MEETING REPORT - ehtsc.net.au

Standards Australia Limited ABN 85 087 326 690 286 Sussex Street Sydney NSW 2000 Telephone +61 2 8206 6000 Facsimile +61 2 8206 6001 19-25 Raglan Street South Melbourne VIC 3205 Telephone +61 3 9693 3520 Facsimile: +61 3 9693 3584 www.standards.org.au

MEETING REPORT

Committee Name UN/CEFACT Australian Delegation

Meeting Number FORUM #7

Meeting date(s) 2005-09-25 to 2005-09-30

Duration 5 Days Forum preceded by 1 day “Expert Modeller Reference Initiative”

Location Lyon, France

1.1 Head of Delegation Handover........................................................................................................................ 2 1.2 New funding and management model........................................................................................................... 2 1.3 The Australian objective with respect to attending the UN/CEFACT 7th. Forum. ................................. 2 1.4 Team and knowledge development .............................................................................................................. 2 1.5 Accountability ................................................................................................................................................ 3

5.1 Head of Delegation – Delegate approvals ..................................................................................................... 5 5.2 Modeller Reference Initiative workshop ....................................................................................................... 5 5.3 AFACT........................................................................................................................................................... 6 5.4 UN/CEFACT Bureau .................................................................................................................................... 6 5.5 Proposed Australian UN/CEFACT entry point “BizDex” ........................................................................ 6 5.6 Past Australian Delegates .............................................................................................................................. 6

7.1 UN/CEFACT 7th. Forum delegates. ............................................................................................................ 8 7.2 Individual Delegate Reports ........................................................................................................................ 10

7.2.1 Ian Watt - Head of Delegation and Chair of UN/CEFACT Modeller Reference Initiative ............. 10 7.2.2 Julie Olarenshaw – Australian Customs Service................................................................................ 14 7.2.3 Barry Keogh - Australian Delegate to TBG3 – Transport and Logistics......................................... 15 7.2.4 Steve Capell .......................................................................................................................................... 18 7.2.5 Keith Finkelde ...................................................................................................................................... 19 7.2.6 Harry Moyer .......................................................................................................................................... 23 7.2.7 David Dowling ..................................................................................................................................... 25 7.2.8 Nada Reinprecht.................................................................................................................................... 27

7.3 Non Delegate Contribution to forum.......................................................................................................... 30 7.3.1 David Dobbing ..................................................................................................................................... 30

7.4 Call for re-engagement of past delegates..................................................................................................... 33 7.4.1 Margaret Pemberton.............................................................................................................................. 33

of 37

7.5 Delegate Eligibility Criteria........................................................................................................................ 35 7.6 MRI workshop – Open Invitation: ............................................................................................................. 35

Objectives of UN/CEFACT forum participation

1.1 Head of Delegation Handover This was the first UN/CEFACT forum meeting under the stewardship of the new Head of Delegation Ian Watt.

Barry Keogh the previous Head of Delegation had held the role for 8 years.

Barry was employed by Tradegate/ECA during the first 7 years of that tenure.

Tradegate had taken over what was Electronic Commerce Australia (ECA) at the point where industry support to ECA was insufficient to support the ongoing operations of ECA.

The Tradegate board made a decision in 2004 to divest further responsibility for ECA and thus withdrew their financial support to the role of Head of Delegation Australia to the UN/CEFACT forums and the UN/CEFACT management plenaries.

Financial support for the Australia delegation to UN/CEFACT was taken up on a short term basis by DCITA with a limited fund provided to Standards Australia to project manage Australia’s engagement at UN/CEFACT forums and plenaries until Q2/2006.

1.2 New funding and management model DCITA and Standards Australia commenced determination of a new model to support Australia’s engagement, participation and contribution to the valuable work of UN/CEFACT. A contribution that has the potential to enhance Australia’s trading capabil ity on the global market.

On the 31st. May 2005 Standards Australia and DCITA hosted a reference group to examine the nature of such a new model, the outcome being that the model of the RFID Association of Australia Limited, (RFIDAA), a not for profit legal entity, with directors, executive director, a secretariat, steering committee and special interest action groups, was deemed worth considering.

The newly appointed Head of Delegation Australia Ian Watt is also the chairman of the RFIDAA, having chaired and facil itated the formation of RFIDAA.

1.3 The Australian objective with respect to attending the UN/CEFACT 7th. Forum. The Australian delegation to Lyon France presented a team that covered current Australian Government and Industry projects that were either integral to the current ongoing work of UN/CEFACT ie eCert, or would benefit from the work of UN/CEFACT, ie the Steel Industry.

Australia’s Head of Delegation chaired the ad-hoc UN/CEFACT Modeller Reference Initiative (MRI) project one-day workshop. Ian Watt was nominated to the role of chairman at the 6th forum in Kuala Lumpur 3/2005, based on his leading the MRI initiative post the 5th. Forum.

1.4 Team and knowledge development A team of 8 persons was assembled and through the Head of Delegation Australia was approved to attend by the Forum Management Group.

A ninth person, David Dobbing having been previously funded to attend UN/CEFACT forums participated by conference calls as required.

of 37

Tim McGrath (Perth) representing UBL attended the Lyon forum specific to liaison between UN/CEFACT and UBL.

One of the prime purposes of participation at the 7th forum was to gain as broad an understanding as possible by as large a team as possible of the workings and value of UN/CEFACT.

Five (5) of those attending had prior direct experience with UN/CEFACT.

• Barry Keogh - Prior Head of Delegation and participant in the Transport working group

• Ian Watt - Head of Delegation and prior participation in the supply chain and eprocurement working group, now working within the Harmonisation and supply chain reference model workgroup, and also the chair of the Modeller Reference Initiative (MRI) ad-hoc project.

• Steve Capell - Team lead on tools interoperability

• Keith Finkelde - Engaged by AQIS to progress the eCert project as per the UN/CEFACT method. Keith had attended the 1999 Canberra UN/EDIFACT forum. And held a lead role in the early development of ebXML

• Harry Moyer - Contributor to the MRI initiative and is a co-author/editor of some of the UN/CEFACT technical specification.

