Michael: Thanks for your detailed response. As I had suspected, the UBL and OAGIS do overlap a fair bit from a business document perspective, and would do so even more if UBL had more than 7 documents. I am very familiar with what OAGIS provides, but your comments about how that compares to the UBL effort is very illuminating. In my usual "blunt" style (right Martin? <grins>) this poses a few obvious questions: Why have the UBL folks run off on a separate but duplicate effort, when OAGIS already is so far ahead, and has production-proven deliverables? Why didn't UBL support OAGIS progress to date, and focus their efforts on improving the quality and quantity of OAGIS BODs? This sounds like unnecessary duplication and, frankly, a total waste of effort on the part of UBL that might have been better focused elsewhere. Yet another competing standard for business documents, flying in the face of a defacto, established standard (OAGIS BODs)? Why bother? Or is this just another manifestation of the petty politics that seem so pervasive in the standards setting processes and organizations that are working on XML and Web Services initiatives? "Bah Humbug", I say, if that is the case! If someone with more familiarity with the UBL charter, process and intentions cares to answer these questions, I'm all ears! Otherwise, it looks like UBL is not worth any attention (at this time) from those of us trying to solve real world B2B problems. ......Andrzej (feeling blunt today.....can you tell? ;-) ) > As for the amount of overlap between OAGIS and UBL...yes, as you state in > your message below OAGIS has equivalent messages to what UBL proposes and > plus more... > a.. OAGIS recently released a new release to public feedback, and the > current release is available for implementations: > a.. OAGIS 8.1 Beta recently release for public review includes 430 > BODs, b.. OAGIS 8.0 that is implemented today includes 200 BODs. > b.. If I am not mistaken, UBL has 7 messages available for public review > UBL's documentation says this scenario supports in their words (see > section 5.1 of the draft documentation) " a basic, usable trading cycle > from Order to Invoice between Buyer and Seller". It does not support, > again in their words > a.. any sub-line facilities, because this is an area of diversity for > which more industry-specific knowledge and input into creating a different > business scenario is required. > b.. sophisticated packaging within packaging, which is seen as a > different > business scenario, and for which more business context-specific knowledge > and input is required. > > OAGIS has a rich library of components based on a much larger set of > messages that have been developed and tuned based on feedback from actual > implementations over the last many years. Our component library is quite > comprehensive because it has developed over the years with support for > many scenarios and messages. Including those above that UBL says they do > not support. We have mulitple scenarios for usage of each message, and the > content of each message reflects the breadth and scope of our scenarios. > Also, we work with vertical industries to come up with new messages/ fine > tune our messages based on new scenarios provided by our user base. > > As for the use of CoreComponents, OAGIS 8.1 Beta which is also available > for public review from the www.openapplications.org site, includes full > support for CCTS 1.90. > > I hope this helps to specifically answer your questions. > > Thanks, > Michael Rowell > Open Applications Group ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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>
<<attachment: winmail.dat>>