ubl — archive

Update on UBL and CEFACT: State of play and the way ahead

From: Sylvia Webb <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 06:38:00 -0000





Tim,
The summary information provided by Mark Leitch from the 
three day meeting did not provide enough detail for me to have a feeling of 
comfort or discomfort. A "third solution" however, would 
have a strategic and tactical impact on all of the CEFACT Permanent 
Work Groups and user community. Empowering a new team to make such a significant 
decision would have certainly been preceded by discussions 
and decisions at the Bureau and FMG level. I am interested in seeing the 
minuted details of those discussions and decisions.
 
Regards,
Sylvia

From: Tim McGrath 
[mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, August 14, 2006 10:42 
PM
To: [email protected]
Cc: 
[email protected]
Subject: Re: [ubl] Update on UBL and CEFACT: 
State of play and the way ahead


I would have to pass your points 2) and 3) on to Mark and 
CEFACT.  However, i understand that TBG1 attendees at the recent meeting 
are preparing the minutes, notes and supporting documents so it may be wise to 
await their description of events before we go down that path.

As far as 
the UBL position goes we have deliberately tried not used the term 
'harmonization' in any of our plans.  I think the activity currently 
engaged by the UBL-TBG1 group is that given as Task 3 in our agreed activites 
and next steps plan.  This is...

•    Task 3: Detailed (post-2.0 
  convergence) GAP analysis
The objective is to identify the all differences 
  between the documents in common between UBL and TBG1.  This will form the 
  basis for planned convergence of UBL schemas and TBG1 Business Requirement 
  Specifications.
So where it says "rather than 'harmonising' 
our individual outputs, our task is to co[n]verge towards a third solution that 
combines the best of the individual standards." I see that as convergence, 
so i wouldn't consider it out of scope for their brief.

However, i infer 
you are uncomfortable with this approach.  Maybe you could share your 
concerns between harmonization and convergence and why you think it is important 
to isolate the two?  It is fairly critical that none of us have different 
understandings of what we are trying to achieve.

Sylvia Webb wrote:

Tim,
I am participating in the TBG17 F2F meeting this week and will not be able
to participate in the Wednesday UBL call. Rather than make any comments
about my opinions via email, I have a few questions for you and Mark Palmer:

1) Please point me to the UBL minutes which empowered this TBG1/UBL team to
change the previously agreed task of harmonization to, and I quote, "our
task is to converge towards a third solution that combines the best of the
individual standards."
2) Please point me to the location of the public portion of Bureau minutes
where this group was empowered to make decisions concerning a solution other
than the previously agreed ones on harmonization.
3) Please point me to the location of the public portion of the FMG minutes
where the Bureau decision to empower this coordination team was discussed
with the FMG.

Regards,
Sylvia