• Note: David Dobbing who holds the role of Vice Chair ICG participated as an independent

Of the others;

• Julie Olarenshaw - Pursued interests specific to Customs

• David Dowling - Pursued interests specific to the Steel Industry

• Nada Reinprecht - Pursued interests specific to energy management, Gas.

1.5 Accountability Prior to attending the UN/CEFACT 7th. forum in Lyon the Head of Delegation (Australia) plus the 3 delegates approved at that time met with Standards Australia to ensure clear understanding of the objective of the delegation.

A follow on meeting with Standards Australia and DCITA was scheduled for the 14th. October 2005 to debrief the delegation and to plan activity leading to the 8th. UN/CEFACT forum to be held in Vancouver Canada Q1/06.

Further, the delegation had to be in a position post Lyon to support the 31/5/2005 reference group come to a decision as to the need and style of the proposed legal entity, currently variously known as ‘BizDex’ or “OSCA”. Such an entity it is envisaged would become Australia’s ongoing entry point to UN/CEFACT. It would be a joint venture by Government, Industry, Industry bodies, Universities, etc.

An obligation of the UN/CEFACT delegations is to understand the work of UN/CEFACT, and to commence to advise the Australian Government, educative and business communities on the direction and potential impact on how trade will be conducted in the future, fully harnessing the internet and mobility solutions. A further obligation is to ensure that the press is provided with accurate information to manage community expectations.

2 Summary of the Meeting:

of 37

The Australian delegation to the UN/CEFACT 7th. Forum held in Lyon 25th. to 30th. September 2005 was 8 persons as approved by the Australian Head of Delegation, plus participation on an ongoing basis by David Dobbing.

Tim McGrath (Perth) representing UBL attended independent of the approved Australian delegation. Tim held independent discussions with the UN/CEFACT Forum Management Group specific to developing a formal association of UBL and UN/CEFACT. The outcome of those discussions are not included in this report. But it is known that further discussions wil l take place inc luding a further meeting at Vancouver.

Standards Australia provided travel and accommodation part funding to Keith Finkelde of Brex (eCert project), and Harry Moyer (Red Wahoo and the BizDex proof of concept project).

Standards Australia in partnership with GS1 provided full travel, accommodation and expense funding for Ian Watt (Applied Electronic Commerce) and Head of Delegation.

All other delegates were industry, Government Department or self funded.

Of the 6 persons who presented material and lead discussions at the Modeller Reference Initiative 1 day workshop that preceded the 7th. Forum, 4 were Australians, with the Australian Head of Delegation having been the MRI chairman since the 6th. Forum.

Australians, both from Red Wahoo, are co-authors/editors of some of the more complex UN/CEFACT technical specifications.

The engagement of each of the delegate members is documented at the appendix to this document.

Feedback via the prior head of delegation is that the Australian team was well regarded for its contribution to the effectiveness of the forum and ongoing work of UN/CEFACT. Ref appendix for the report from Barry Keogh

3 UN/CEFACT Internal Structure The forums are managed by the Forum Management Group (FMG). The FMG reports through the Bureau to the UN/CEFACT Plenary.

The forums have a number of technical groups developing the technical specifications and repositories of reusable artefacts. The technical specifications are used by up to 18 Trade focused Business groups covering Supply chain & eProcurement, Transport, Leisure Industry etc.

There are a number of cross functional groups that span the technical groups and Business domain groups. The Modeller Reference Initiative project is one such group.

4 UN/CEFACT External Structure The UN/CEFACT reports through UN/ECE through to the UN.

Globally UN/ECE recognises 3 regions, Europe, The Americas and The Asian region. The Asian region is covered by AFACT and is Australia’s entry point to influence the missions to Geneva, which in turn is necessary to maintain full support for UN/CEFACT.

Currently there have been some concerns raised following an audit of the operations of UN/ECE and it is important that the ambassadorial missions to Geneva are made aware of the value of UN/CEFACT.

Australia has been pursued by AFACT to take an active presence at AFACT.

5 Meeting Detailed Report

of 37

5.1 Head of Delegation – Delegate approvals Effective forum #8 Vancouver 3/2006 the UN/CEFACT Forum Management Group in accordance with commitments made by the UN/CEFACT Plenary will provide a UN/CEFACT proforma for the registration by the Heads of Delegation of the approved forum delegates.

This proforma will inc lude provision for delegates to sign the UN/CEFACT Intellectual Property Rights Policy statement requiring that the UN have indemnity from contributors of IP to ensure that the UN could not be sued for matters arising from inc luding IP in the outputs of the UN. The future delegation delegates will carry the UN Title ‘experts on mission’

5.2 Modeller Reference Initiative workshop The Modeller Reference Initiative (MRI) was established as an ad-hoc project at the 6th UN/CEFACT Forum in Kuala Lumper 3/2005.

The objective of the MRI is to create a growing population of business process modellers skilled in the techniques, standards and technical specifications being developed and promoted by UN/CEFACT.

UN/CEFACT has an overall objective of ensuring developing countries and small and medium sized companies engage in affordable electronic trading capability.

The MRI developed its Terms of Reference at the 6th forum in Kuala Lumpur and conducted fortnightly conference calls during the 6 months leading to the 7th. Forum in Lyon.

During that 6 month period the MRI established its secretariat, a website, solic ited case studies specific to the Business Requirements Specification (BRS) including feedback for suggested improvements to the BRS. The BRS is one of the technical specifications within the UN/CEFACT Modelling Methodology (UMM).

The MRI workgroup also established the agenda, communication collateral and the facil ities to conduct the MRI one day workshop on Sunday 25/9/2005, preceding the forum.

The MRI workshop was attended by 24 persons all of whom hold significant roles within UN/CEFACT.

Of the 6 persons who facil itated and addressed the workshop group 4 were from Australia.

• Ian Watt - Head of Delegation Australia and chairman of the MRI

• Steve Capell - Red Wahoo – Chairman tools technical integration development

• Harry Moyer - Red Wahoo – co-author of UN/CEFACT technical specifications

• Keith Finkelde - eCert project

The MRI has received recognition for its work and ToR from TBG14 (Business Process Analysis). TBG14 has a strong interest in ensuring the cohesiveness of the overal l UN/CEFACT product set (Tech specifications, templates, core components library etc).

