Status of Collaboration with UNCEFACT Tim Mc Grath

Status of Collaboration with UN/CEFACT Tim Mc. Grath UBL Plenary Stockholm Sept 24 2007

UN/CEFACT/OASIS Cooperation Agreement • Paragraph 2 c: "The parties will appoint representatives to jointly develop and recommend an OASIS-UNECEUN/CEFACT project alignment and coordination plan, addressing areas of common technical interest, including: i) Harmonization of core data components, UBL, other business data entity libraries etc. ii) Naming and Design Rules iii) Mechanisms for business process specification iv) Adoption and promotion efforts for the eb. XML specifications v) Identity, addressing and e-signature functionalities with potential for interoperability across UNe. Docs, Universal Postal Union practices, and other trade facilitation ID and e-signature instances. ”

UBL’s Continuity UBL UN/CEFACT eb. XML XCBL EDIFACT XML EDI X 12

The Players – – Any agreements are between OASIS and UN/CEFACT. – Not the UBL Technical Committee – – Like UN/CEFACT Not like Rosetta. Net, OAG, Swift, etc. The UBL TC advises OASIS and UN/CEFACT as to how the collaboration is undertaken. The UBL TC does not “own” UBL, OASIS does. The UBL TC is an committee of volunteers

Collaboration Agreement • UN/CEFACT recognizes UBL 2 as appropriate firstgeneration XML documents for e. Business. • Future UN/CEFACT deliverables constitute the upgrade path for UBL. • Maintenance of UBL 2 remains with OASIS. • In the expectation that UN/CEFACT will produce its own integrated set of XML schemas within a period of three years, OASIS will produce no further major versions of UBL past UBL 2. • OASIS will grant UN/CEFACT a perpetual, irrevocable license to create derivative works based on UBL. Agreed in April 2006.

1. Recognition “UN/CEFACT recognizes UBL 2 as appropriate firstgeneration XML documents for e. Business. ” – – Need solution today = use UBL Need solution sometime in the future = await UN/CEFACT deliverables – incorporating the UBL upgrade path – – – Until UN/CEFACT offer an alternative then UN/CEFACT agree UBL is a worthy solution. A question of timing… UBL is the useable stepping stone towards a unified UN/CEFACT standard. “Future UN/CEFACT deliverables constitute the upgrade path for UBL” It is in everyone’s interest to make this happen.

2. Maintenance of UBL “In the expectation that UN/CEFACT will produce its own integrated set of XML schemas within a period of three years, OASIS will produce no further major versions of UBL past UBL 2. ” • What is meant by “major version”? • What is meant by an “integrated set of XML Schemas”?

UBL Major Versions • A major version is one that breaks backward compatibility with a previous version. • In UBL, compatibility means validation by XML schema. – If a document created with a previous version is not valid according to the new version’s XML schema then the new version is a major release. • For example, version 3. 0, 4. 0, 5. 0, etc. . – If a document created with a previous version is valid according to the new version’s XML schema then the new version is a minor release. • For example, version 2. 1, 2. 2, 2. 3, etc. .

UBL Minor Versions “Maintenance of UBL 2 remains with OASIS” • Maintenance covers minor version releases: – – – New document types. Extensions to existing documents. Extensions to existing ABIEs. New Data Types. Non-normative edits: • Errata • Documentation enhancements • This includes changes to Dictionary Entry Names • The UBL TC is currently working on these for UBL 2. 1 – Targeted for released in 2008

3. Deliverables “In the expectation that UN/CEFACT will produce its own integrated set of XML schemas within a period of three years…” – A set of documents that cover the Buy-Ship -Pay process supported by UBL – – – Not an integrated set. – Cross Industry Invoice, e-Tendering documents, etc Single process design, not integrated. Version synchronization – – – Functionally equivalent and stable The current UN/CEFACT candidate releases of XML schemas… – – i. e. a legitimate alternative to UBL All documents must be at the same release level. Needs to be completed before April 2009.

4. Intellectual Property “OASIS will grant UN/CEFACT a perpetual, irrevocable license to create derivative works based on UBL. ” • OASIS are not transferring IPR. – UBL will continue to exist as an OASIS Technical Specification. – The UBL Technical Committee may continue to exist as an OASIS Technical Committee. • Maintenance and support.

This means… • If you want a solution today then use UBL. • Adopting UBL is not contravening UN/CEFACT’s strategic direction. • UBL is a stepping stone towards a unified UN/CEFACT standard. • You can use UBL for today and for tomorrow.

