Status of Collaboration with UN/CEFACT

Status of Status of Collaboration Collaboration

with UN/CEFACTwith UN/CEFACT

Status of Status of Collaboration Collaboration

with UN/CEFACTwith UN/CEFACT

Tim McGrathTim McGrathUBL PlenaryUBL PlenaryStockholmStockholm

Sept 24 2007Sept 24 2007

UN/CEFACT/OASIS UN/CEFACT/OASIS Cooperation AgreementCooperation Agreement

• Paragraph 2c: "The parties will appoint representatives to jointly

develop and recommend an OASIS-UNECE-UN/CEFACT project alignment and coordination plan, addressing areas of common technical interest, including:

i) Harmonization of core data components, UBL, other business data entity libraries etc.

ii) Naming and Design Rules iii) Mechanisms for business process specification iv) Adoption and promotion efforts for the ebXML

specifications v) Identity, addressing and e-signature

functionalities with potential for interoperability across UNeDocs, Universal Postal Union practices, and other trade facilitation ID and e-signature instances.”

ebXML

UBL’s ContinuityUBL’s Continuity

XML EDI

CBL EDIFACT X12

UBL

XCBL

UN/CEFACT

The PlayersThe Players

– Any agreements are between OASIS and UN/CEFACT.– Not the UBL Technical Committee

– The UBL TC advises OASIS and UN/CEFACT as to how the collaboration is undertaken.

– The UBL TC does not “own” UBL, OASIS does.

– The UBL TC is an committee of volunteers– Like UN/CEFACT– Not like RosettaNet, OAG, Swift, etc.

Collaboration Collaboration AgreementAgreement

• UN/CEFACT recognizes UBL 2 as appropriate first-generation XML documents for eBusiness.

• Future UN/CEFACT deliverables constitute the upgrade path for UBL.

• Maintenance of UBL 2 remains with OASIS.• In the expectation that UN/CEFACT will produce

its own integrated set of XML schemas within a period of three years, OASIS will produce no further major versions of UBL past UBL 2.

• OASIS will grant UN/CEFACT a perpetual, irrevocable license to create derivative works based on UBL.

Agreed in April 2006.

1. Recognition1. Recognition“UN/CEFACT recognizes UBL 2 as appropriate

first-generation XML documents for eBusiness.”

– Until UN/CEFACT offer an alternative then UN/CEFACT agree UBL is a worthy solution.

– A question of timing…– Need solution today = use UBL– Need solution sometime in the future = await

UN/CEFACT deliverables – incorporating the UBL upgrade path

– UBL is the useable stepping stone towards a unified UN/CEFACT standard.– “Future UN/CEFACT deliverables constitute the

upgrade path for UBL” – It is in everyone’s interest to make this happen.

2. Maintenance2. Maintenanceof UBLof UBL

“In the expectation that UN/CEFACT will produce its own integrated set of XML schemas within a period of three years, OASIS will produce no further major versions of UBL past UBL 2.”

• What is meant by “major version”?• What is meant by an “integrated set of

XML Schemas”?

UBL Major VersionsUBL Major Versions

• A major version is one that breaks backward compatibility with a previous version.

• In UBL, compatibility means validation by XML schema.– If a document created with a previous version is

not valid according to the new version’s XML schema then the new version is a major release.

• For example, version 3.0, 4.0, 5.0, etc..

– If a document created with a previous version is valid according to the new version’s XML schema then the new version is a minor release.

• For example, version 2.1,2.2,2.3, etc..

UBL Minor VersionsUBL Minor Versions

“Maintenance of UBL 2 remains with OASIS”

• Maintenance covers minor version releases:– New document types.– Extensions to existing documents.– Extensions to existing ABIEs.– New Data Types.– Non-normative edits:

• Errata• Documentation enhancements

• This includes changes to Dictionary Entry Names

• The UBL TC is currently working on these for UBL 2.1– Targeted for released in 2008

3. Deliverables3. Deliverables“In the expectation that UN/CEFACT will

produce its own integrated set of XML schemas within a period of three years…”

– A set of documents that cover the Buy-Ship-Pay process supported by UBL– i.e. a legitimate alternative to UBL

– Functionally equivalent and stable– The current UN/CEFACT candidate

releases of XML schemas…– Not an integrated set.

– Cross Industry Invoice, e-Tendering documents, etc– Single process design, not integrated.

– Version synchronization– All documents must be at the same release

level.– Needs to be completed before April

2009.

4. Intellectual Property4. Intellectual Property

“OASIS will grant UN/CEFACT a perpetual, irrevocable license to create derivative works based on UBL.”

• OASIS are not transferring IPR.– UBL will continue to exist as an OASIS

Technical Specification.– The UBL Technical Committee may

continue to exist as an OASIS Technical Committee.• Maintenance and support.

This means…This means…

• If you want a solution today then use UBL.

• Adopting UBL is not contravening UN/CEFACT’s strategic direction.

• UBL is a stepping stone towards a unified UN/CEFACT standard.

• You can use UBL for today and for tomorrow.

