RE: [ubl-dev] UBL and CCTS: Improvement interoperability ?

[<Michael.Onder@dot.gov>]

Please also be aware that we in USDOT are conducting projects with the industry on rolling out the transport side of UBL.  We did a demonstration project with Limited Brands based in Columbus Ohio along with their 13 or so supply chain partners.  We are now focused on Kansas City with the business community interested there in rolling out the Electronic Freight Management (EFM) initiative.  There are 2 firms that have signed an MOU to adopt EFM which includes the UBL standards.  We have about 15 other firms in the wings that have expressed interest in doing the same thing.  It's real and we hope that it proves to be as successful as predicted.  If you want to look at more detail please refer to www.efm.us.com.  I would be glad to answer any questions that I can from our project perspective.  We have been working closely with Tim McGrath, John Bosak, and Andy Schoka.  They also can answer questions on the standards activity we have pursued with both UBL and UNCEFACT.
 
Mike Onder
USDOT
202-366-2639
michael.onder@dot.gov
 

________________________________

From: David RR Webber (XML) [mailto:david@drrw.info]
Sent: Fri 6/20/2008 12:40 PM
To: Danny Gaethofs
Cc: Crawford,Mark; ubl-dev@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [ubl-dev] UBL and CCTS: Improvement interoperability ?




Danny,

I'll provide more on the topic of what makes interoperability work -
next week - just finishing up project work here.

OK - NIEM does not claim to be 100% CCTS conformant - but it is very
close - the CCTS and NDR are essentially the same - although they have
their own handbook and derived details.

It is the same approach.  The good news is that the NIEM is live, is the
foundation for 7 agencies now (with nuclear regulatory being the latest
joining this year).

Also the NIEM/OASIS work on EDXL is an excellent example of developing
working schemas jointly with standards group.  The charter and
cooperation agreement are IMHO exemplary.

The EDXL RM is just out for public review today from OASIS
coincidentally.

As Mark says - its not just SAP doing this - there are independent
government sponsored initiatives with a global reach - such as EDXL - as
well.

Thanks, DW

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [ubl-dev] UBL and CCTS: Improvement interoperability ?
From: Danny Gaethofs <dgaethofs@yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, June 20, 2008 11:37 am
To: "David RR Webber \(XML\)" <david@drrw.info>
Cc: "Crawford,Mark" <mark.crawford@sap.com>,
ubl-dev@lists.oasis-open.org

David,
Thanks for this information but can you explain in what perspective NIEM
is different from CCTS ?
Especially in terms of enabling interoperability ?
kind regards,
Danny Gaethofs


----- Original Message ----
From: David RR Webber (XML) <david@drrw.info>
To: Danny Gaethofs <dgaethofs@yahoo.com>
Cc: "Crawford,Mark" <mark.crawford@sap.com>;
ubl-dev@lists.oasis-open.org
Sent: Friday, June 20, 2008 5:16:38 PM
Subject: RE: [ubl-dev] UBL and CCTS: Improvement interoperability ?

Danny,

You should also be aware of the US gov work on NIEM.

http://www.niem.gov <http://www.niem.gov/> 

and the GTRI - Georgia Tech Research Institute and IJIS.org that are
supporting this.

The NIEM web site has online tools for searching the component
repository and assembling and wantlist construction with XSD generation.

Thanks, DW

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [ubl-dev] UBL and CCTS: Improvement interoperability ?
From: Danny Gaethofs <dgaethofs@yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, June 20, 2008 11:09 am
To: "Crawford, Mark" <mark.crawford@sap.com>,
ubl-dev@lists.oasis-open.org

Mark,

Concluding from your replies there are only two full implementations of
the CCTS if one categorizes a full implementation as having to comply
to:
1) the use of the base data types as specified by the UN/CEFACT in the
data type catalogue

2) the conceptual and logical data model


I still have a few questions:

- In what perspective do the GDTs of SAP differ from UBL or UN/CEFACT ?
- Does it mean that CCTS standardized the logical data model ? Why can
other standard organization not develop their own data models ?
- What is the role of the CCL ? Can interoperability not be established
if one ensures there is one common CCL ?  If every standards
organization refers to the CCL and used for example the unique id in
their definitions then it is just a matter of mapping values belonging
to unique ids. Is that not what the UDEF is aiming at ?
kind regards,
Danny Gaethofs



----- Original Message ----
From: "Crawford, Mark" <mark.crawford@sap.com>
To: ubl-dev@lists.oasis-open.org
Sent: Friday, June 20, 2008 8:38:02 AM
Subject: RE: [ubl-dev] UBL and CCTS: Improvement interoperability ?

> My understanding is that UBL is the *only* implementation and
> deployment of CCTS 2.01.

Ken - this might come as quite a surprise to a number of standards
organizations, government organizations, private sector companies, and
service providors who have CCTS implementations completely independent
of UBL.
>
> >The basic naming rules (DEN) seem to be adopted by most of those
> >organizations. However what I could not find is an example of the
> >key concept that improves interoperability, the use of the core and
> >business data types.
>
> In the UBL schema set you will find CCTS 2.01 fragments with the
> UN/CEFACT copyright.  I'm unaware of any other global project using
> these schema fragments ... for example:
>
> http://docs.oasis-open.org/ubl/os-UBL-2.0/xsd/common/Unqualifi
> edDataTypeSchemaModule-2.0.xsd

Ken - The DT interoperability is just one aspect of the interoperability
of CCTS.  Yes people are referring to the base data types from CEFACT,
but much more importantly, they are doing this in the development of
their syntax neutral data models.  The DTs are the basis for both the
conceptual and logical data models.  The conceptual data model and
semantic focus are the keys to interoperability as every logical data
model is derived from a single ubiquituous data model.  The XML is a
trivial piece in the importance of, and interoperability created by,
CCTS.
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: ubl-dev-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
For additional commands, e-mail: ubl-dev-help@lists.oasis-open.org





---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: ubl-dev-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
For additional commands, e-mail: ubl-dev-help@lists.oasis-open.org





---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: ubl-dev-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
For additional commands, e-mail: ubl-dev-help@lists.oasis-open.org