ubl-sbsc — archive

Re: Comments to UBL SBS and UBP by JPLSC

From: Stephen Green
To: [email protected]
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2006 19:57:00 -0000

MHonArc v2.5.0b2 -->

ubl-sbsc message

Subject: Re: Comments to UBL SBS and UBP by JPLSC

From: "Stephen Green" <[email protected]>
To: "Yukinori Saito" <[email protected]>
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2006 20:57:09 +0100

Greetings Saito San,

I have created a draft set of UBL 2 SBS schema files with content which
adds many of the features very kindly suggested by JPLSC and these can be
found as attachments to the archived email (publicly available) here:

http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl-sbsc/200607/msg00004.html

I have submitted the JPLSC comments related to the SBS to the SBSC;
many thanks:

http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl-sbsc/200607/msg00003.html

Many of the comments, especially those which are related as indispensible
and semi-indispensible, seem to add obvious value to the SBS. There has to
be a balance between this added value and the intrinsic value of keeping the
SBS for UBL 2 as close as possible to that for UBL 1.0 (so that mapping back
to UBL 1.0 results in minimal loss of information for UBL instances, etc).
I note particularly though that adding PartyIdentification/ID was found to
be necessary to Denmark's scenario examples among others too so this
is an example of a much needed further subset development. Adding the
BuyerItemIdentification to Item is another BIE that could be added with little
implementation burden. An aspect of adding to the subset is notable - that
it involves placing a requirement on ALL implementers of the SBS, it being
a part of the normative SBS business rules that the subset is the minimum
that MUST be implemented. One could add further BIEs by trading agreement
for certain situational requirements without breaking SBS compatibility but
one cannot eliminate BIEs with the same compliance. However, where there
is an obvious value to be added to the SBS and its implemenations through
the inclusion of certain well considered extra BIEs then it seems likely that
the benefits of such will outway the inconvenience of introducing differences
in content from the UBL 1.0 SBS and its implementations.

Please would you pass on to JPLSC this message along with expression
of much gratitude for your comments, on behalf of the UBL SBSC.

I hope we can follow through with JPLSC's valuable and very welcome comments
to improve the relevance of the SBS to the needs of small (and medium)
businesses and enterprises around the globe.

I would very much welcome any further comments as we move towards
the content aspects of the UBL 2 SBS.

All the best

Stephen Green
co-Chair UBL Small Business SubCommittee

On 07/07/06, Stephen Green <[email protected]> wrote:
> Thanks Saito San
>
> I'll bring this up on the SBSC list then. If we do produce an
> SBS for UBL 2, maybe you'd like to cooment then too on
> how much we adapt it to ECOM requirements.
>
> On behalf of SBSC then, I'd give much thanks to all who've
> contributed to these comments.
>
> All the best
>
> Stephen Green
>
> On 07/07/06, Yukinori Saito <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Dear Stephen Green,
> > Thank you very much for your reply.
> > I understand your answers.
> > I don't know whether SBSC will develop next SBS version (for example: V2.0)
> > or not.
> > If SBSC will develop next SBS version, I think that it will be better to
> > consider our JPLSC's comments. For example: SBS business documents
> > (including reusable ABIEs) will add some BIEs which are pointed out by our
> > mapping study.
> > Best Regards,
> > Yukinori Saito
> >
> >