ebXML and a proposal for a new ebWG attachements
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 11:42:14 -0700 From: Klaus-Dieter Naujok <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: ebXML Development List <email@example.com>, ebXML List <firstname.lastname@example.org>, TMWG List <email@example.com>, BL Discussion List <firstname.lastname@example.org> Subject: ebXML and a proposal for a new ebWG attachements
UN/CEFACT's Proposal for a New Electronic Business Working Group
Last week I distributed on behalf of Ray Walker (UN/CEFACT's Steering Group Chair) an early copy of the consultation paper that was being prepared for the UN Heads of Delegation with the proposal for a new working group. This group would be the home for UN/CEFACT's continuation of their ebXML responsibilities as announced during the Vienna meeting.
Since last week, consultations have gone on with the UN legal office in New York that have resulted in some changes to the original document. In addition some technical clarifications address issues that were raised by some of you. Please find attached a revision of the document that has now been sent to the Heads of Delegation and which serves as the definitive version for consultation as we progress to form the new working group.
In order to avoid any misunderstanding, I would like to comment on two specific changes.
In the original document Figure 1 showed under the CSG a box titled "ebXML coordination" representing the role of the UN/CEFACT members to the MoU/MT as agreed in Vienna. This version no longer has that box in Figure 1. The reason for this is a legal one. The chart in Figure 1 is seen by the UN legal office as purely a UN organizational chart and therefore it is inappropriate to mention only one specific technical relationship with an external organization. There are other MoU's and technical agreements that are managed by the CSG such as the ISO MoU, WCO etc., but are not part of our Figure 1. Therefore recognizing the management role of the CSG, the correct solution, for a UN organizational chart is to eliminate the box.
The purpose of pointing out this specific change is to reassure you that there has been no change in the CSG's position towards towards the agreement reached in Vienna and that there will be a very strong link between UN/CEFACT (CSG) and OASIS in order to coordinate our efforts in the continuation of the ongoing ebXML work. That is one of the main reasons for the CSG using input from the last UN/CEFACT session and from the ebXML meeting in Vienna in proposing the new ebWG. We are committed to the continuation of ebXML and coordination with OASIS to ensure success as we move towards the implementation.
The second change has to do with the UN/EDIFACT subgroup. In the original document the first paragraph ended with the sentence:
It may be responsible for developing and publishing EDI-based XML DTDs and Schemas.
This sentence created quite a discussion amongst the Common Business Language effort (now called Universal Business Language) led by Jon Bosak. It seems that the members of the CBL organization committee did not interpret that sentence as being supportive of their request to create a single standard XML syntax for common business documents.
Let me assure you that there was no attempt to ignore the effort, or not to provide an opportunity within the new working group for this effort.
Therefore the last sentence now reads:
In addition, the subgroup would be responsible for the development of a standard library of XML business grammar for XML document structures, to serve as an interim solution until the work of the BPI Subgroup has progressed to a stage to allow large-scale implementation.
In principle, the CSG is supportive of the idea as well as that it listens to the public comments made by the members of the CBL organization committee. The CSG anticipates that the UBL team will submit a project proposal in Rotterdam; this proposal is expected to include their input work and would call for participation by all interested parties. Naturally, it would also solicit additional input submissions as required by UN/CEFACT's Open Development Process.
In closing, there are some other minor changes contained in the document that were the result of the review by the UN legal department in New York. Again this should not be seen as a negative thing, but rather as a positive sign that the UN in New York has not only become aware of the effort but is also supportive of it. What more can we ask for?
Should you have any questions or concern, please feel free to contact any CSG member, Ray Walker or me directly. We will try our best to respond.
[See the revised version, June 27, 2001.]
Klaus-Dieter Naujok UN/CEFACT/TMWG Chair IONA Technologies, Santa Clara, CA, Chief Scientific Officer