Convergence StatusConvergence StatusConvergence StatusConvergence Status

CEFACT Plenary (Shareholders)

Bureau (Board of Directors)

Forum Management Group (Board of Management)

Permanent Groups (Corporate Divisions)

TMG (CCTS, UMM)

TBG (1-19)

ICG

ATG (1-2)

Forum

CEFACT Plenary (Shareholders)

Bureau (Board of Directors)

Forum Management Group (Board of Management)

Permanent Groups (Corporate Divisions)

Forum

OASIS Membership (Shareholders)

Board (Board of Directors)

Technical Committees(Corporate Divisions)

Organizational Organizational StructuresStructures

Joint Statement Joint Statement from Previous Forumfrom Previous Forum

• At the UN/CEFACT Forum in Dublin (26-30 March 2007), work continued to foster integration on a common set of electronic business document standards based on the input and experience of UBL. This involved constructive meetings with working groups focused on harmonization, supply chain, e-procurement, e-government and technical methodologies.

• A cross-domain project has been approved to further review public sector e-procurement requirements, providing a path for input from an envisaged workshop on "Implementation of electronic public procurement in Europe" (CEN/ISSS WS/ePPE). This will include profiles developed in the context of implementations of UBL in Northern Europe and Spain.

• We see the first candidate release of UN/CEFACT's Cross Industry Invoice schema as an opportunity to further this collaboration

Work AreasWork Areas• The major issues to be resolved in

planning for a transition of UBL to UN/CEFACT are: – Library convergence– Domain-specific work items– Schema design (NDRs)– Code Lists – Production Strategies

Library convergenceLibrary convergenceLibrary convergenceLibrary convergence

Core Component Core Component LibraryLibrary

• TBG17 interpretation has problems:– Outlined at Dublin Forum meeting.– Next slides

• If we change our submission:– They would not be UBL– What would we achieve?

• Need a reasoned debate about the technical merits of the different approaches and reach a consensus. – Schedule meeting this week

Core Component Core Component LibraryLibrary

• TBG17 – Harmonization.• UBL and UN/CEFACT are attempting to

converge our two efforts into a "best of breed" solution. – Converge the UBL library with the CEFACT

library.• UBL has defined requirements for the

CEFACT library to support the Business Information Entities of UBL.– Submitted in April.

• Reached an impasse:– “technical errors”.– differences in interpretation of CCTS.

Design DifferencesDesign Differences

Party. Details

Charge. Indicator

Tax. Jurisdiction. Text

Geographical Coordinate. Latitude. Measure and Geographical Coordinate. Longitude. Measure

Identification. Identifier

Property term used for role.

Used for number of different BBIEs and also occurrences of each BBIE.

Allows repeating occurrences of certain types of BCC

Always used

TBG17

Extensions are new ACCs (that include intension ACC)

Generalize CCs where their structure and value domain are the same

Keep it simple

Suggestion

Adds role or context to propertyQualifiers for Association

Normalized (except translations of text)Cardinality of BCCs

BBIEs may be the same or restrict occurrences

How this affects BBIEs

Not usedQualifiers for ABIEs

Indicator. Indicator “

Customer Party. DetailsMore context in UBL

Tax Scheme. Address“

Location Coordinate. Degrees. MeasureContext Levels for CCs

Less context in UBL

Identifier. IdentifierSpecial Property Terms

UBL

CCTS DifferencesCCTS Differences

Country. Name. TextCountry. NameSecondary Representation TermsName is a legitimate representation term

Object Class + Property Term + Representation Term (or associated Object Class) gives meaning

Object Class + Property Term gives meaningRepresentation term (or associated Object Class) only defines the presentation (what it looks like)

Currency. CodeCurrency Code. CodeTruncation of Property TermsProperty Term is not the same as the third part of the name.

TBG17UBL

Domain-specific Domain-specific work itemswork items

Domain-specific Domain-specific work itemswork items

Supply Chain DocumentsSupply Chain Documents• “International Supply Chains consist of

integrated and coordinated flows of information, goods & payments”

• Source: UN/CEFACT International Supply Chain Reference Model

• TBG14 – Business Process Modelling– Incorporate UBL process models as part of

International Supply Chain Reference Model.– Opportunity for accepting products not

developed using UMM

eBGT InitiativeeBGT Initiative• electronic Business, Government and

Trade– A new support team for the FMG

• Bring together end-to-end global core of interoperable standards for buy-ship-pay model in support of e-business, e-government and e-trade– stage one (three months): Stockholm (this week)

• launch projects on core deliverables and tools– stage two (six months): focus on priority developments – stage three (three months): triage review of progress– stage four (three months): focus on demos / case studies – stage five (three months): evaluate / formulate next steps

Government, Business Government, Business & Trade?& Trade?