The following is an extract of an e-mail from Nita Sharma chairman of TBG14. “I personally think that this Lyon UN/CEFACT forum was much more productive. Various works that have been carried out in silos in the past are gelling together finally and we have much more co-operation from other teams to make it all happen. Lot of the credit goes to the MRI team. So thanks to the Australian team in particular. Looking forward to working with you all.“

A separate report on the work of the MRI up until the conclusion of the workshop was prepared by Ian Watt and ratified through a process of reviews and feedback by a reference group from the workshop.

The outcome is that the MRI will continue as per its original Terms of Reference.

of 37

The MRI has however identified and communicated to the Forum Management Group the need for UN/CEFACT to develop policies and procedures and to provide support to:

• UN/CEFACT standards and technical specification release management

• UN/CEFACT release change and scope management

• Project management inc luding dependency and critical patch management of the components of the UN/CEFACT product releases.

5.3 AFACT The secretariat of AFACT sought out the Australia UN/CEFACT Head of Delegation requesting that the Head of Delegation Australia to UN/CEFACT also be the Head of Delegation Australia to AFACT.

This was agreed, pending confirmation from Standards Australia and DCITA. Note: AFACT have already taken the liberty of nominating within their year book the UN/CEFACT Head of Delegation Australia as the Head of Delegation Australia AFACT

The AFACT organisers of the next AFACT conference in Vietnam October 2005 sought the attendance of the Australian Head of Delegation at the October AFACT forum.

AFACT was advised that attendance at the AFACT forum in Vietnam in October 2005 was not within current funding arrangements.

5.4 UN/CEFACT Bureau The meeting of the Bureau on the 27/9/2005 Chaired by Mike Doran included the Forum Management Group Chairman Dick Raman and the Vice Chairperson Sue Probert and the 3 Heads of Delegation that attended the Lyon Forum.

• UK - Professor Tony Davies

• USA – Mark Palmer

• Australia - Ian Watt

The forum addressed matters relating to the external review of the performance of UN/ECE and thus UN/CEFACT with the Bureau Chairman indicating the importance of the Heads of Delegation influencing through their regional bodies the ambassadors on mission to Geneva.

The recognised regions being Europe, Asian Region and the USA.

Australia’s influence on the missions to Geneva is by involvement with AFACT.

5.5 Proposed Australian UN/CEFACT entry point “BizDex” The Australian Head of Delegation discussed with the UK Head of Delegation plus a number of key and long-term contributors to UN/CEFACT the concepts of the proposed BizDex entity, modelled on the existing RFIDAA entity. The concept received considerable support with the indications that the model proposed might well be taken up in other countries.

5.6 Past Australian Delegates The Australian Head of Delegation was approached by the Vice Chair of the Forum Management Group plus the Chair to the CCTS development workgroup to reinforce the desire to have Margaret Pemberton attend at least 2 more forums whilst work on CCMA (Core Components Message Assembly) is completed. Margaret is deemed an international expert in this area.

of 37

6 Next Meeting: Vancouver Canada March 13th. To 17th. 2006.

Subsequent meetings will occur:

• New Delhi India September 2006

• Cairo Egypt March 2007

• Europe September 2007

of 37

7 Appendix

7.1 UN/CEFACT 7th. Forum delegates. Julie Olaeenshaw Director SDS Project Team Australian Customs Services Tel:+ 61 2 6275 6476 Fax: +61 2 6275 6422 E-mail: [email protected]

Barry Keogh Managing Director Eltrad Consultancy Pty Ltd Tel: + 61 3 9850 2052

Mob: 0411 282 123 E-mail: [email protected]

Steve Capell Chief Scientist Red Wahoo Pty Ltd Tel: + 61 2 9438 3700 Fax:+ 61 2 8569 0572

Mob: 0410 437 8454 E-mail: [email protected]

Keith Finkelde Principle Consultant bRex Pty Ltd Tel: + 61 403 167 224 Fax: E-mail: [email protected]

Harry Moyer Chief Business Architect Red Wahoo Pty Ltd Tel: + 61 3 9813 0873 Fax:+ 61 3 9813 0879 E-mail: [email protected]

David Dowling CEO Dowling Consulting Tel:+ 61 3 9809 1111 Fax: E-mail: [email protected]

Nada Reinprecht System Architect National Electrical Market Management Company Limited Tel:+ 61 3 9648 8777 Fax:+ 61 3 9648 8778

of 37

Ian Watt (Head of Delegation - Australia)

Managing Director Applied Electronic Commerce Mobile +61 408 431 023 Tel:+ 61 3 59431022 Fax:+ 61 3 59431023

E-mail: [email protected]

Note: David Dobbing participated via phone hook-up from Hong Kong, given his role as Vice Chair ICG.

David whilst not funded via Standards Australia pursued his understanding that nomination to key roles require ongoing participation

of 37

7.2 Individual Delegate Reports

7.2.1 Ian Watt - Head of Delegation and Chair of UN/CEFACT Modeller Reference Initiative

COMPANY REPRESENTED: Applied Electronic Commerce Managing Director www.aecommerce.com.au 0408 431 023

FUNDING SOURCE: GS1 AEC an accredited Business Alliance Partner of GS1 Australia has had a partnership with GS1 re attendance at the 6th. Forum in Kuala Lumpur and the 7th. Forum in Lyon.

This partnership specific to UN/CEFACT is founded on work conducted by GS1 and AEC during phase-1 of the GS1 lead cross industry eMessage Harmonisation initiative conduct q4/2003 to q2/2004.

GS1 contributed to AEC’s costs with AEC providing it’s MD, Ian Watt to both the 6th. & 7th. Forums.

Standards Australia & DCITA Subsequent to AEC’s MD being appointed Australian Head of Delegation prior to the 7th. UN/CEFACT forum, Standards Australia contributed the difference not covered by the GS1 funding to provide business class travel for the Head of Delegation.

BUSINESS REASON FOR ATTENDING: There were 3 primary roles that I had to undertake at the 7th. Forum.

