Post on 25-Feb-2016
description
Proposal for aRevised
Technical Framework for UN/CEFACT
1
REVISED TECHNICAL FRAMEWORK PROPOSAL
Requirements
2
3
The current market• Surveys, analysis and experience suggests:– Many established communities not using UN/CEFACT
standards consistently– Situation is too fragmented to change
• Then and now…– UN/EDIFACT = single SDO (UN/CEFACT)– XML = many SDOs (W3C, OASIS, ISO, IEC, GS1)
• UN/CEFACT is not the sole arbiter of XML standards for eBusiness– No ‘one’ canonical standard will work
What Standard(s) Can We Achieve?• One Standard to Rule them All– Centralized– Global agreement– Is my invoice everyone’s invoice?
Or• Islands of standardization– Foundational semantics – Satisfying different communities of use– Using specific EDI or XML formats– Transform between different formats– Needs coordination
• Fragmented Standards– Who wins?
• Coordinated Standards– Common semantics– Federated approach
The Options Before Us
• One Standard– Who decides?– What do they decide?– When do they decide?
6
The opportunity for UN/CEFACT• Someone needs to facilitate the interoperability
between these communities.• UN/CEFACT can have that role– Standardize what can be agreed, to improve
interoperability– ‘core’ processes, structures, components and data
types (including code lists).– Allow communities to re-use these in their
environments.
7
The role for UN/CEFACT• A forum for coordinating a framework for
interoperability for trade facilitation and eBusiness– Ensure everything is done, but …– Not to do everything
• Facilitators not owners• Support disparate community implementations• Build bridges not walls
How do we do this?
Restructure what we have
• Agree on what the ‘end game’ should be:– What an effective framework for UN/CEFACT deliverables
would look like.• Plan how to reach the ‘end game’– Who does what– Stop doing things that don’t fit this plan
• Manage the completion of these projects– Get the right resources
• Manage expectations– Communicate value
REVISED TECHNICAL FRAMEWORK PROPOSAL
Interoperability
9
summary• (proposed) Revised Technical Framework:
• Standardize on semantics not syntax or formats• UN/CEFACT ‘core’ semantics establish foundation for interoperability• Communities of use create their own implementations
• Process, components, structures, documents and syntax• Statement of conformance• Registry of conformant specifications published by UN/CEFACT
• UN/CEFACT is a facilitator of interoperability between communities
• Impact on programme of work:• UN/CEFACT projects will develop…
• Profiles for business processes• Business requirements, rules and semantics
• Published as Deliverables for Information• Recommendation for use of standards
• Communities of use develop …• Implementation profiles
• business requirements, rules and semantics and syntax 10
Framework for Interoperability
• For us its all about information exchange• The ability of two or more systems or
components to exchange information and to use the information that has been exchanged
• Requires mutual agreement on several levels
Legal Interoperability
Legislative Alignment
Organizational Interoperability
Organization/Process Alignment
Semantic Interoperability
Semantic Alignment
Technical Interoperability
Interaction & Transport
Political Context
Interoperability levels
Legal Interoperability
Legislative Alignment
Organizational Interoperability
Organization/Process Alignment
Semantic Interoperability
Semantic Alignment
Technical Interoperability
Interaction & Transport
Political Context
Requirements forInteroperability
International Laws
WTO/UN recommendations
agreed business processes
agreed components
agreed documents
agreed syntax
Trade Agreements
Requirements for Trade Facilitation
agreed messaging protocol
Trade FacilitationRecommendations
Facilitating Interoperability in Trade
EDIFACT and XML expressionsOf the models
Legal Interoperability
Legislative Alignment
Organizational Interoperability
Organization/Process Alignment
Semantic Interoperability
Semantic Alignment
Technical Interoperability
Interaction & Transport
Political Context
Requirements forInteroperability
International Laws
WTO/UN recommendations
‘core’ business processes
‘core’ components
‘core’ structures
Trade Agreements
Requirements for Trade Facilitation
messaging protocols
Trade FacilitationRecommendations
The role for UN/CEFACT
UNECE Recommendations
Generic reference models for business processesGeneric semantic data models Generic semantic data structure models
EDIFACT and XML
Interoperability Framework
UN/CEFACT Publications
Legal Interoperability
Legislative Alignment
Organizational Interoperability
Organization/Process Alignment
