"Schuldt, Ron L" wrote: > > I concur with Mike's assessment of the current situation with regard to > adoption of the ebXML Core Components Technical Specification (CCTS) > version 2pt01. IMHO the most important content (as it relates to > interoperability) in the CCTS is contained in two tables, Table 8-1 > "Approved Core Component Types" and Table 8-3 "Permissible > Representation Terms" > > These two tables specify and define the foundation keys to > interoperability. In other words, I don't care whether you are promoting > ebXML, Web Services, your favorite vendor solution or any other latest > hype, until the entire planet reaches consensus on the basic definitions > of basic core component building blocks, interoperability across > disparate applications will simply remain a dream. > > The fundamental core component building blocks include the following - > extracted from CCTS v 2.01 Tables 8-1 and 8-3. > > Amount > Binary Object (e.g., Graphic, Picture, Sound, Video) > Code > Date Time (also includes Date and Time as specialized forms of Date > Time) > Identifier > Indicator > Measure > Numeric (includes Value, Rate and Percent) > Quantity > Text (also includes Name as a specialized form of Text) > > All ebusiness related standards bodies should be reviewing these basic > building blocks and discussing the strengths and/or weaknesses and then > reaching consensus on a final set and then develop strategies for > migration of their current standards. Or, create semantic mappings from their representations to these. :) Kind Regards, Joe Chiusano Booz | Allen | Hamilton Strategy and Technology Consultants to the World > Ron Schuldt > Senior Staff Systems Architect > Lockheed Martin Enterprise Information Systems > 11757 W. Ken Caryl Ave. > #F521 Mail Point DC5694 > Littleton, CO 80127 > 303-977-1414 > ron.l.schuldt@lmco.com > > -----Original Message----- > From: Mike Rawlins [mailto:mcr@rawlinsecconsulting.com] > Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2004 8:51 AM > To: ebxml-dev@lists.ebxml.org > Subject: 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 > that > 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 > the > 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. > > Regards, > > Mike > > 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 > of > >the main reasons is that, as noted in my opening article, ebXML's > strategy > >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 > F. > > > >If we were to suppose ebxml as the framework and UBL as providing the > common > >set of xml element names etc. could we then change that grade to > something > >closer approaching an A? > >This is based on my understanding of UBL, although not requiring ebXML, > as > >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: > ><http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/> > > --------------------------------------------------------------- > Michael C. Rawlins, Rawlins EC Consulting > www.rawlinsecconsulting.com > Using XML with Legacy Business Applications (Addison-Wesley, 2003) > www.awprofessional.com/titles/0321154940 > > 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: > > <http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/> > > 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: > <http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/> -- Kind Regards, Joseph Chiusano Associate Booz | Allen | Hamilton 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: <http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/>
<<attachment: winmail.dat>>