UBL for GovernmentUBL for Government

• OIOUBL – subset based on UBL (buy, ship, pay)

• NES – subset based on UBL (incorporating OIOUBL) (buy, ship,

pay)• CODICE

– extension of UBL (EU e-tendering)• CEN/ISSS WS/BII

– UBL candidate core components for UN/CCL– NES and CODICE documents based on candidate core

components – Interoperable with OIOUBL/NES and CODICE

• UN schemas for Government e-procurement (eBGT)– UBL core components incorporated into UN/CCL– customizations of CEN/ISSS documents based on UN/CCL

GovernmentGovernment

• TBG19– "Further review on current procurement

requirements for e-Government" project.– Involves TBG6, TBG1, NES and CODICE.– CEN/ISSS workshop (WS/BII) kicked off

May 11th.

• Strategic opportunity and a proving ground for CEFACT collaboration.– Potential eBGT deliverable.

OIOUBLNES

CODICECEN/ISSS

Government AdoptionGovernment Adoption

UBL for BusinessUBL for Business• TBG1 - Supply Chain

– Cross Industy Invoice schema at release candidate stage.• Expect approval in Stockholm

– Convergence for new set of BRSs covering sourcing to payment incorporated requirements from UBL (for 2008)

– Agreed to revisit the approved BRSs (Invoice and Remittance Advice) for UBL input.

UBL for BusinessUBL for Business

• TBG6 – Construction– 21 schemas for tendering– Not suitable for EU requirements– CODICE is the UBL based alternative

UBL for TradeUBL for Trade• TBG3 – International Trade

– Joint TBG2 submission to TBG17 – Approved IFTM BRS ?– Starting document modeling

• all to be based on IFTM BRS• UBL to collaborate on Status document.

• TBG2 – Digital paper– BRS for UN/eDocs approved

• Duplicates much of the work of UBL

– UN/Layout Key project • needs cooperation with TC154 for UN/TDED

Schema design Schema design (NDRs)(NDRs)

Schema design Schema design (NDRs)(NDRs)

Naming and Design Naming and Design RulesRules

• ATG2– Developing NDR 3.0 – Dependent on CCTS 3.0

• UBL completed UN/CEFACT/UBL XML Naming and Design Rules Analysis– Submitted to ATG2 on 9th August– 200 rules and UBL Disposition– http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl/200708/msg00034.html

Local vs GlobalLocal vs Global•UBL Statement:

•UBL NDR now appreciates the business requirements for the hybrid approach, and we will support its incorporation into the next version of CEFACT NDRs as soon as CEFACT formally adopts it and there is support for it in a released version of CCTS.

•ATG2 response:•It is already in the NDRs and supported in CCTS 2.01.

““Accepting” ATG2 NDRsAccepting” ATG2 NDRs• Means we are comfortable with UN/CEFACT

adopting the item in question– We don't disagree with it

But • This represents no commitment on the part of

the UBL TC– because at this stage we have no intention of

producing further revisions of the UBL 2 NDR.

CustomizationCustomization• ATG2

– Use of xsd:any– ATG2 members all use some type of

'extension' point at the root level • Like UBLExtension

• TMG Context Methodology– Work-in-progress

Code Lists Code Lists Code Lists Code Lists

Code ListsCode Lists

• Information Content Group (ICG)– Maintain CEFACT code lists – Project for UN code list formalization

• identified task to "gain understanding of genericode"

• ATG2 proposed rule [R33]– “Reusable Code List schema modules MUST be created

to convey code list enumerations.” • TBG17

– “What we need is a clear convention how to use ISO 3166 in CCTS uDT and qDT.”

• UBL code list approach is based on OASIS Code List Representation TC– TC currently being incorporated.– Uses genericode format for values.– Separates representation from verification.

Development StrategiesDevelopment StrategiesDevelopment StrategiesDevelopment Strategies

TBG17 Harmonization

TBG6

TBG1 Creates BRS TBG1 Creates RSM BRS+RSM Sent to TBG17

BRS+RSM Sent to TBG17

BRS+RSM Sent to TBG17

Library

ATG2 Generates Schema

TBG3

Ve

rified

by IC

G

Library

Other submiss

ion to TBG17

SchemasNext step

Procurement SC

Transport SC

UBL NDRsCustomization

Usage

The CEFACT ProcessThe CEFACT Process

UBL Library

Deliverables (revisited)Deliverables (revisited)

• A set of documents that cover the Buy-Ship-Pay process supported by UBL– A legitimate alternative to UBL

• The current UN/CEFACT candidate releases of XML schemas…– Cross Industry Invoice, e-Tendering documents, etc– Not an integrated set.– Single process design, not co-ordinated.

• Also means version synchronization– All documents at the same release level.

• Needs to be completed before April 2009.

Different StrategiesDifferent Strategies

Parallel development

Near-serial development

UBL CEFACT

Order

Invoice

Catalogue

Despatch Advice

Despatch adv.Despatch adv.Despatch adv.Receipt Advice

Waybill

Invoice

Order

Tendering

Goals for this weekGoals for this week• TBG1

– Martin, Peter

• TBG3– Andy,Tim

• TBG19– Adam

• TBG17– Tim, Andy, Martin, Tommy, Kim

• ATG2– Mavis, Mike

• ICG/TMG– Ken?