RE: [ebxml-dev] ebXML core components derivation by restriction

[Mike Rawlins <mcr@rawlinsecconsulting.com>]

I normally wouldn't touch outrageous allegations like this with a ten foot 
pole, but since one of my e-mails is cited as evidence I feel compelled to 
comment.

Someone who works directly with the U.S. Federal Government may know of the 
odd case in which use of an ANSI X12 standard has been legislated, but the 
example offered here isn't one of them.   In very general terms, the HIPAA 
legislation only directs the government to do things electronically, and 
empowers the relevant government department to adopt a specific standard 
through regulation.  They adopted an implementation of the ANSI ASC X12 EDI 
standards, but only for certain messages related to domestic health care.

In fact, there isn't uniformity among different U.S federal agencies about 
electronic commerce standards.  ANSI X12 EDI is used for health care, U.S. 
Customs uses UN/EDIFACT (according to my last recollection), and many 
agencies use ANSI X12 EDI for domestic commerce and regulation.  However, 
several agencies consider ebXML a la UN/CEFACT to be the preferred route 
for XML implementions, while yet others favor ANSI X12''s CICA.  However, I 
do know of some Defense Department efforts that favor an isomorphic 
representation of X12 EDI.

There are a lot of people within the U.S. as well as outside of it who have 
problems with current U.S. policies and behavior.  With the degree of 
rancor associated with these problems it is especially important that 
arguments and grievances be based on facts, and not exaggerations and 
distortions.  Come back to this list with something more factual and less 
inflammatory, and you might have better luck making your case.  However, I 
still doubt that this would be the appropriate forum for your grievances.

Regards,

Mike

At 03:14 PM 8/3/2004 +0000, Stephen GOULD wrote:
>Ron -  I agree with you that there needs to be a global non-profit
>organisation "The UDEF tree structures need to be managed by a
>global non-profit"
>
>The key issue is that the rest of the world cannot afford for "the
>global non-profit organisation" to be US based.
>
>The recent deceitful behaviour by the US with the Australia-USA Free
>Trade Agreement [Aus-USA-FTA] has shown that the US intentions
>are about electronic imperialism and the US uses Standards
>to generate revenue for US companies and US companies only
>
>The deceitful behaviour is that:
>
>1       the US negotiated a Treaty while not disclosing in the treaty
>         with a major ally (Australia) that the US had passed legislation
>         that proved the US was implementing non-ISO standards so
>         that US companies could generate income from acting as
>         Agents for"Document re-formating and re-routing"
>http://www.oic.org/z/FZIG/A/ds/611BACE1.htm
>
>2       The US is using the Fear Factor of "Defence against Terrorism"
>         to co-erce allies into signing these agreements
>
>3       while at the same time aiding and assisting the Zionist
>         Government to provoke Terrorism
>
>BACKGROUND
>
>In 1991 I spent 3 months with the European Aerospace Association
>[AECMA] discussing how to facilitate the exchange of information
>between stake-holders in the Eurofighter Collaboration
>http://www.halisa.net/9/9EAECFD1.gif
>
>These meetings were supported by the Australian Trade
>Commission with discussions on CALS
>http://www.halisa.net/C1/Austr91.jpg
>
>15 years down the track the US is legislating for the US ANSI-X12
>Standards while the rest of the world moves towards ISO Standards
>which are supposedly supported by the US.
>
>Ron - a large number of people around the world are donating a lot
>of time, effort and resources while the US is being very deceitful.
>
>NEXT STEPS
>
>I look forward to a simple explanation as to why:
>
>1       the US is legislating for ANSI-X12 Standards while
>
>2       participating on ISO Standard committees like UN/EDIFACT and
>
>3       negotiating Free Trade Agreements that do not reveal what
>         standards will be used in Electronic Commerce
>
>Regards
>
>Stephen GOULD
>Chair - Management Committee
>XML & E-commerce Special Interest Group
>OPEN INTERCHANGE CONSORTIUM
>
>E:      sggould@oic.org
>T:      {61}(2) 9953-7412
>W:      http://www.oic.org/3a4a.htm
>
>
>On 30 Jul 04, at 11:05, Schuldt, Ron L wrote:
>
> > Fred,
> >
> > <Ron>How much lag time is possible between the time an extension is
>requested and it gets approved by TBG17? Does the TGB17 Working Group
>meet periodically to review proposed extensions or is it an ongoing 
>process? If
>they meet periodically, what is the frequency? Are the procedures and 
>decision
>criteria published somewhere? Where is the current library of CCs and BIEs
>published?</Ron>
> >
> > <Fred>TBG17 now has telecons every week. As a matter of fact yesterday,
>during our mail-conversation we had one. The group is building up its 
>procedures,
>by assessing the first (eight?) submissions from industry groups. As all 
>this stuff
>is new to everybody we must find the best way by just doing it. After next 
>week
>we'll have a full week F2F. We envisage it is ongoing work and we hope by
>finetuning the procedures and learning from people like you who have 
>experience
>in ontology-engineering in the future to automize (or at least do an 
>automatical
>pre-assessment of) most of the work. Both the draft procedures and the 
>first draft
>list of CC's have been published in the UN/CEFACT community. Please contact
>Alan Stitzer (Alan.Stitzer@marsh.com) who is leading the project.</Fred>
> >
> > If a health and medical organization submits proposed extensions, does
>TGB17 intend to consult neutral third party subject matter experts in the 
>health
>and medical field who are also knowledgeable of the total current content 
>in the
>CCs and BIEs library and therefore will assure all users that there is no 
>conflict?
> >
> > IMHO, the task that TGB17 is beginning to undertake will soon require the
>support of automation (software and an underlying database) and a solid
>ontology and a commitment from neutral third party subject matter experts in
>order to populate the library with artifacts that do not conflict with 
>each other. I
>also believe that the library needs to have a structured ID (like a Dewey 
>Decimal
>ID) or the library will soon become useless due to its size.
> >
> > The UDEF is an approach that could satisfy all of the above 
> requirements - an
>ontology that is relatively simple to understand and can be easily mapped to
>CCTS, software (that invokes a workflow that ties in to subject matter 
>experts
>and provides an initial screening for conflicts) and a database that helps 
>prevent
>semantic collisions within the ontology, and a built-in structured ID that 
>provides
>an indexing mechanism that computers can use across the globe. The ID uses a
>syntax very similar to an IP address (number.number.number) that computers
>can handle quite readily and that can leverage DNS technology to convert 
>the ID
>to a name or vice versa.
> >
> > The UDEF tree structures need to be managed by a global non-profit. At 
> this
>point in time, the global non-profit that would take responsibility for 
>managing the
>UDEF tree structures has not been selected. Is TGB17 possibly interested in
>becoming that global non-profit? If so, I will share the specification 
>that was
>developed by the aerospace industry that details the requirements that the 
>global
>non-profit must do in order to allow the "library" (global registry) to 
>succeed.
> >
> > 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

---------------------------------------------------------------
Michael C. Rawlins, Rawlins EC Consulting
www.rawlinsecconsulting.com
Using XML with Legacy Business Applications (Addison-Wesley, 2003)
www.awprofessional.com/titles/0321154940