RE: [xml-dev] Time to review Edifact NAD format ?

["Stephen GOULD" <stephen.gould@halisa.net>]

David - Thanks for your response - I appreciate the whole point of
EDI  was to provide prescribed formats and not allow flexibility.

Which is why you have to understand the Politics behind EDI and 
why it was driven in Australia by the Banking Industry Association
ref EDI/11 meetings 1987
http://www.halisa.net/A/U/SME/

The Politics is extremely important because Australia is the only
Country which has passed legislation call the Electronic Transaction
Acts both at Federal and State Level as part of the "Information
Economy"
http://www.halisa.net/fam/gov/loc/

This mean the Government receives "eTax" for each electronic Transaction
hence the Government has a great interest in inefficient messaging
systems with confusing Standards and sending large files eg PDF 
files on Government tenders
http://www.smeems.net/Q/AW/K/CPTWK4AC.htm

Australia has been the development site for EDI since 1987 with
18 out of the 99 UN/EDI Rapporters based in Australia
Rfe Paula SWATMAN EDI Council of Australia 1992
http://www.halisa.net/R/EDIACPR1.htm

And two Australian at the top of the Customs Co-operation Council
in Brussels for 5 years - one as the Secretary General and one as 
the Head of Administration
http://www.halisa.net/C1/Ccc1.jpg

There a number of other issues which is why a group of consultants 
formed the OIC XML CEFACT Work Gp for two major EDI projects in 
Australia that stipulate the use of UN/CEFACT and AS 4590
- one with the Ports and one with 32 Local Councils
http://www.smeems.net/oicdata/3d1.asp

NEXT STEPS

We are trying to resolve these issues through UN/CEFACT
http://www.oic.org/z/XZIG/UNCEFACT/

However we need the support from the rest of the EDI Community to 
make sure that single XML standards are created and more important 
enforced by groups like the XML developers and UBL developers
lists

Regards

Stephen GOULD
on behalf of the Management and IT Consultants 
HALISA INTERNATIONAL NETWORK

On 14 Dec 06, at 8:27, David RR Webber (XML) wrote:

> Stephen,   
> 
> Have you looked at creating a profile for NAD using OASIS CIQ?  
> Remember the whole point of EDI was to perscribe - not allow
> flexibility!!! Even the UPU acknowledges that accelerating
> computerization and modern mail volumes has resulted in reduced options
> and dependency on uni-formats.  E.g. I used to be able to address
> something to - 'Third house on the left, pass the Lamb and Flag, with
> the pink shutters and red front door, Henlade, Somerset, England'.  
> Now that comes back as 'No Post Code - address unknown' ; -)
> 
> I did forward your original message to Ram Kumar - he is in Sydney - and
> I'm sure would be happy to assist further.   
> 
> DW
> 
> "The way to be is to do" - Confucius (551-472 B.C.)
>  
> 
>  -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [ubl-dev] Time to review Edifact NAD format ?
> From: "Stephen GOULD" <stephen.gould@halisa.net>
> Date: Thu, December 14, 2006 6:51 pm
> To: ubl-dev@lists.oasis-open.org
> 
> EDI is proving to be a disaster around the world mainly because the
> Standards were formulated over 20 years ago with the driving force being
> to reduce Purchasing costs not facilitate Trade 
> 
> EDIFACT was first release in 1987 and the format has not been 
> revised hence the normal business problem of unclear instruction
> results in mayhem.
> 
> There are two address formats in the NAD Data Segment without 
> any directions to stipulate when each format should be used
> 
> With the advent of XML and the Internet perhaps it is time to have very 
> clear instructions when to use each format or just reduce it to one 
> format only
> 
> A TECHNICAL PROBLEM WITH MULTIPLE ADDRESS FORMATS
> 
> The OIC Expert IT eCommittee formed to resolve the single XML address
> for ASA 4590 has initially confirmed that the Complex version can
> replace
> the Simplex version to establish a single XML Address format
> 
> It now appears that UN/CEFACT (EDIFACT) has the same problem with 
> different options in the Name and Address (NAD) Data Segment for each
> Trade Document 
> 
> Whilst I appreciate you will not have reviewed the details of the data 
> elements and data components of UN/CEFACT, here is a link to the 
> "NAD" Data Segments and three eTrade documents downloaded from the 
> Australia TradeGate Importer/Exporter Web Site
> http://www.oic.org/z/XZIG/UNCEFACT/ZXAAECR1.htm
> 
> As you can see there will be much confusion as to whether software 
> developers should use Data Element CO58 or CO80 and CO59.
> 
> However the main problem is that software will have to be written
> to check which whether "CO58 has been used" or whether "CO80 has 
> been used thru to 3207"
> http://www.halisa.net/R/EDIFACT/edieraa1.htm
> 
> B PORT OF MELBOURNE EOI 13110
> 
> The Government Responses to Questions to the Port of Melbourne 
> eCommunity PoMC EOI 13110 indicates there is much confusion from 
> Government responses on the use of Ecommerce Standards
> http://www.oic.org/z/XZIG/tdr/BCbAAWL7/BCbAAWQ1.htm#Ah
> 
> It is appropriate UN/CEFACT to clarify the issues prior to the RFT being
> 
> published as EOI 13110 states all importers and exporters must use 
> EDIFACT.
> 
> C UN/CEFACT SUPPORT FOR TRADE FACILITATION
> 
> The Mission Statement of UN/CEFACT states it "supports activities 
> dedicated to improving the ability of business, trade and administrative
> 
> organizations, from developed, developing and transitional economies, 
> to exchange products and relevant services effectively"
> http://www.oic.org/z/FZIG/AUJS/p/C/1UCAAEB1.htm
> 
> In Sep 2004 you and I reviewed your draft eCommerce Trade Strategy
> for the Asia Pacific Region
> http://www.oic.org/A/U/
> 
> On reviewing that Strategy again, I believe the key issue for Trade
> Facilitation is the single address format within the "NAD" Data Segment 
> for all eTrade Documents.
> 
> Hence I believe the recommendations on the AS 4590 Standard will be
> pertinent to UN/CEFACT.
> 
> NEXT STEPS
> 
> What do you think ?
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: ubl-dev-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: ubl-dev-help@lists.oasis-open.org