RE: [ebxml-dev] RE: OASIS Members to Develop Universal Business Language

["Probert, Sue" <Sue.Probert@commerceone.com>]

Title: RE: [ebxml-dev] RE: OASIS Members to Develop Universal Business L anguage

Hi Duane

I guess I speak for the whole ebXML UN/CEFACT core components team in stating that it is definitely not in the interests of future e business interoperability to talk of encouraging anyone to build their own core component library separately from the global effort.

To do so would almost certainly result in a proliferation of differently, albeit sometimes only subtlely differently, defined business semantics over and over. Why do that when we can work together to log them logically in one support library globally available?

That is where the value of global semantic identifiers or global semantic anchors, as I like to call them, comes into play to achieve interoperability between existing libraries and to encourage future convergence.

Sue

Sue Probert
Senior Director, Document Standards, Commerce One Labs
Commerce One
Tel: +44 1332 342080
email: sue.probert@commerceone.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Duane Nickull [mailto:duane@xmlglobal.com]
Sent: 18 October 2001 19:10
To: Gregory, Arofan
Cc: McMahon. Brendan ITS; 'ebxml-dev@lists.ebxml.org'
Subject: Re: [ebxml-dev] RE: OASIS Members to Develop Universal Business
L anguage

Some rebuttals..

Gregory, Arofan wrote:

> Anyone who
> wants to produce an ebXML Core-Components-compliant vocabulary is free
> to do so (including OASIS) - isn't that what the spec is for?

 >>>
I completely agree.  It should be pointed out that if I, as a user of
ebXML, do not want to use the stock set of core components,  I could
build and use my own.  There are plenty of documents to guide me through
this endevour (CC Discovery and Analysis, UMM et al.)

> (Are you
> telling me that I wasted two years of my life on this for nothing?)
>>>>>>

No - we got to drink plenty of cold beer and see a hockey game.  This is
the dream life of all Candaians ;-)  Seriously, the work done to date is
relied upon by both UBL and UN/CEFACT CC teams.

 
> After last week's ebTWG meeting, it became clear that there was no
> competing initiative within UN/CEFACT, and I would also point out that
> UN/CEFACT rejected the initial UBL proposal to become a part of
> UN/CEFACT. If CEFACT wanted it, why didn't they say "yes"? The OASIS
> option was choice #2.
>>>>>>>>>

I have no opinion on this as I never saw the proposal.  Maybe those who
submitted the proposal could shed some light on this?  Did Jon submit it?

 
> Anyway, I have a feeling that whatever the relationship between UBL and
> UN/CEFACT needs to be, it will evolve, since there is so much overlap of
> membership. The whole point is standardization, after all.
>>>>>>>>>>

Agreed.  It is too early to tell for sure the degree of overlap or if
the final work of both will even have any overlap.

Cheers

Duane

----------------------------------------------------------------
The ebxml-dev list is sponsored by OASIS.
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.ebxml.org/ob/adm.pl>