eBTWG FAQ
Below is a collection of questions either being asked directly or being
voiced in public forums. The answers have been composed by the eBTWG
executives. We hope that this FAQ helps in eliminating some of the confusion
that seems to exist around the eBTWG.
If you have any additional questions, or seek more clarification, please
send an email to knaujok@home.com. The eBTWG
executives will gladly provide you with an answer.
Regards,
Klaus-Dieter Naujok, eBTWG Chair
Ralph Berwanger, eBTWG Vice Chair
Pierre Georget, eBTWG Vice Chair
Peter Wilson, eBTWG Secretariat
Where will the ebXML specifications reside?
Following the successful outcome of the Vienna ebXML meeting an agreement
was reached to allocate the responsibilities for the further development of
ebXML specifications between UN/CEFACT and OASIS. The participants have
fulfilled their commitments to create the ebXML Framework and its
specifications have been published. The question now is "What happens to all
this work?"
There are business processes to be documented and core components to be
defined. There are still enhancements required for the version 1
specifications, especially to the messaging and repository work in order to
align/migrate with other efforts such as SOAP and UDDI. The ebXML work
consisted of two blended efforts: a) technically define the XML-based,
electronic business infrastructure and, b) develop a consist method for
representing business processes. The other effort focused in the Business
Process and Core Component project teams. The first required technology
expertise, the second business expertise. The work accomplished by the ebXML
group could not have been completed within the mandated time without
participation by the OASIS experts. Nonetheless, the business components
operating within the infrastructure must be defined and maintained by the
business experts. Similar to the OASIS technology expertise,, the business
experts are the key to business components. Logic demands that both
organizations in their continuation of ebXML provide development and
maintenance support to the ebXML specifications by ensuring that the correct
domain experts, either representing technology, business disciplines, or both
are part of the effort.
Who will maintain the ebXML specifications?
OASIS and UN/CEFACT agreed, following the procedures of their own
organizations, to continue to advance the development, promotion,
implementation and interests of ebXML by:
- Jointly publishing the specifications, technical reports, and white
papers which were approved and accepted at the Vienna meeting;
- Allocating responsibility to each organization for parts of the project
and its deliverables as defined below;
- Encouraging and facilitating the participation of current ebXML experts
in the project teams identified below;
- Ensuring the effective coordination and marketing of ebXML and, in
particular, striving to avoid duplication of effort between its various
parts, by establishing a management committee;
- Encouraging joint meetings of the UN/CEFACT - OASIS ebXML groups of
experts;
- Coordinating with other relevant international organizations and
especially the World Wide Web consortium (W3C) to, where possible, align
work programs and seek to minimize the risk of divergent and competitive
approaches.
OASIS and UN/CEFACT agreed to the following division of
responsibilities:
- UN/CEFACT:
- Business Processes
- Core Components
- OASIS:
- Messaging (Transport, Routing and Packaging )
- Registry and Repository
- Collaboration - Protocol Profile and Agreement
- Security
- Conformance
- UN/CEFACT and OASIS:
- Technical Architecture
- Marketing
How does UN/CEFACT plan to progress ebXML?
The UN/CEFACT Plenary endorsed the proposed strategy for achieving its
e-Business vision at its March 2001 meeting. Subsequently, UN/CEFACT and
OASIS announced the successful completion of the development stage of ebXML
and its agreement for the allocation of responsibility for maintenance and
further development of ebXML specifications.
Under the agreement UN/CEFACT will be responsible for Business Processes
and Core Components. OASIS will be responsible for maintaining and advancing
a series of technical specifications. Jointly UN/CEFACT and OASIS will be
responsible for marketing and developing the technical architecture
specifications.
In considering these factors as well as the responsibility for achieving
the overall e-Business vision, the CSG believe the most effective way forward
is to bring together the expertise and resources of the UN/EDIFACT Working
Group (EWG), the Business Process Analysis Working Group (BPAWG), the Codes
Working Group (CDWG), and the Business Process and Core Component work from
the ebXML initiative. The result is the integration of this work into a new
Working Group, the e-Business Working Group, that will be able to address the
needs of all its users.
What is the role of the Coordinating Committee with regard to the ebXML
Agreement between UN/CEFACT and OASIS?
The ebXML Coordinating Committee is responsible for:
- Ensuring effective coordination and striving to avoid duplication of
effort between the UN/CEFACT Working Groups and the OASIS Technical
Committees responsible for maintaining or developing ebXML projects;
- Encouraging effective technical linkages between these groups by
facilitating, where appropriate, the appointment of liaisons to and from
groups who have close technical relationships. UN/CEFACT and OASIS, under
their respective procedures, shall ensure that such technical liaisons
will be members of the group they are liasing with. The MC will maintain
a registry of the liaisons;
- Initiating and developing relationships with other organizations so as
to advance the interests of ebXML and the development of electronic
business;
- Promoting and marketing ebXML;
- Progressing and resolving other issues that may arise in the
maintenance, development, promotion, and implementation of ebXML.
