340 likes | 644 Views
Singapore Plenary November 6 - 9 2006. Monday 6 th Nov. 09:00-09:15 Meet & greet; room assignments and other meeting logistics 09:15-12:00 Opening plenary Introductions 10:30-10:45 Coffee
E N D
Singapore Plenary November 6 - 9 2006
Monday 6th Nov. 09:00-09:15 Meet & greet; room assignments and other meeting logistics 09:15-12:00 Opening plenary Introductions 10:30-10:45 Coffee Subcommittee and team reports Other reports Work/meeting schedule review 12:00-13:30 Welcome Lunch 13:30-17:00 Plenary UBL 2.0 International Data Dictionary (IDD) - Localization of UBL 2.0 UBL structural review 15:00-15:15 Coffee
Tuesday 7th Nov. 09:00-09:15 Work team coordination & setup 09:15-10:30 Plenary Code List Value Validation Methodology (CLVVM) - Edit document Support package - Sample Implementation Guide from Denmark 12:00-13:00 Lunch 13:00-17:00 Plenary UBL Customization Methodology - Customization white paper - Schema customization practicum - UBL 2.0 Small Business Subset (SBS) review - Toolkit 17:30 Night Zoo Dinner
Wednesday 8th Nov. 09:00-09:15 Work team coordination & setup 09:15-12:00 Plenary 1. UBL 2.0 Naming and Design Rules (NDR) - ATG2 NDR gap analysis 2. Support package - UBL Basic International Trade Scenario (BITS) 12:00-13:00 Lunch 13:00-17:00 Plenary 1. UBL 2.0 Naming and Design Rules (NDR) - ATG2 NDR gap analysis 2. Support package: - HISC mapping of new document types to Layout Keys - Code List support Wednesday evening: Social event TBA
Thursday 9th Nov. 09:00-09:15 Work team coordination & setup 09:15-12:00 Plenary Marketing and promotion of UBL 2.0 End-to-end usability development Procedures for maintenance of UBL 2.0 12:00-13:00 Lunch Telecon with TBG3 13:00-17:00 Closing plenary Schedule review
Friday 10th Nov. 09:00-12:00 Working Sessions as required 13:40-17:20 UBL Public Forum
The UBL Objective HTTP + HTML = Web Publishing UBL = Web Commerce ebXML/WS +
UBL ebXML XCBL X12 EDIFACT UBL’s Ancestry CBL XML EDI
UBL 2.0 • Now an OASIS Committee Specification. • OASIS Standard expected December 2006 • Extended library. • 31 document types. • Extended Procurement Process (Europe). • Transportation Process Documents (Asia and US). • Based on real implementation experience. • Improved library of re-usable components • Alignment with UN/CEFACT projects. • Core Component Type library. • Input from Trade and Business Groups. • Compliant to ISO 15000-5 • ebXML Core Component Technical Specification.
The Machine Screw • Principle discovered around 400 BC • Limited use until machine tools made mass production possible (18th cent.) • Every machine shop and foundry made unique sizes and thread dimensions • 1841: Joseph Whitworth presented “The Uniform System of Screw-Threads” to Britain’s Institute of Civil Engineers • 1864: William Sellers proposes “On a Uniform System of Screw Threads” for the United States. • 1942: British tanks required US parts. • 1945: British and American standards merged • Enabled interchangeable parts and tooling for mechanization and mass production • A lead time of 2300 years! Courtesy of Clive Holtham, Cass Business School
Paperless Document Exchange • Principles developed around 1950. • Limited interoperability until Internet and XML made cheap electronic distribution possible (1995). • Every organization or industry used unique format, syntax and semantics. • 1980: ANSI developed “The X12 Data Interchange Standard” for US business. • 1990: UN developed “The EDIFACT Data Interchange Standard” for global business. • 2000: OASIS and UN/CEFACT developed electronic business with XML (ebXML) framework. • 2004: UBL (version 1) released. • So we are not there yet… • only another 2244 years to go!
Standards Success Factors • Formalized… • Has sanction. • De Jure. • Widely adopted … • Has traction. • De Facto. • History tells us traction is more important than sanction • Internet versus ISO/OSI. • So sanction is only a means to achieve traction • not a goal in itself. • What makes a standard is adoption.
UBL is Real • Traction: • Is being rapidly adopted for government procurement. • Yet applies across all industry sectors and international trade. • Government adoption drives software integration. • Sanction: • Developed and maintained in a completely open and accountable standards process that allows any interested person or organization to participate. • Is an international standard recognized under the MOU between all international standards bodies. • Collaboration with UN/CEFACT for future development.
UBL has Sanction • An approved OASIS Standard • 1.0 in May 2004 • @ version 2.0 in December 2006 • Based on ebXML Core Components. • ISO 15000-5 compliant • Early adopter and pioneer • UBL further development will be in collaboration with UN/CEFACT. • UBL 2.0 is on track to become an international standard.