Convergence Status

CEFACT Plenary (Shareholders) Bureau (Board of Directors) Forum Management Group (Board of Management) TMG (CCTS, UMM) TBG (1 -19) ICG Permanent Groups (Corporate Divisions) ATG (1 -2)

Organizational Structures CEFACT Plenary (Shareholders) Bureau (Board of Directors) OASIS Membership (Shareholders) Board (Board of Directors) Forum Management Group (Board of Management) Technical Committees (Corporate Divisions) Permanent Groups (Corporate Divisions)

Joint Statement from Previous Forum • At the UN/CEFACT Forum in Dublin (26 -30 March 2007), work continued to foster integration on a common set of electronic business document standards based on the input and experience of UBL. This involved constructive meetings with working groups focused on harmonization, supply chain, e-procurement, egovernment and technical methodologies. • A cross-domain project has been approved to further review public sector e-procurement requirements, providing a path for input from an envisaged workshop on "Implementation of electronic public procurement in Europe" (CEN/ISSS WS/e. PPE). This will include profiles developed in the context of implementations of UBL in Northern Europe and Spain. • We see the first candidate release of UN/CEFACT's Cross Industry Invoice schema as an opportunity to further this collaboration

Work Areas • The major issues to be resolved in planning for a transition of UBL to UN/CEFACT are: – – – Library convergence Domain-specific work items Schema design (NDRs) Code Lists Production Strategies

Library convergence

Core Component Library • TBG 17 interpretation has problems: – Outlined at Dublin Forum meeting. – Next slides • If we change our submission: – They would not be UBL – What would we achieve? • Need a reasoned debate about the technical merits of the different approaches and reach a consensus. – Schedule meeting this week

Core Component Library • TBG 17 – Harmonization. • UBL and UN/CEFACT are attempting to converge our two efforts into a "best of breed" solution. – Converge the UBL library with the CEFACT library. • UBL has defined requirements for the CEFACT library to support the Business Information Entities of UBL. – Submitted in April. • Reached an impasse: – “technical errors”. – differences in interpretation of CCTS.

Design Differences TBG 17 UBL Qualifiers for ABIEs Always used Not used Cardinality of BCCs Allows repeating occurrences of certain types of BCC Normalized (except translations of text) How this affects BBIEs Used for number of different BBIEs and also occurrences of each BBIEs may be the same or restrict occurrences Qualifiers for Association Property term used for role. Adds role or context to property Special Property Terms Identification. Identifier Keep it simple Context Levels for CCs Less context in UBL Geographical Coordinate. Latitude. Measure and Geographical Coordinate. Longitude. Measure Location Coordinate. Degrees. Measure Generalize CCs where their structure and value domain are the same “ Tax. Jurisdiction. Text Tax Scheme. Address “ Charge. Indicator Party. Details Customer Party. Details More context in UBL Suggestion Extensions are new ACCs (that include intension ACC)

CCTS Differences Truncation of Property Terms UBL TBG 17 Currency Code Currency. Code Object Class + Property Term gives meaning Representation term (or associated Object Class) only defines the presentation (what it looks like) Object Class + Property Term + Representation Term (or associated Object Class) gives meaning Country. Name. Text Property Term is not the same as the third part of the name. Secondary Representation Terms Name is a legitimate representation term

Domain-specific work items

Supply Chain Documents • “International Supply Chains consist of integrated and coordinated flows of information, goods & payments” • Source: UN/CEFACT International Supply Chain Reference Model • TBG 14 – Business Process Modelling – Incorporate UBL process models as part of International Supply Chain Reference Model. – Opportunity for accepting products not developed using UMM

e. BGT Initiative • electronic Business, Government and Trade – A new support team for the FMG • Bring together end-to-end global core of interoperable standards for buy-ship-pay model in support of e-business, e-government and e-trade – stage one (three months): Stockholm (this week) • launch projects on core deliverables and tools – stage two (six months): focus on priority developments – stage three (three months): triage review of progress – stage four (three months): focus on demos / case studies – stage five (three months): evaluate / formulate next steps

Government, Business & Trade?

