OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

ubl message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Oh, no! I'm not suggesting that you create your own ACC for every document.
They should be provided by the standard library.
imo CCTS as a semantic driven data modeling methodology has a specific
inheritance between ACC and ABIE.
If UBL has defined ACCs as required by CCTS, I guess that you would not to
have to build an ACC in > 95% of all cases.

Among others - the promise of a standard is to guarantee a consistent
development methodology and consistent data. To achieve the latter, it is
necessary to reuse objects instead of retyping, and to avoid any data

As long as users have just a few documents, which are rather more static
than dynamic (in respect of the number of necessary changes per year), they
do not yet care so much about it. Thus I do not yet expect, that those,
which implement the invoice only, are necessarily looking for this already.
But the more documents and the more real life changes these documents have,
the more attention pay users to these aspects in order to decrease the
maintenance costs of the eRelationships and to make their own documents
interoperable. For example, if the Chinese Committee is going to develop 60
highly inter-related documents, then these aspects become very important
from the very beginning.

The second issue, which I feel is important with these ACC artifacts, is,
that they are part of a concept how users extend/customize UBL standard
document. They, but not only they, rule, what a user can do in customizing
and extending UBL. I do not believe, that all users agree to give all their
data to a published standard. This is valid in US, but even more in the non
Anglo-Saxonian world. This is the lesson, I've learned from so many private
extensions of RosettaNet, EDIFACT etc. and we should take this into account.
Thus, the ACC and the concept, how to use them for and by UBL users, should
play an important role in order to help users to make their developments
aligned with the Standard and in the end more interoperable.


-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Catherine Williams [mailto:catherine.williams@pisces.co.uk]
Gesendet: Dienstag, 17. Mai 2005 10:55
An: Michael Dill; Tim McGrath
Cc: Ubl
MAY - 13 MAY 2005

We find it really useful to have those BBIEs directly under the document
We don't want to have to create ACC's for every document because we feel it
isn't necessary, and there are often some essential pieces of data which
relate specifically to the document. Not allowing them to exist there would
mean that we *would* have to create an ACC for every document.
Is this what you are suggesting?

Catherine Williams
Technical Manager
PISCES - Connecting Real Estate ... Now
+44 191 230 8094 Office
+44 7947 279780 Mobile
+44 191 226 8920 Fax

This message contains confidential information solely for its intended
recipients and others may not distribute, copy or use it. If you have
received this email in error please tell us either by return e-mail or at
the numbers above.  We have used measures to ensure that this email is free
from software viruses. However, in accordance with good practice the
recipient is responsible for ensuring that it is virus free before opening

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Dill [mailto:dill2@gefeg.com]
Sent: 16 May 2005 22:15
To: Tim McGrath
Cc: Ubl
MAY - 13 MAY 2005

The minutes show that the F2F was a great and successful one!

> This will resolve the current inconsistency issue raised by NDR where
> we
have some BBIEs in documents and not in the Common Basic Components. For

does this means, that there is a chance to get ride of the stand alone BBIE
directly under the document root? They are some times redundant, what should
never happen in a proper model. This would be great and would remove one of
the barriers to vote positive for UBL 2.x


-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Tim McGrath [mailto:tmcgrath@portcomm.com.au]
Gesendet: Montag, 16. Mai 2005 13:04
- 13 MAY 2005

      Hangzhou Huagang HNA Resort,
      No.1 Yanggongti, West Lake District,
      Hangzhou, 310007, P.R.China
      Tim McGrath(chair)
      Mavis Cournane
      Anne Hendry
      Thomas Lee
      Yukinori Saito
      Sung Hyuk Kim
      Peter Larsen Borresen
      Mikkel Hippe Brun
      Colin Lam
      Sun Ho Kim
      Sun Wenfeng
      Stephen Green  (teleconference Wednesday)
      Jon Bosak (teleconference Monday)


The UBL Technical Committee greatly appreciate the support of the Chinese
National Institute of Standards and in particular Mr Lu Bisong who organized
this meeting in Hangzhou. The meeting facilities and the personal
contributions of CNIS member, Sun Wenfeng were exceptional. Those in
attendance agreed this has been one of the most productive and enjoyable UBL
meetings to date.