Semantic Interoperability
Semantic Alignment
Technical Interoperability
Interaction & Transport
Political Context
International Laws
WTO/UN recommendations
‘core’ business processes
‘core’ components
‘core’ structures
EDIFACT and XML expressions
Trade Agreements
messaging protocols
Trade FacilitationRecommendations
Requirements for Trade Facilitation
[ODP] UN/CEFACT deliverables for informationDeliverables that support how one or more Business Standards and/or Recommendations shall be implemented
1. Union of all usages(A,B,C,D,E,F,G)
2. Designed set(A,C,F,Z)
communitycommunity
community
AB C
D
EF
G
AC
Z
F
Everything everyone wants:X complex to understandX complex to maintain
(harmonize) enables compliance of
legacy/current solutionsX compliance does not ensure
interoperability
What we think everyone needs:X creates yet another standardX challenges compliance of
legacy/current solutions compliance ensures interoperability
commuity
Defining the ‘core’
3. Intersection of all usages(F)
F
4. Intersection of common usage(B,C,F,G)
B
CF
G
What everyone uses: simple to understand easier to maintain encourages compliance of
legacy/current solutions• compliance ensures
(limited) interoperability
What many use: still simple to understand• harder to maintain (harmonize) enables compliance to subsets by
legacy/current solutionsX compliance does not ensure
interoperability
can evolve towards
Defining the ‘core’
International Laws
WTO/UN recommendations
‘core’ business processes
‘core’ components
‘core’ structures
Trade Agreements
messaging protocols
Trade FacilitationRecommendations
Requirements for Trade Facilitation
Core Interoperable Foundation Library
Based on standard
repository schema
syntax expressions of models
EDIFACTXML
Published in
18
The Core Interoperable Foundation Library
communities of use…• Trading environments around specific:
– business domains,– industry groups, – governments,– regions, – technologies or – commercial service models
• Communities contain smaller communities• No organization exists in only one community
– members overlap– communities form webs not hierarchies
• They are identified by context– requirements defined by business rules
• May support disparate implementations by members19
communities specify their ownimplementation guides
• Business processes– Establish context of use
• Document requirements– Invoice, Freight Invoice, Utility Invoice, Bill, etc, etc.– Process determines function NOT name of document
• Business rules (incl. code lists)– “In cases when invoices are issued in other currencies than the national currency of the seller,
the seller may be required to provide information about the VAT total amount in his national currency.”
• Syntax – EDIFACT, X12, ASN.1, XML
• Formats– XML vocabularies (UBL, GS1, OAGi, XBRL, ISO20022)
20
Used in
Used in
Used in
Used in
‘core’ ‘community of use’
business processes
components and code lists
structures
syntax expressions
creating a ‘core’ semantic referencefor eBusiness
21
Communities define ‘common’
‘common’ to the insurance community
(B,F,G)
‘common’ to the CBRA community
(F,G,C)
‘common’ to the procurement community
(B,F,C)
Insurancecommunity
Insurancecommunity
Insurancecommunity
AB
F
G
Customscommunity
CBRAcommunity
Single windowcommunity
C
EF
G
Procurementcommunity
Procurementcommunity
Procurementcommunity
B C
D
F
Governance Communities Implementations
Agriculture Domain
UN/CEFACT
communities may have different implementations
Cross BorderAgriculture domain
Core Interoperable Foundation Library
Conformanceto core semantics
Conformanceto community semantics
23
assurances of conformity
• Sample:– “This specification is in conformity to the UN/CEFACT
Core Interoperable Foundation Library in that it uses the following generic components…
– All new components introduced in this specification are defined in reference to these generic components and are consistent with them.”
• Communities issue statements of self conformance– no certification
• It is assumed that the industry will police itself and that most communities will determine that it is in their own best interests to make truthful and accurate claims.
24
registry of community specifications
IVI Consortium
IMS Global Learning Consortium
European Commission Joinup Registry
Community Specifications
25
ISO 20022 Registry
26
Towards Sustainable Collaboration Contributing to Global Trade
International Supply Chain Reference Model
Services supporting Global Supply Chain Communities
SUPPLIER BUYER
PROCUREMENT
FINANCIAL
REGULATORY
LOGISTICS
Malaysian Single
Window
Korean Single
Window
INTTRAGTNexus
ARIBAGS/1
STANDARD CHARTERED
HSBC
Information sharing based on foundation of UN/CEFACT semantics