UBL for Government • OIOUBL – subset based on UBL (buy, ship, pay) • NES – subset based on UBL (incorporating OIOUBL) (buy, ship, pay) • CODICE – extension of UBL (EU e-tendering) • CEN/ISSS WS/BII – UBL candidate core components for UN/CCL – NES and CODICE documents based on candidate core components – Interoperable with OIOUBL/NES and CODICE • UN schemas for Government e-procurement (e. BGT) – UBL core components incorporated into UN/CCL – customizations of CEN/ISSS documents based on UN/CCL

Government • TBG 19 – "Further review on current procurement requirements for e-Government" project. – Involves TBG 6, TBG 1, NES and CODICE. – CEN/ISSS workshop (WS/BII) kicked off May 11 th. • Strategic opportunity and a proving ground for CEFACT collaboration. – Potential e. BGT deliverable.

Government Adoption OIOUBL NES CODICE CEN/ISSS

UBL for Business • TBG 1 - Supply Chain – Cross Industy Invoice schema at release candidate stage. • Expect approval in Stockholm – Convergence for new set of BRSs covering sourcing to payment incorporated requirements from UBL (for 2008) – Agreed to revisit the approved BRSs (Invoice and Remittance Advice) for UBL input.

UBL for Business • TBG 6 – Construction – 21 schemas for tendering – Not suitable for EU requirements – CODICE is the UBL based alternative

UBL for Trade • TBG 3 – International Trade – Joint TBG 2 submission to TBG 17 – Approved IFTM BRS ? – Starting document modeling • all to be based on IFTM BRS • UBL to collaborate on Status document. • TBG 2 – Digital paper – BRS for UN/e. Docs approved • Duplicates much of the work of UBL – UN/Layout Key project • needs cooperation with TC 154 for UN/TDED

Schema design (NDRs)

Naming and Design Rules • ATG 2 – Developing NDR 3. 0 – Dependent on CCTS 3. 0 • UBL completed UN/CEFACT/UBL XML Naming and Design Rules Analysis – Submitted to ATG 2 on 9 th August – 200 rules and UBL Disposition – http: //lists. oasis-open. org/archives/ubl/200708/msg 00034. html

Local vs Global • UBL Statement: • UBL NDR now appreciates the business requirements for the hybrid approach, and we will support its incorporation into the next version of CEFACT NDRs as soon as CEFACT formally adopts it and there is support for it in a released version of CCTS. • ATG 2 response: • It is already in the NDRs and supported in CCTS 2. 01.

“Accepting” ATG 2 NDRs • Means we are comfortable with UN/CEFACT adopting the item in question – We don't disagree with it But • This represents no commitment on the part of the UBL TC – because at this stage we have no intention of producing further revisions of the UBL 2 NDR.

Customization • ATG 2 – Use of xsd: any – ATG 2 members all use some type of 'extension' point at the root level • Like UBLExtension • TMG Context Methodology – Work-in-progress

Code Lists

Code Lists • Information Content Group (ICG) – Maintain CEFACT code lists – Project for UN code list formalization • identified task to "gain understanding of genericode" • ATG 2 proposed rule [R 33] – “Reusable Code List schema modules MUST be created to convey code list enumerations. ” • TBG 17 – “What we need is a clear convention how to use ISO 3166 in CCTS u. DT and q. DT. ” • UBL code list approach is based on OASIS Code List Representation TC – TC currently being incorporated. – Uses genericode format for values. – Separates representation from verification.

Development Strategies

The CEFACT Process TBG Transport SC 3 BR S+ TBG 6 Procurement SC BR S+R RS SM M UBL Library Se nt Sen t to to TB G 1 7 TBG 1 Creates BRS TBG 1 Creates RSM BRS+RSM Sent to TBG 17 T 17 G B iss bm u rs e h Customization Usage Ot Next step Library Schemas UBL NDRs ATG 2 Generates Schema Verified by ICG ion to TBG 17 Harmonization Library

Deliverables (revisited) • A set of documents that cover the Buy-Ship-Pay process supported by UBL – A legitimate alternative to UBL • The current UN/CEFACT candidate releases of XML schemas… – Cross Industry Invoice, e-Tendering documents, etc – Not an integrated set. – Single process design, not co-ordinated. • Also means version synchronization – All documents at the same release level. • Needs to be completed before April 2009.

Different Strategies Order Invoice Catalogue Despatch Advice Invoice Tendering Order Waybill Despatch adv. Receipt Advice Parallel development UBL Near-serial development CEFACT

Goals for this week • TBG 1 – Martin, Peter • TBG 3 – Andy, Tim • TBG 19 – Adam • TBG 17 – Tim, Andy, Martin, Tommy, Kim • ATG 2 – Mavis, Mike • ICG/TMG – Ken?