1. Head of Delegation UN/CEFACT Australia

2. GS1 partner with the commitment to work with GS1 on enhancing GS1 membership knowledge of both GS1 GSMP and the UN/CEFACT UMM approach

3. As chair of the UN/CEFACT Modeller Reference Initiative ad-hoc project.

This chairmanship I undertook subsequent to leading the establishment of the MRI at the 6th. Forum.

In the 6 month period to the 7th. Forum I chaired to ongoing work of this group positioning for the ongoing life of the MRI, including the planning of the inaugural MRI workshop. A full day workshop to occur on the day preceding the 7th Forum

Chairmanship of the MRI workshop

of 37

Development of the MRI report to the FMG of the work of the MRI, including recommendations as to its ongoing value. The report identified matters to the FMG that are not the domain of the MRI but are deemed required to be addressed to meet the terms of reference of the MRI, specifically the global uptake of the UN/CEFACT UMM.

PERSONAL REASON FOR ATTENDING: AEC was established in Q1/96 by Ian Watt subsequent to a successful career in corporate IT, which included the opportunity to be amongst the pioneers in Australia deploying EDI.

AEC’s charter is to assist establish effective and affordable electronic trading of Australian companies both within and outside Australia.

AEC has pursued a strategy of contributing to the National efforts to achieve such an electronic capabil ity.

AEC conducts considerable research to ensure that it stays current of the developments of UN/CEFACT, GS1 and the etrading driven initiatives of government and industry, specifically industry bodies.

AEC has participated in and contributed to UN/CEFACT forums since 1999.

OUTCOME YOU EXPECTED FROM ATTENDANCE: The initial outcome was to progress the ability to assist GS1 with education of the GS1 membership specific to electronic trading to enable GS1 members to better plan for adoption.

The secondary outcome was to chair the MRI work during the forum to achieve a positive and valuable outcome.

The more recent outcome was to effectively take on the Head of Delegation role and achieve a quality handover from Barry Keogh.

PRIMARY GROUP YOU PARTICIPATED WITH: The Head of Delegation role brings with it responsibilities at the forum, specifically attending meetings of the Forum Management Group and the bureau.

My primary workgroup to date has been TBG1 Supply chain & eProcurement. David Dowling has taken over that role on behalf of the Australian delegation.

I am now primarily associated with TBG14, the work group charged with developing the Global supply chain reference model and harmonisation.

The MRI chairmanship required that I develop the MRI 7th forum report to the FMG, having chaired the full day MRI workshop.

SECONDARY GROUPS ATTENDED: None

ANY SPECIFIC ROLES YOU CARRY RE UN/CEFACT:

of 37

The following summary email describes the outcome of a meeting between Remy Marchand Vice-Chair CEN-eBusiness-Interoperability Forum, M. Henninot the Head of Delegation France, and Barry Keogh, Steve Capell, Harry Moyer and Ian Watt. I have been very happy to have this fruitful discussion with you. Also happy to have a new opportunity to meet Barry Keogh, with whom we had planned to establish an International e-Commerce collaboration some years ago. We hope that we will have the opportunity to relaunch this Australo-French initiative, which would be the appropriate test bed for a collaboration on our respective Connectors. Knowing that there is in parallel an initiative in Asia - the Pan Asian Alliance for electronic commerce PAA - our concern in France is not to boycott this initiative but rather to remind that we were the first to think is terms of global interconnections. The work foreseen with the PAA would naturally continue, but I think that with the connector approach the work would be done faster. I have seen the interesting work done for the Port of Melbourne. This is quite interesting and I will use this material for a similar work that we are about to start for the Port of Rouen. I do not know exactly at this point how we can arrange a collaboration, and M. Henninot the Head of our Delegation will certainly make suggestions and discuss with Ian, his opposite number. As far as we are concerned, we will continue our exchanges with Red Wahoo to see what can be done to consolidate and interconnect our respective tools. Best regards Rémy Marchand SRCI Vice-Chair CEN-eBusiness-Interoperability Forum 3 Impasse Carrière 13007 Marseille 04 91 31 52 21 06 26 05 23 84

AFACT - establish contact and engagement

MRI - Chairmanship

TBG14 - The TBG14 has requested support from Australia others and myself. GS1 agreed to contribute their expert modeller into the workgroup inter forum work effort

YOUR ABILITY TO WORK ON INTERFORUM TEAMS: This has been a part of my business life for some time and will continue, though the focus will now move to the requirements of the role of Head of Delegation

YOUR INTENTION RE THE 3/2006 FORUM:

of 37

I understand it is the intention of DCITA and Standards Australia that I attend the 8th. Forum in Vancouver and also the Plenary Geneva June 2006.

I have been requested to retain the chair of the MRI, but with a reduced administrative load. I have agreed to chair the next MRI workshop in Vancouver.

YOUR INTEREST IN PARTICIPATING IN THE ‘ENTITY’: I believe I have the experience to contribute significantly to the establishment of the entity should that eventuate.

I am positioning to reduce my personal load re the chairmanship of RFIDAA, through the funding and appointment of an executive director.

I have also support from the MRI to reduce my direct administrative involvement but have been requested to retain the chair. Red Wahoo has agreed to provide Harry Moyer to assist reduce my load as Chair, with Harry leading the MRI on a week-by-week basis.

of 37

7.2.2 Julie Olarenshaw – Australian Customs Service The primary reason for attending the UN/CEFACT conference in Lyon was to investigate and discuss international trade single window system developments by the countries participating in the two day TBG 15 meeting.

The Australian Customs Service is the lead agency in a whole of government Standardised Data Set (SDS) project currently preparing a government submission presenting options for implementing a single window system in Australia.

The SDS project has also been tasked with harmonising Australia's international trade regulatory data requirements into a common set.

Ms Olarenshaw presented information about the Australian project's progress to date and outlined the options that will be presented to the Australian Government later this year.

This presentation was very well received.

A group of seven TBG 15 participants, including Ms Olarenshaw, volunteered to assist in the preparations for the UN Single Window Workshop to be held in Geneva in February 2006.

