my presentation PPT file 'UBL JPLSC Report' as an attached
> > > > >>>document.
> > > > >>>I will attend at the Opening plenary of UBL TC Brussels meeting
> > around
> > > the
> > > > >>>time of 9:30 to 12:00 (Brussels local time) on May 22 (Monday), by
> > > > >>>telephone.
> > > > >>>I will make presentation using this attached PPT file at the time.
> > > > >>>Best Regards,
> > > > >>>Yukinori Saito
> > > > >>>(Vice Chair of UBL JPLSC)
> > > > >>>-------------------------------------------
> > > > >>>Yukinori Saito
> > > > >>>Fuji Electric Information Service Co., Ltd. (FIS)
> > > > >>>e-mail: saito-yukinori@fujielectric.co.jp
> > > > >>>Tel: +81-3-5435-7333     Fax: +81-3-5435-7513
> > > > >>>-------------------------------------------
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>