Sanctioning eBusiness Standards INTERNATIONAL ELECTROTECHNICAL COMMISSION INTERNATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATION UNION UNITED NATIONS ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE
Specific Technology Consortia • OASIS • XML standards for e-business • Collaborates with UN/CEFACT on the ebXML • World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) • Web infrastructure standards • The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) • Internet standards
But wait, there’s more… • Industry solutions developed to fill a requirement not met by other standards: • Rosettanet, XBRL, OAGIS, GS1, etc. • Gain momentum and become a standards business. • National bodies: • CEN/ISSS, NIST, CNIS, SITPRO • Proprietary or private solutions. • There is a natural selection at play. • The market will decide. • But only if given the correct information.
UN/CEFACT Collaboration • Agreed in April 2006. • 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. • This means: • If you want a solution today then use UBL 2.0. • UBL 2.0 is the precursor to the next generation of UN/CEFACT XML standards.
UBL has Traction • Adopted for a variety of contexts: • Government e-procurement. • International trade. • Based on library of re-usable components. • Active user community contributing to further development and enhancements. • Credibility within XML community. • A feature of an Open Standard is no auditing of usage. • ‘Viral’ adoption
UBL is Royalty Free • OASIS IPR Policy • Royalty Free on Limited Terms • Preferred by Open Source developers • Each participating party agrees that it will grant to any other party a patent license to implement the UBL specification. • “Limited Terms” means participating parties may not impose any further conditions or restrictions • For complete conditions refer to: http://www.oasis-open.org/who/intellectualproperty.php
UBL’s Adoption Life-cycle UBL 2.0 UBL 1.0
UBL Future Work • The next version of UBL will be a collaboration with UN/CEFACT: • This is underway. • A long term migration path for UBL users. • Maintenance and support of UBL version 2 remains with the OASIS UBL Technical Committee. • Minor releases, errata, extensions, etc • Backward compatible with UBL 2.0 • Use UBL today and tomorrow.
UBL Naming and Design Rules • A normative set of XML schema design rules and naming conventions • XML constructs defined in accordance with the ebXML Core Components Technical Specification. • UBL NDR 2.0 completed its public review in October 2006. • Global Scoping: • In UBL 2.0, all types are globally scoped • New Extension Element • An optional UBLExtensions may now appear as the first child of any UBL 2.0 document. • An area in which to include non-UBL data elements • Permits customized documents to be compliant. • New Approach to Code List Validation • A two-phase validation approach has been developed to make it easier to modify code lists and perform basic business rule checking. • Extends the functionality of W3C Schema
2.0 Support Package • Code List support files • Sample Implementation Guide from Denmark • UBL Basic International Trade Scenario (BITS) • Output stylesheets • UBL Model Letter of Agreement • Source files for Gefeg’s FX and Enterprise Architect’s UML data models. • Other ideas?? • Release January 2007
Localization Subcommittees • Translation of UBL semantics. • Fostering requirements for local implementations. • Chinese • Japanese • Korean • Spanish • Italian • Danish
The Meaning of Internationalization Spanish425,000,000 Korean60,000,000 Chinese (Mandarin)1,075,000,000 English 514,000,000 Japanese120,000,000
Customizing UBL • UBL was designed on an 80/20 principle. • 20 % of the library would be useful for 80% of the requirements. • The 20% remainder would require a customization of the library. • This means 80% of UBL implementations will require some customization to suit their context of use. • Restriction and/or Extension • UBL is actually a set of building blocks for eBusiness document components.
UN/CEFACT 101 UN/ECE CEFACT Plenary (Shareholders) Bureau (Board of Directors) Forum Forum Management Group (Board of Management) TMG (CCTS, UMM) TBG (1-19) ICG Permanent Groups (Workers) ATG (1-2)
UN/CEFACT Collaboration Activities part 1 • CEFACT BUREAU/ UBL TC • Mark Palmer and Tim McGrath • TBG1 - Supply Chain • completed first analysis • TBG3 – Transport • reviewed UBL 2.0 specification • proposing a common work item • TBG17 – Harmonization • discussions started • TMG/CCTS – Core Component Technical Specification • discussions started
UN/CEFACT Collaboration Activities Part 2 • ATG/NDR - XML Naming and Design Rules • working team formed • submitted requirements • TBG2 – UN/eDocs • unclear how to proceed • ICG (and ATG2) – Code Lists • need to engage formally • TBG19 e-Government • still immature • TMG/Context Methodology/Message Assembly • still immature
UN/CEFACT Convergence Status • Progress with TBG1 has exposed confusion surrounding the UN/CEFACT methodology. • Need guidance regarding: • the agreed method of message assembly • Re-usable library or ‘pick and mix’ • the use of core components • E.g. when a transaction moves from the Tendering phase to the Purchasing phase to the Shipment phase etc. • the role of UN/eDocs • Vis-à-vis Harmonized Core Component Library • UN/CEFACT recommendation required • Pragmatism versus theory (?)