The primary objectives of this meeting were:
- Hear reports from localization subcommittees and liaisons
- Review UBL 2.0 requirements and schedule
- Work of development of content models for UBL 2.00
- Discuss deployment strategies for UBL in the Asia Pacific region.
- Review of comments received regarding the UBL 1.0 International Data
Dictionary (IDD) CD
- Discussion of possible UBL transition to UN/CEFACT

1. Hear reports from localization subcommittees and liaisons CNLSC:The
Digital Trade and Transportation network in HK intends to submit their
document models to UBL. UBL components, types and NDR have been used but not
all the UBL 1.0 Library Content. DTTN is government subsidized. The UBL
approach is recommended by the DTTN in HK.

KRLSC:KRLSC is now discussing financial support with KIEC. KIEC wants to
accept KRLSC as one of the working groups for the e-document
standardization. The support of KIEC wold have a positive affect on the
localization of UBL.The government supported E Commerce Internet
forum(ECIF) will receive the draft of the Korean localization effort. There
are also guidelines for UBL applications written in Korean. This should be
announced on the UBL website.

JPLSC: Has reviewed the mapping study between major Japanese business
documents and UBL. The translation of the UBL data types was confirmed by a
90% match on essential BIEs. The significance of the ECALGA project in Japan
is huge.

Proposed Danish LSC: Danish adoption of UBL Invoice has been successful.
Next steps will be to ask UBL to have a Danish Localisation
Subcommittee(European). Implementation of UBL order will be done by fall of
2006. A meeting is planned on May 18th to initiate a European forum (perhaps
a European LSC). Attendees from Norway, Sweden, and Britain are expected.

ESLSC: Have built software libraries for UBL in Spain. 200 Companies are
using the UBL libraries to generate the invoices. Between now and June they
will be going live with 10 companies sending real invoices. In South America
there is an Ecuadorean working group. There is a 10 month plan to define the
UBL data needs, the pilot project and the dissemination plan.

2. Review UBL 2.0 requirements and schedule

Proposed major changes from UBL 1.0 to 2.0:
* Restructuring of the spreadsheet and schema architecture.
* Adding new documents so a extended procurement and certificate of origin
application business process supported.
* Adding more Party-types.
* Buyer to buyer information applied.
* Person-type added.
* Incorporated legal requirements for Japan and the EU
* Support of prepayment/recurring payment
* Document references in all document types.
* Enhancement based on localization requirements.
* Better support for customisation.

The following are comments on the proposed UBL 2.0 extended business process
model for procurement.

Proposed Sourcing Collaboration
We need a better document name than catalogue as this has caused some
confusion.The most common use case is for a seller to send off a catalogue
to various market places. He could send it to a buyer but that would be
rarer. The catalogue part of the process should not be emphasised, and
should not be an integral part of the process. The request for quotation and
the quotation are an independent and important part of the process. The
catalogue question is important between the seller and the marketplace but
not between the seller and the buyer.The Danish government would be
interested in sponsoring the development of cataloguing document that
extends the current proposed process. We should split this process model
into two - one to show the sourcing and the other would be quotation.
Quotation would be a more interesting to Japan.

Proposed Fulfillment Collaboration
Rectification advice is not a word that is a word that is recognizable. A
better word would be "Correction Advice". We suspect we could just resend a
corrected despatch advice (as we do with Order). We may have a revised
Receipt advice as well. Peter Borresen will investigate whether a despatch
advice can satisfy the information requirements of a rectification advice.

Proposed Buyer Billing Collaboration
We need to know more about the information flow before a self bill invoice
is created, for example, how does the buyer understand what to provide in
the self bill invoice. Peter Borresen to investigate with IDA.

Proposed Seller Billing Collaboration
There is a document missing from the diagram - Account Response. This needs
to be redrawn.

Proposed Payment Collaboration
There is also a requirement for an acknowledgment at the business level.
Where an invoice is rejected a message is required to say so or else the
Seller does not know until he doesn't get paid. We will propose a Invoice
Rejection message. Mikkel Brun will design this. It was agreed that for 2.0
we have to test that we can do a minor release before any formal release to
ensure that versioning mechanism works. This should be done when we
generate the sample instances. This will be done by the Danish
representatives. Additionally, there will be an editorial team for the NDR
document and extra resources to help with NDR activities are requested.
Mavis was nominated as the editorial team leader to accomplish this.

