[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [ubl-dev] Re: [ebxml-dev] Invoice message: UN/EDIFACT and UBL
Jon, If I were to attempt to reverse engineer something - the original xCBL work was based heavily on SimplEDI - that is the most commonly used elements of the most commonly used EDIFACT message formats (invoice / PO / ship notice). You can find documentation on EDIFACT SimplEDI. It's value is that is saves a lot of time mapping to the EDIFACT transactions as it provides a minimal set. Linking UBL transactions to those SimplEDI elements would probably not be too ardious - and certainly helpful for people needing to co-exist between existing EDIFACT transactions and UBL. DW ----- Original Message ----- From: <jon.bosak@sun.com> To: <ubl-dev@lists.oasis-open.org>; <ebxml-dev@lists.ebxml.org> Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 12:52 PM Subject: [ubl-dev] Re: [ebxml-dev] Invoice message: UN/EDIFACT and UBL > [aron@ik.bme.hu:] > > | This is written on the homepage of UBL v1.0: > | "The initial UBL library of data components was based upon the xCBL 3.0 > | schema library, which was itself based on the UN/EDIFACT and ANSI X12 EDI > | component libraries." > | (source: http://docs.oasis-open.org/ubl/cd-UBL-1.0/) > | > | If UBL messages (e.g. Invoice) are based on UN/EDIFACT standard > | (e.g. INVOIC message) then I suspect that there must exist a > | mapping (EDIFACT-to-UBL and UBL-to-EDIFACT). Is this mapping > | accessible somewhere? Or shall I ask xCBL experts? > > I'm open to correction from people who worked closely with CBL, > but I believe that "based on" was used pretty loosely in the > passage you quote above. It's my understanding that there is > (somewhere) a formal mapping of xCBL 3.0 to EDI standards, but UBL > has evolved so far beyond its roots in xCBL that I doubt whether > such a mapping would be very useful. The point is that UBL > inherits the relevant semantics of traditional EDI message > standards, not that there is a formal mapping to those standards. > > UBL's grounding in the ISO 15000-5 Core Components Technical > Specification together with the harmonization work currently > underway in UN/CEFACT will eventually provide a semantic basis > that should (in theory) enable us to generate the kind of mapping > you're looking for. > > Jon > > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]