Ms Olarenshaw also met with TBG 4, the World Customs Organisation representative to discuss Australia's SDS project progress as above. Attendance at any future forums, including the Single Window Workshop is approved on a case-by-case basis after consideration of a formal travel request.

of 37

7.2.3 Barry Keogh - Australian Delegate to TBG3 – Transport and Logistics

COMPANY REPRESENTED: Eltrad Consultancy Pty Ltd

REPRESENTATION I attended the 7th Forum registered as representing Eltrad Consultancy Pty Ltd – of which I am Managing Director. In effect I was representing the Australian transport industry in the Trade and Business Processes Group TBG3 – Transport and Logistics.

FUNDING Funding for this representation was partial and was provided by two sources viz., Tradegate Australia Ltd and the Victorian Transport Association. Any shortfall will be borne by my company.

BUSINESS REASON FOR ATTENDING As with my previous attendances in the TBG3 sub-group I aim to ensure that Australia’s requirements are incorporated in the outputs of UN/CEFACT. Also that no action is taken in establishing standards or procedures which could be detrimental to Australia’s interests or which would compromise the ideal of open, interoperable and effic ient electronic business.

A further business reason is to absorb as much valuable information as possible as to best and usual practice in transport and logistics from the networking that naturally occurs at these forums and to impart this information to the interested parties in Australia. This has proved to be extremely valuable to the Australian transport community and supply chain participants over the past 15 years.

PERSONAL REASON FOR ATTENDING I have a deep and abiding interest in providing the Australian transport and logistics industry with the necessary information to conduct their business effic iently and in accord with the internationally agreed standards and procedures. I firmly believe Australia’s economy and trade performance is directly affected by these activities.

OUTCOME EXPECTED FROM ATTENDANCE I expected that progress would be made by the UN/CEFACT community itself in re-establishing liaisons with other standards bodies through this Forum and this was achieved.

I expected to assist in the building of the transport and logistics input to the Core Components Library currently being developed by UN/CEFACT. This was achieved.

I had the intention of learning more of the developments in the ‘Single Window’ recommendation of UN/CEFACT and also of the UNeDocs Initiative launched in Kuala Lumpur in March. This Initiative has been incorporated in the TBG2 sub-group named ‘Digital Paper’ and which had its first formal meeting in Lyon. This work will have significant effect in Australia in bridging the gap between paper documents and electronic messages and assisting SME organisations.

PRIMARY GROUP I worked for the greater part of the week within the TBG3 Transport and Logistics sub-group representing Australia’s interests in the agenda (and ad-hoc) discussions.

of 37

As stated in the previous section of the report the work of TBG3 has direct relevance to Australia’s international and domestic trade and transport. Data descriptions, core components, message formats and data models decided within this group and used worldwide have a direct affect on Australia. Our imports are another countries exports and vice versa, so it is vital that harmonisation exists across and within all modes of transport. Transport is probably the most international of the industry sectors meeting at the UN/CEFACT Forum. Most international carriers whether in the air or sea mode are multi-national and desire to have one description and use of data irrespective of the country in which they operate. Similarly the process models follow as closely as possible the same format worldwide.

It is essential that Australia stay closely involved in the evolution of this work so as to keep in step with developments and to input its requirements. Of course over the years Australia has been a leader in this field and has initiated many of the improvements and business re-engineering that has taken place.

SECONDARY GROUPS ATTENDED I spent a half of one day in the TBG15 sub-group (International Trade Procedures) in discussions and presentations on the ‘Single Window’ activity of that sub-group. This involves the UN Recommendation to have one point of input of government or business data and having it disseminated to authorised parties without re-keying. There are examples already in place in Australia viz., Customs and Quarantine, and there are others being planned particularly in Victoria in relation to port activities and nationally in relation to hazardous cargo.

TBG3 had a number of joint sessions with other sub-groups in particular TBG1 (Supply Chain) concerning overlapping business activity with a view to ensuring harmonisation and also TBG2 (Digital Paper) in relation to the UNeDocs Project. Participated in a joint meeting with the OASIS UBL representative that promises to have a good outcome for international standardisation.

In addition I attended the ‘Lunch and Learn’ sessions each day which have proven useful in spreading information on matters of interest

SPECIFIC ROLES I represent the TBG3 sub-group on the TBG2 Project on UNeDocs along with the TBG3 Secretary (Henk van Maaren).

I am also on a number of sub-committees in TBG3 on particular projects such as Core Components and ITIGG and Ship planning Message Development Group.

ABILITY TO WORK ON INTERFORUM TEAMS Only restriction is available time and resource.

MARCH 2006 FORUM It is my intention to attend the Forum in Vancouver to follow up the work in progress following Lyon. This of course will depend on funding, as I cannot afford to fund it personally.

INTEREST IN THE ENTITY Because of my previous roles as Chairman of UN/EDIFACT, Chairman of the TBG3 Transport and Logistics sub-group and more recently Head of Delegation to UN/CEFACT, I have an interest in seeing the work continue and flourish with strong involvement from Australia.

I will assist and participate where possible within the constraints of time and resource.

GENERAL

of 37

I thought the Forum was excellent in the progress made; in it’s organisation and the positive spirit that was generated.

I congratulate all the team for the very significant Australian input – which was commented on to me on a number of occasions – and on the leadership of Ian Watt who did an outstanding and dedicated job.

I would make a special word of support for David Dobbing who, despite being unable to attend for funding reasons, stayed on a telephone link for almost all the working time of the ICG Group.

of 37

7.2.4 Steve Capell

No report received as at 11/10/05.

of 37

7.2.5 Keith Finkelde

Prepared: Keith Finkelde (bREX) Oct 2005 Version 1.0

COMPANY REPRESENTED: bREX PTY LTD FUNDING SOURCE: BUSINESS REASON FOR ATTENDING: This UN/CEFACT Forum is the major event for coordinating key document specifications, use of modelling tools and the methods for progressing through the standards development lifecycle. Key decisions on the use of these approaches across all of the UN/CEFACT efforts are now being made. Many Australian contributions have been made both to the frameworks and business examples to date. Further important decisions on the improved set of business and technical specifications are expected to be made at this meeting. bREX have been strong supporters of the UN/CEFACT approach with Keith co-chairing the local ebXML Australia project (2000-2002 in conjunction with Barry Keogh – the Australian UN/CEFACT Head of Delegation) and continuing involvement with many of the local and international eBusiness standards working groups to ensure consistency and productivity of approach. Keith’s roles include: member of the SAI CITEC , eBusiness and IT027 working groups, chair of the Vic TDL IRT BizSys PRG and member of the APCA BECS Advisory Council. PERSONAL REASON FOR ATTENDING: I had participated in 2 similar forums over 5 years ago - EDIFACT Canberra 1999 & ebXML Forum Brussels 2000. In the interim I have been using the available specifications on many client and industry assignments, and attempting to determine the status of different specifications, and the ability of the CEFACT organisation to accommodate significant concerns, remotely and from Australian attendees. The specifications have fallen into 3 main categories: - successful - obsolescent - inconsistent & too academic

• The successful (eg ebXML MS) and have been widely adopted by a range of industries (including swimEC / SuperEC, ATO and NEMMCO).