Revised Schedule
   17 May 2005 Content team meeting in the Pacific TC calls starts
           processing input from European stakeholders and the
           OASIS Tax XML TC
   18 May 2005 NDR team meeting in the Atlantic TC calls starts
           reviewing NDR issues in light of the decision to
           make all elements global, then takes up code lists.
               Restructure spreadsheet models (see above).
   01 Jun 2005 Finalize requirements/issues list for 2.0
   15 Jun 2005 TC agree requirements/issues list for 2.0
               Begin updating spreadsheet models
               Agree changes to the NDR
   08 Jul 2005 Begin Public Review Number 1 (data model only)
               Load spreadsheets into EDIFIX and test/revise until
   01 Jul 2005 GEFEG gets all the schema changes decided so far
               (DavidK goes on vacation last two weeks of July)
   08 Aug 2005 All-week UBL TC meeting in Ottawa hosted by Adobe:
               Review of the spreadsheet and EDIFIX models.
               Comment disposition, Review Number 1; begin final
               schema generation for Review Number 2
   01 Sep 2005 Package assembly for Review Number 2
               Test that we can do a minor release
   15 Sep 2005 Begin Public Review Number 2 (entire package)
   15 Oct 2005 Comment disposition and repackaging
   15 Nov 2005 2.0 internal UBL CD vote begins
   01 Dec 2005 CD approved by start of UBL TC meeting;
               begin OASIS one-month public review (etc.)

One of the key factors in whether we will meet the timetable is whether we
have the resources to do it. Since 1.0 there are less resources to do it.
Mikkel Brun emphasized that meeting these schedules was critical to UBL's
acceptance. We also discussed the need for review at critical points in the
process in which TC wide participation is highly essential. TC review may
need to take place on joint calls. To better facilitate work items, we
propose to establish a third weekly call slot (to suit Europe and Asia). Tim
has offered to chair these calls (if Jon approves).

3. Work of development of content models for UBL 2.00
For 2.0 we would like to change the structure of the spreadsheets. The
proposal is to have 3 three layers:
* the documents and any ABIEs only they use,
* common ABIEs (ie used more than once) within a context, and
* core ABIEs.
This will resolve the current inconsistency issue raised by NDR where we
have some BBIEs in documents and not in the Common Basic Components. For
example in the current CBC we have ReceivedHandlingUnitReceiptLine that is
not really a CAC becasue it is contextual. It was agreed that "common"is not
the same as "core". NDR will need to redraw the schema diagram showing the
CACs and CBC schemas that implement this, and to provide some naming rules
for these. We will try to ensure semantic compatibility with 1.0 and we
don't intend to change the Data Dictionary (but we will add to it). There
may be clarifications or definition changes in the Dictionary.
COML: Crimson Logic have done a lot of the work that UBL will incorporate
into the UBL 2.0 Certificate of Origin document. Peter Borresen and Thomas
Lee will liaise with Crimson Logic on the suitability for UBL of the model
for digital signatures as provided by the COML project. Tim will transfer
these requirements onthe UBL 2.0 issues list. IDA Issues: Peter Borresen and
the European localization group will transfer their requirements into the
UBL issues list.

4. Discuss deployment strategies for UBL in the Asia Pacific region. JPLSC
will propose a pilot project  with a view to seeing how harmonization could
happen between Japan and other economies. The other LSC representatives said
that they would need some commerical funding to do this. Mikkel Brun will
take this offer up with some Danish companies.