How does the role of the Coordinating Committee with regard to the ebXML
Agreement between UN/CEFACT and OASIS relate to other UN/CEFACT Working
Groups?
Since the agreement between UN/CEFACT and OASIS only covers the
maintenance and further development of ebXML specifications it only affects
the projects that are in direct relation to it. Because those projects are
part of the eBTWG's workplan no other UN/CEFACT Working Groups are
affected.
Organization/ Administrative Structure
Why does the adhoc group need a Chair and two Vice-chairs?
The ebXML initiative has shown that there is an extensive volume of work
to be done by a volunteer leadership. By having a leadership team three
strong, the work can be split in a better manner. Further, the idea by the
CSG was to have ebXML, EWG and ASC X12 members as significant international
players in this environment, appointed by UN/CEFACT's leadership team to
ensure that those three constituencies are well represented.
Why does the adhoc group need an Executive Committee, Steering Committee
and Plenary?
Based on past experience, an activity which works virtually between
meetings, as well as meeting 3 to 4 times a year, needs a team that supports
the activities between meetings. A steering committee is too large to be
effective intersessionally in addressing all operational and managerial
issues. An Executive Committee allows issues to be addressed quickly
intersessionally. (The same model has been applied to the EWG in terms of its
current management structure and operating procedures.) In addition, the CSG
feels that an Executive Committee, dealing only with non-technical,
managerial issues, will free the project team leads from such items and allow
them to concentrate on technical work.
Why does the CSG plan to appoint the Chair and Vice-chairs?
The CSG is doing its utmost to work at the speed required to meet
international demands for global standards, yet at the same time slow enough
to communicate and consult with the user community. This is a difficult
balance to get right. Move too slow and we are criticized for missing
opportunities that other organizations are willing to pick up. Move too fast
and there is the accusation is that no one is consulted. It is felt that if
CSG appointed three representative officers to work closer with the user
community and ensure that work items are continued then this could be
achieved in a better manner. The three officers are only for the adhoc group.
Once the full ebWG is approved then there will be a full election process and
the officers and their number is up to the ebWG election process.
Why does the adhoc Chair appoint a member of the group as
secretariat?
This is common practice to all UN/CEFACT working groups, adhoc or
permanent, when no UN/CEFACT secretariat resources are available. In the
present instance, the UN/CEFACT secretariat has indicated that no additional
resources are available to support this work.
Why does the adhoc group have a 3-level membership structure?
Over the last few years many UN/CEFACT delegations have asked for its
working groups to include a virtual membership that does not require meeting
participation. Members of the CSG have seen this membership category be
highly effective in similar working environments. Realizing the importance of
this initiative and listening to the desires of the UN/CEFACT delegations,
the CSG proposed the use of a 3rd level of membership to the current member
and observation levels.
What is meant by "UN/CEFACT's Open Development Process" and how will it
work?
UN/CEFACT's open development process is designed to involve all materially
interested parties in the creation and evolution of Technical Specifications.
UN/CEFACT s goal is to produce specifications that are timely, technically
excellent, implementable on any platform, and relevant both to industry
participants and to end-user communities.
UN/CEFACT's open development process is not revolutionary. It is
evolutionary because it builds upon specification development processes
already used by industry consortia and standards developing organizations.
Perhaps the most unique feature of this process is the use of iterative
refinement and web-wide participation to build international consensus. The
premise is that people are usually much better at reviewing and criticizing a
specification than they are at compiling a requirement list and writing a
first working draft. UN/CEFACT's Working Groups delegate that important task
to a small, dedicated editing group that works with recognized experts. That
first working draft is then refined in three steps. First, working group
experts and implementers review and comment on it. When this group reaches
consensus, UN/CEFACT makes the second working draft available for public
review at their web site, open to anyone. As comments are received, the
editors update the working draft and republish it at UN/CEFACT s web site
until broad consensus is achieved. The final step is to verify the working
draft via at least two independent implementations that will identify any
technical problems. Once the validation review is concluded, UN/CEFACT will
publish the Technical Specification on their web site, open to anyone with
access to the Internet. For more details see TRADE/CEFACT/2000/22
(UN/CEFACT's Open Development Process for Technical Specifications) and the
User Guide to UN/CEFACT's Open Development Process for Technical
Specifications. In keeping with the United Nation's mandate, the technical
specifications should also be provided to those who do not have web
access.
