Re: Groups - europa.eu.int/ISPO/ida/jsps/index.jsp uploaded

[jon.bosak@sun.com]

I concur with Stephen Green (see message below) in the hope that
we can build upon the IDA gap analyses.  As Stephen notes, the
analysis relating to UBL was based on a version that is now
obsolete, and some of the gaps have already been addressed.

The UBL TC is nearing completion of comment disposition following
the OASIS review of the UBL 1.0 Committee Draft, and we hope to
have a revised CD out for a TC vote by the end of our upcoming
meeting in Copenhagen 16-20 August.  We also hope by then to have
in hand first drafts of translations of the UBL data element
definitions into Chinese, Japanese, Korean, and Spanish; the
Japanese translation is already done and available for review.

Following the release of UBL 1.0, we will be working on UBL 1.1,
which will incorporate additional data elements identified during
the localization work as well as some new trade document types,
beginning with the Certificate of Origin already submitted by
Crimson Logic of Singapore.  This phase, which I'm guessing will
end around mid-2005, presents the perfect opportunity for the
resolution of the remaining gaps between UBL 1.0 and the targets
identified by IDA.

Since UBL is royalty-free and the OASIS TC process in which UBL is
being developed is open and easily accessible, I hope that we can
gain the participation of the IDA experts responsible for this
document in addition to their excellent analysis of the work that
needs to be done.

Jon

==================================================================
From: "Stephen Green" <stephen_green@seventhproject.co.uk>
To: <ubl@lists.oasis-open.org>, <peter@justbrown.net>
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2004 21:13:13 +0100
Subject: Re: [ubl] Groups - europa.eu.int/ISPO/ida/jsps/index.jsp uploaded

Peter

I'm impressed by the detail of the IDA gap-analyses. These deserve
considerable attention.

I think the IDA have perhaps missed significant entities in the
UBL order and invoice, perhaps working from an early version of
UBL. They report 'Not managed' in UBL regarding such things as
other document references in invoice lines which the work (that
mentioned in the reports which involved the UK Gov, Mike Adcock
and myself and a colleague) we did with the UK Gov ensured were
included after version 0.7 (such as purchaseOrderID, receiptID and
ReceiptLineID which are definitely present at line level and
document level in UBL as
cac:InvoiceLine/cac:OrderLineReference/cac:BuyersLineID
etc). Perhaps I've missed something. This just emphases the need
to spend time reviewing this work.

To quote the IDA article: "The specification has been greatly
inspired from the OGC model developed by the Office of Government
Commerce in the UK, the eHandel model developed in Norway and the
UBL standard edited by OASIS. It describes business processes
involved and data models using UML diagrams."  Behind this was
extensive comparative work by UBL's business modeler Mike Adcock
working together with the UK Office of Government Commerce
regarding UBL. I took the results of the analysis and was allowed
by UBL to ensure that it was largely incorporated, within the UBL
decision process, into UBL beta and beyond.

The cover article may give the impression that the IDA models have
been defined already as XML by calling the work 'XML schemas
initiative' but as I understand it there have not been Schemas
written and maybe these can be produced as UBL Schemas. I hope
that can be discussed in IDA and in UBL. The timing for this would
seem to me to be ideal at present to ensure that the is a concert
of effort from Atlantic and Pacific groups to ensure maximum
suitability for use internationally or globally.

Thank you. This news cames as a great encouragement.

Stephen Green