• Other specifications were less mature and have been overtaken by more widely accepted technologies (eg UDDI & the WS* Stack)

• A number of specifications have been regarded as either inconsistent and too academic and have caused significant problems in widespread ebXML/EDIFACT adoption (eg UMM , CCTS, BCF)

I expected attendance at the Forum to confirm some of these categorisations and to directly observe whether the attitude of participants (particularly the forum heads and other political players) will permit more practical approaches to work.

of 37

OUTCOME YOU EXPECTED FROM ATTENDANCE: I have assisted 3 recent activities of the domestic representation to UN/CEFACT groups – first developing the models for the Australian/AQIS and NZ/FSA to achieve approval of the eCert Project Business Requirements Specification (the only Australian submission to the UN/CEFACT plenary that has progressed this far); second to the TMG’s Modellers Reference Initiative to present findings end efficiency issues for achieving a consistency of relationships between the UMM and Core Components approaches, and thirdly using the Reference Model of the International Supply Chain in the recent Vic DIIRD/VTA Transport Benchmarking Study. The Lyon meeting was critical to the progression of the eCert specification to the next stage being the RSM document and subsequent international ratification, and will require extensive dialogue with both the international business representatives for the other participating countries (now including most of the AsiaPac trading partners), and the technical representatives who are ensuring compliance to the RSM templates. Keith will be working with the requirements models he has prepared in the locally configured UML tool, and generating target components to the RSM contents. Experience with the development of the prior eCert BRS specification has shown that this involves significant rework at different times, due to the evolving nature of the standards being set by the techniques setting working groups. Keith will be able to bring direct experience of the needs for standardisation of the specification templates, together with deeper knowledge of the supply chain needs that the AQIS regulators have, to ensure a productive and relevant RSM document is able to be submitted. This specific local experience of the development of the key UN/CEFACT specification documents for the new XML standards, will then be able to be applied to other Australian industry sectors now attempting conformance to the UN/CEFACT and Bizdex initiatives. PRIMARY GROUP YOU PARTICIPATED WITH: TBG14 Reference Model for International Supply Chain (RMISC) I had previously participated with this group during it’s formation in 1999 & 2000 where we provided guidance on the use of UML techniques for the SC modelling, how to configure Rational Rose for use and versioning and Financial domain aspects of the SC model – the work was stabilised at a high level during 2003, and is now proposed to be extensively updated with further detail. Other recent bREX assignments to the Logistics & Regulatory sectors indicates a high need for a valid Reference Model to align domestic standards and performance benchmarking efforts to. SECONDARY GROUPS ATTENDED: MRI – provided experience of BRS usage and issues for RSM improvement and better efficiency of production. Raised concerns on a number of the meta-model structures that will significantly reduce the production of compliant specifications. TBG 15 (International Trade Procedures) – demonstrated the eCert BRS and EA model outputs including how to publish in various formats (Word, HTML...). Presented a number of the artefacts and showed how the methods have been applied to prepare the documents. The presentation was well accepted with many organisations expressing interest to review the published model. Discussions were held with the chair & secretariat to aid the initial development of other BRS models and documents. TBG 18 (Agriculture) – this is a newly formed workgroup that will address common issues for the trade of agricultural products. The eCert specification will be completed within the TBG15 forum and then moved to TBG18 for ongoing maintenance. A presentation of the eCert documents and models was made – with requests from TBG18 for more information.

of 37

TMG (Techniques and Modelling Group) & BCSS - Attended sessions for the meta-model development for the linkage of CCTS to UMM and the different alternatives for UML Profiles – made recommendation for the embedded Tag style rather than the Fact Based (OAGIS Permutation Style), which has been adopted. ICG Attended the joint TBG15/ ICG & BCSS/ICG meetings to ensure that the ‘downstream’ EDIFACT groups are aware of issues for design and specifications that occurring earlier in the lifecycle. Had ongoing discussion with the chair of ICG (Mike Conroy) regarding the history of the BRS/RSM documents and their intent in the lifecycle. Discussed the same concerns raised in the MRI forum regarding the ongoing lifecycle implications for the document templates and model/tool usage. The issues raised will be communicated in a more formal manner to ensure an improvement in the productivity of specification developers –this will include the OMG/SPEM configuration for UMMx. TBG 6 (Construction) – Kevin Smith (developer of the Tendering XML) has also been an active member of the MRI, and has a number of advanced configurations for Sparx/EA that have assisted his productivity. Kevin has made many of these configurations available for use in the RMISC and eCert projects. FMG – ongoing discussions with Mike Doran & Ian Watt regarding the CEFACT structure, environmental issues and working group responsibilities to ensure that Australian involvement is well focussed. Specific issues regarding the secretariat and funding availability were also discussed. ANY SPECIFIC ROLES YOU CARRY RE UN/CEFACT: Agreement was reached with TBG14 (RMISC) to migrate the current model from Rose to Sparx/EA and for myself to act as the ongoing Model Manager. This will allow specific domain extensions such the POM Supply Chain Model (developed by Red Wahoo for the Vic DOI Smart Freight project, and the Transport Process Reference Model (developed by the BizSys PRG for the Vic TDL IRT). MRI – ongoing involvement in method review and improved CEFACT Process. TBG 15 – potential model development analyst for International Trade Procedures YOUR ABILITY TO WORK ON INTERFORUM TEAMS:

• I have actively participated remotely in the MRI forum since inception – this will continue. Particularly CEFACT Process development and EA configuration.