Work items/deliverables
Is the adhoc working group taking on EWG deliverables?
No. The deliverables of the adhoc group are those UN/CEFACT agreed to take
on in order to continue the work on ebXML. However, those deliverables also
reflect the requirements for new development from the EWG and as such should
be completed in the most appropriate forum. No resources will be available to
the EWG for new development, therefore, the adhoc group truly is the
appropriate forum for this work. No ebXML deliverables were ever part of the
approved work program of EWG.
What is the status of the ebXML Core Components Specification?
Not only was the work program of the ebXML CC team very aggressive, but it
also addressed a technical area of complexity which many have tried before to
resolve but failed. The end result being that instead of having produced
ebXML specifications at the end of phase one, nine technical reports were
produced. These reports form the foundation for the CC work under UN/CEFACT.
The top priority is to advance the technical reports to specifications
utilizing the UN/CEFACT Open Development Process.
What are the concepts behind the proposed core components
specifications?
As mention above, the ebXML Core Components Specifications are not final.
However, over the last eighteen months the following concepts have emerged.
ebXML Business Collaboration Knowledge is captured in a Core Component
Library. The CC Library contains data and process definitions, including
relationships and cross-references, as expressed in business terminology that
may be tied to an accepted industry classification scheme or taxonomy. The
Core Component Library is the bridge between the specific business or
industry language and the knowledge expressed by the models in a more
generalized context neutral language. In those models both Business
Information Objects and business documents are composed from Core Components,
re-usable low-level data structures.
Are the key deliverables of the adhoc group in direct conflict with the
work program of the EWG?
This point could be debated endlessly and still miss the most important
issue. Everyone concerned - CSG, EWG, ebXML experts - wants to ensure that
the work of UN/EDIFACT and ebXML come together under one forum. Ideally this
would happen in one step, with the establishment of ebWG, but this is not
possible because the time required to undertake a proper consultation process
was underestimated. Therefore a two step approach has been suggested, with
the recommended establishment of the adhoc group as the bridge. However, the
end result, once consultation has taken place to ensure the best way of doing
it, is still to have one group where both EWG and ebXML deliverables come
together. In the relatively short intervening period (before the ebWG is
established), it makes sense for the adhoc group to work on ebXML related
deliverables and the EWG to work on UN/EDIFACT deliverables.
What about the work of the Joint Core Components team?
For the reasons given above it makes sense for UN/EDIFACT related
deliverables to be continued by the EWG (until the ebWG is established) while
the ebXML-related work takes place within the adhoc group. Invitations will
go to all of the EWG experts calling for participation in the adhoc group
work items (through meeting participation or virtual membership, or both). To
bring all the ebXML related work, which includes the Core Component work,
under a single roof is a powerful message to the broader community in that it
demonstrates UN/CEFACT's immediate commitment to having a high and dedicated
profile in this emerging domain.
There have been a few issues surrounding the labeling and the promotion of
the work since it is not normally UN/CEFACT practice to elevate one member
above others, but these issues are being resolved in a mutually beneficial
way. As to the continuation of the core component work, since UN/CEFACT's
ebXML work will be continued under the adhoc group and later eBWG, the CC
work will have its home there. Participation within the group will be open to
all those who have participated in the past, be it via the ebXML CC team or
as a member of the JCC work, or who wish to participate in the future. We are
encouraging both EWG and X12 members to join the eBTWG work in regard to core
components since their experience is greatly needed. As to possible future
interim meetings, we welcome either EWG or X12 to host interim meetings of
the project teams that will be progressing the CC work under eBTWG.
How do the JCC and UBL efforts inter-relate with eBTWG, if at all?
The JCC work was very promising. It brought together two significant EDI
communities - X12 and UN/EDIFACT - to work together on core component work.
Fundamentally this helped to provide a convergent path towards ebXML
solutions.
In regard to UBL, as termed by the CBL Organizational Committee, it is
currently a private project. There was a request by the committee to have the
work done under the UN/EDIFACT working group (EWG) as a sub group. However,
the CSG response was that the work is part of the eBWG and therefore
encouraged the committee members to attend the organizational session in
Rotterdam. Since the CSG has delayed the creation of the eBWG, and instead
formed the eBTWG, it is recommended that the committee members raise a eBTWG
project proposal for their work and attend the first eBTWG meeting in.
Is there a relationship between JCC and UBL?. That question can only be
answered after receiving project proposals from both sides of the efforts.
There is talk that the UBL work could benefit from the JCC work. It should
also be noted that the UBL work is supposed to be a short term solution
bridging the time until the Core component and Business Process and
Information Model work is concluded.
|