5. Review of comments received regarding the UBL 1.0 International Data
Dictionary (IDD) CD No comments were recevied so the dscussion moved onto
leveraging the value of the IDD. We discussed that the translation of the
library content is very useful for the software UI if we could add a "label"
to the metedata for use in forms. It was noted that we now have a UBL CD
document that will require maintenance. We need a synchronization plan to
ensure coordination between the various localization SCs. There will be a
need to translate new entries and to improve translations of existing
entries. One of the attractions of the IDD is that it could be a repository
on a website and the entries would be URIs that could be pointed to. The
LSCs shared their different approaches in doing translation. In Japan
individual translation was done, and then a peer review took place. In Korea
this was done more in a group with a coordinator. In China, there were 3
phases. First the BIEs were translated, one person did the draft
translation, it was group reviewed, this was just within CNIS this
review.During this process much attention  was paid to the old EDI
translations. The existing translations of EDI were then reviewed by
Industry Experts. In Japan existing EDI translations were also used as basis
for the initial translations. a. Recommendations for new Localization SC
Generally, an expert would be appointed to perform an initial translation.
Attention should be paid to any existing translations of BIEs (e.g. EDI
translations). The initial translation should then be reviewed by a group of
experts who will look at harmonization and semantic integrity. b. Changes to
the process required for maintenance We propose to adopt a versioning scheme
to act as an indicator for the change log. Every entry has to be versioned
so it is readily identifiable what has changed. c. Changes to the process
for translations to the new dictionary entries The environment for
translation will be set up, but we won't apply translation until CD 2.0 is
finalized. We discussed that a good way of validating the translations is to
see that the data when translated is formatted in the right way. For this we
need a stylesheet in the different languages. These formatted views could
then be used by the LSC review teams to review the translations. Having an
abbreviated label for the output media (see above) would assist in this
task. We propose to create a project team for this and also support the
request from HISC for use-case participants.

6. Discussion of possible UBL transition to UN/CEFACT
In a lengthy and considered discussion, all attendess presented their
assessment of the concerns and opportunities of this transition.  The key
points were: a. ISO accreditation would be extremely significant for UBL
adoption in Asia. Both China and Korea automatically adopt and develop ISO
standards. If UN/CEFACT can fast track UBL as an ISO standard it would be
attractive.  However we are unsure if OASIS and the MOU still offer an
alternative. b. However, the market would be confused if UN/CEFACT published
alternative document schemas. c. The reluctance of UN/CEFACT to consider
adopting the UBL NDRs does not bode well for integration with other
UN/CEFACT work items. d. Of all the areas for UBL, the UN/eDocs (TBG ??)
appears the most palatable to both parties. e. A key to ongoing development
of UBL will be the willingness of our current memebrs to transition with it.

Calendar review
The Danish, British and other scandinavian governments are meeting on May
19th in Copenhagen to discuss UBL. Peter Borresen will provide details to
the list. The ebXML Asia Committee meeting will take place in Hong Kong in
June. Thomas Lee will provide details We will seek a meeting in Europe in
early March 2006, and an additional meeting in Korea in the early May 2006
if appropriate.

Individual Action Items
Peter Borresen:
* will incorporate the IDA requirements in to the 2.0 Issues list
* with Thomas Lee will liaise with Crimson Logic on the suitability for UBL
of the model for digital signatures as provided by the COML project
* investigate whether a despatch advice can satisfy the information
requirements of a rectification advice
* provide details of the British and other scandinavian governments meeting
on May 19th in Copenhagen to the UBL list.
* take the current UBL library and divide it in to contexts. Thomas Lee:
* document new three-level architecture and send to Saito-san.
* upload the DTTN codelist approach paper to the UBL list.
* with Peter Borresen will liaise with Crimson Logic on the suitability for
UBL of the model for digital signatures as provided by the COML project
* provide details of ebXML Asia meeting in Hong Kong.
Mavis Cournane:
* lead the discussion in the Atlantic call for the new rules required for
the 3 three layers of schemas.
* lead the discussion in NDR about the need to remove any rules that would
not be required now that we are adopting the ATG schemas. In that case do we
need any UBL NDR rules about the CoreComponent types. Mikkel Brun:
* propose a Invoice Rejection message.
* update extended business process model diagrams
Tim McGrath:
* raise the suggestion that once the NDR work is complete that there may be
time and resource to pick up the customisation requirements.
* put back missing Account Response document in the Seller Billed Invoicing
* transfer COML requirements onto 2.0 issues list
Jon Bosak:
* update UBL web page with link to KRLSC guidelines,

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 (coming soon from MIT Press)

To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail.  You may a link to this group and all your TCs in OASIS
at: https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]