• Continue with the eCert team to develop the BRS/RSM. • A new role as the TBG14 RMISC Model Manager will increase involvement with the CEFACT

groups. YOUR INTENTION RE THE 3/2006 FORUM: Depending upon financial support to attend the Vancouver meeting and present the method improvements, RMISC v2.0 rollout as well as the eCert RSM approval. YOUR INTEREST IN PARTICIPATING IN THE ‘ENTITY’: Intend to participate as an active member of the formation group and ongoing entity.

of 37

COMMENTS & OBSERVATIONS: The UN/CEFACT political structure is now a much more healthy organisation. Previous observations of ‘cronyism’ that restricted a wider input have generally been eliminated – though there are still a number of pockets protecting their turf and historical ideas that have not stood-up over time. The methods are still far too complicated, academic and do not accommodate the real stages that domain experts and modeller/specifier progress through. This is causing confusion, stopping adoption and reducing productivity. A number of recommendations have been made through the MRI forum to address this. Despite the confusion and late status of a number of key deliverables (eg CC Library) – the TBG members have a genuine willingness to work together, both within their domains and across other areas of impact, and are keen to see success cases. The MRI participants have been able to express a number of their concerns regarding some of these issues and are seen to be able to work together to set a number of projects that will improve the methods and way of working.

of 37

7.2.6 Harry Moyer

UN/CEFACT Forum - Lyon Debrief

Harry Moyer – Red Wahoo PERSON & COMPANY REPRESENTED: Harry Moyer – Red Wahoo Pty LTD BUSINESS REASON FOR ATTENDING:

The prime reason for attending was to advance my understanding of both UMM and Core Component Modelling and to establish working relationships with the recognised industry experts involved in creating these specifications.

As a recognised expert in UMM modelling, I also wanted to investigate how this experience could be of benefit to UN/CEFACT.

PERSONAL REASON FOR ATTENDING: Personal reasons are the same as above. OUTCOME YOU EXPECTED FROM ATTENDANCE:

To establish an international network of peers and superiors To assist in and influence the direction of UN/CEFACT Modelling

PRIMARY GROUP YOU PARTICIPATED WITH: Most of my time at Lyon was spent with the Business Process Working Group which is a subgroup of the TMG Group. During the week I participated in the following activities:

Latest version of UMM - I worked with the team to validate the latest version of UMM and offered several points of enhancement. I also helped develop a UMM reference model to be used in the next UMM User Guide. The latest version of UMM has many usability enhancements that should have a direct impact on Australia since UMM is considered the default methodology for both BizDex and GovDex. The new version of UMM promises to make the task of creating consistent models a much higher probability.

REA (Resources, Events, and Agents) was the economic semantics methodology for UMM in the previous version. In the latest version it has been dropped due to lack of expertise in the TMG group. I for one argued that it should be returned to UMM for those that wanted to use it but not necessarily make it a mandatory feature. I agreed to work with Bill McCarthy, Professor of Accounting at Michigan State University to revive REA. In a nutshell, REA ensures that that UMM Modelling is a commercial exercise and not a technical one. The REA model from the ITOL Wheat Industry project will be used as a reference REA model.

BCSS (Business Collaboration Specification Schema) – I assisted fellow Australian and Red Wahoo colleague Steve Capell, (Chair of the BCSS Group), in the development of the BCSS specification. This specification will allow modellers to model Core Components using standard UML tools. As seen in the ITOL Wheat Industry Project and now GovDex, the lack of this specification has been a tremendous hindrance to end-to-end UN/CEFACT modelling.

of 37

SECONDARY GROUPS ATTENDED:

MRI (Modellers Reference Initiative) - I attended and presented at the formal MRI meeting the Sunday before the start of the official CEFACT meeting. This group primary purpose is modellers helping modellers in order to achieve consistent and accurate models in much less time than is currently possible. The impact of this group is that TBG should be able to produce higher quality domain specific specifications in less time. These domain specific specifications could have a direct benefit to the Australian economy. As an indirect benefit, knowledge gained from this effort should enhance UMM modelling projects hear in Australia.

TBG-14 (Business Process Harmonisation) I attended several TBG-14 meetings. Primarily, I attended meetings focused on releasing an updated International Supply Chain Reference Model. This model should make it much easier for Australia to harmonise its efforts (e.g. Port of Melbourne Supply Chain Model) with similar international efforts.

ANY SPECIFIC ROLES YOU CARRY RE UN/CEFACT:

1. During the course of the week, I was asked if I would take a leading role in the Modeller Reference Initiative Group. It was felt by team members and CFACT Management that this group should be lead by practitioners. Seeking final clarification, I will assume this role at least until the next CEFACT meeting in Vancouver.

2. During the next six months, I plan to assist in reviving REA as a specialisation module for UMM.

3. TBG-14 has asked me to be an expert modeller for their upcoming International Supply Chain Reference Model.

YOUR ABILITY TO WORK ON INTERFORUM TEAMS: Ability to work is only limited to my personal time and resources. YOUR INTENTION RE THE 3/2006 FORUM: If at all possible, I plan to attend the CEFACT Forum in March 2006. YOUR INTEREST IN PARTICIPATING IN THE ‘ENTITY’: I have worked along with my employer, Red Wahoo, for the last three years to advance the state of Australia e-business (B2B, G2G, and G2B). During this time, I have worked on numerous standards development initiatives. As such, I feel that participation in a standards “Entity” is a natural progression of these activities and passions.

of 37

7.2.7 David Dowling

COMPANY REPRESENTED: Dowling Consulting Chief Executive Officer 0414 877 496 www.dowlingconsulting.biz

FUNDING SOURCE: Self Funded (Dowling Consulting)

BUSINESS REASON FOR ATTENDING: To establish a relationship with the TBG1 group in order to establish a role in the definition of standards in the Supply Chain. Dowling Consulting are actively engaged in the definition of standards in the Steel Industry and across its client base.

PERSONAL REASON FOR ATTENDING: To ensure that Dowling Consulting continues to participate and contribute to the development of e-commerce standards with respect to the supply chain in order to ensure that Australian expertise is readily available.

