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


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index]
Re: ubl + ebxml = increased interoperability?

If we could consider UBL the source for the common element names, etc., 
then we're well beyond an F but not yet an A.  Their body of work isn't 
nearly as rich as the existing EDI standards.

The problem is that we can't consider UBL as the single, common 
source.  There are several families of XML business document standards
purport to be based on ebXML Core Components.  UN/CEFACT's approach, while

not as mature as UBL, differs in a few areas.  While the OAG has stated
intent to support ebXML Core Components, their OAGIS represents yet a 
different implementation.   And, there is the recently approved X12.7 from

ANSI ASC X12, which lays out yet another approach to XML.  And these are 
just a few of the more significant examples.  One of the work items of the

eBSC Forum, sponsored by the U.S. National Institute for Standards and 
Technology (NIST), is to facilitate forging a consensus in this area.

Given the current state of affairs, I think a lot of us that were involved

in the original ebXML effort wish very much that it had taken on and 
completed this work item.

If we consider the big picture, that is, not just UBL but all of these 
other efforts, my preliminary assessment right now would be a D or a 
"Gentleman's" C.  I hope to see significant improvement, but I'm not 
betting the farm on it.



At 02:42 PM 7/15/2004 +0200, Bryan Rasmussen wrote:

>In Mike Rawlin's article 'ebXML and Interoperability'(
>http://www.rawlinsecconsulting.com/ebXML/ebXML3.html) he grades ebXML on
>various aspects of interoperability.
>One of the aspects was "Common Expression" defined as "Common set of XML
>element names, attributes and common usage of those attributes, common
>approach to document structure" - ebXML didn't address this at all. One
>the main reasons is that, as noted in my opening article, ebXML's
>was to enable several existing XML approaches to interoperate rather
>choosing only one. It also tried to address a very broad scope, with
>applicability to technologies other than XML." which he gave a grade of
>If we were to suppose ebxml as the framework and UBL as providing the
>set of xml element names etc. could we then change that grade to
>closer approaching an A?
>This is based on my understanding of UBL, although not requiring ebXML,
>being designed to be ebXML compatible. If this is a misapprehension on my
>part please point it out. Thanks.
>The ebxml-dev list is sponsored by OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org> The
>list archives are at http://lists.ebxml.org/archives/ebxml-dev/
>To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription manager:

Michael C. Rawlins, Rawlins EC Consulting
Using XML with Legacy Business Applications (Addison-Wesley, 2003)

The ebxml-dev list is sponsored by OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org> The
list archives are at http://lists.ebxml.org/archives/ebxml-dev/
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription manager: 

<<attachment: winmail.dat>>

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