OUTCOME YOU EXPECTED FROM ATTENDANCE: To understand the mechanism of the Un-Cefact forum, working groups and methodologies.

PRIMARY GROUP YOU PARTICIPATED WITH: Worked with TBG1 Supply Chain. A large emphasis on current projects is on the European Steel Industry and this is of interest to the Australian Steel Institute. The general Supply Chain standards are largely undeveloped and will require practical experience to further them. Dowling Consulting has that practical experience. Australia must be involved in the development of standards otherwise it will be left to adopt those that may be imposed or continue on an uncollaborative fashion.

SECONDARY GROUPS ATTENDED: Met with other TBG’s namely Transport, Agriculture, E-Government, Accounting, Process harmonisation, Unedocs and Construction.

ANY SPECIFIC ROLES YOU CARRY RE UN/CEFACT: Participating as a member of TBG3, Will lead the TBG1 team on Supply Chain model as a joint project with TBG14.

of 37

YOUR ABILITY TO WORK ON INTERFORUM TEAMS: Have signalled an interest to the TBG19 team established for the development of eGovernment standards.

YOUR INTENTION RE THE 3/2006 FORUM: To continue participation in TBG1 and TBG19

YOUR INTEREST IN PARTICIPATING IN THE ‘ENTITY’: Interested in a management/leadership role and as content and substance contributor.

of 37

7.2.8 Nada Reinprecht

COMPANY REPRESENTED: NEMMCO

FUNDING SOURCE: NEMMCO

BUSINESS REASON FOR ATTENDING: We have been developing in NEMMCO the electronic standards for the electronic data interchange in the energy markets including the electricity and gas. We have also been modeling the B2B and other business collaboration processes using some aspects of the UMM methodology. Further on, we have an implementation of the ebXML messaging for our Gas Hub operations.

The reason to attend the conference was to contribute in the work of the relevant selected working groups and to identify the opportunities to implement the global and open standards in the Australian energy industry, specifically in the above mentioned activities: Modeling of the collaborative business processes, design of the schema for the B2B Electricity and other systems and improvements of the aseXML standards etc. Another reason was to establish contacts with the other energy companies and investigate opportunities for the collaboration in the area of the data interchange standards in energy.

PERSONAL REASON FOR ATTENDING: Contribute in the work of the relevant working groups of the UN/CEFACT. Establish contacts and expand the knowledge in the area of the international open standards for electronic data interchange, especially in the technology component of the standards implementation.

OUTCOME YOU EXPECTED FROM ATTENDANCE: Attendance to the conference expected to provide insights in the UN/CEFACT processes, work practices and experiences relevant to the standardization of the electronic data interchange. These experiences could be utilized in the development of the standards for the electronic data interchange in the Australian Energy markets. Assess relevance and opportunities to implement the global open standards in the electricity market. PRIMARY GROUP YOU PARTICIPATED WITH: I have participated mainly in the working groups of the TMG (Techniques and Methodologies Group): Business Process Working Group, Core Components & Message Assembly working group, and Electronic Business Architecture Working Group. Along with the other activities, the Business Process Working Group develops the standard and open methodology for the collaborative business process modeling (UMM), Unified Meta Model.

of 37

Australian electricity industry has been implementing the B2B national system for the electronic data exchange. NEMMCO is involved in the modeling of the system and the design of the transactions. Some aspects of the UMM modeling framework have already been used in this modeling and there may be an opportunity to expand it and use the UMM foundation model for modeling of the future B2B transactions and possibly for the other projects in the company.

A standard for energy transactions in XML (aseXML) may benefit from the use of the core components and the standard message assembly.

In addition, the Naming and Design Rules for the XML schema (NDR) may be utilized in the development of the aseXML schema.

The translation of the business semantics and the modeling methodology into the families of the technologies including the ebXML, web services etc is discussed and will be progressed in the Electronic Business Architecture group. This can be relevant to the NEMMCO work as NEMMCO already uses one of the applied technologies (ebXML) and is investigating implementation of the web services and similar technologies for the future stages of the B2B and other projects.

SECONDARY GROUPS ATTENDED: I have also attended some of the TBG groups (Trade and Business Processes Group) and arranged a meeting with the representatives of the energy industry at the conference where we discussed a possibility to start the energy group inside the TBG. This group will deal with the information exchange standards implemented for the energy industry including the gas and electricity.

ANY SPECIFIC ROLES YOU CARRY RE UN/CEFACT: I am a member of the TMG (UMM and Electronic Business Architecture WG). I have been also asked to contribute in the work of the message assembly (CCMA) working group.

YOUR ABILITY TO WORK ON INTERFORUM TEAMS: This was my first UN/CEFACT Forum attendance and I have confirmed that I can work competently with the Forum teams.

YOUR INTENTION RE THE 3/2006 FORUM: We will assess in the company relevance of the work in the Forum for the standardization of the electronic business collaboration in the energy industry and based on that decide on further activities in the Forum. We have identified several fields of interest which we plan to progress.

YOUR INTEREST IN PARTICIPATING IN THE ‘ENTITY’: Generally, I am interested to participate in the entity but this is a subject to my company’s position. Also, more information on the terms of reference of the ‘entity’ would be also useful before making any commitments. I hope some of this information will be provided at the next meeting of the Australian delegation on 14 September.

of 37

7.3 Non Delegate Contribution to forum

7.3.1 David Dobbing

Note from HoD.

David’s contribution was via remote access. His report for inclusion in the HoD delegation report is supplemented by the ICG meeting minutes.

PERSON & COMPANY REPRESENTED: David Dobbing / Data Logistics Pty Ltd

FUNDING SOURCE: None, time and communications covered by own company, Data Logistics Pty Ltd

BUSINESS REASON FOR ATTENDING: Non-attendee, participated via teleconference. Professional obligation and integrity as the elected Vice-chair (since Sept 2003) of one of the five UN/CEFACT Groups to actively participate in and to assist with driving the progress of the Group's Work Programme. Australian nominee to the ICG.

PERSONAL REASON FOR ATTENDING: Non-attendee, participated via teleconference. Long-standing supporter and contributor to UN/CEFACT, strong advocate of international e-business standards and promotion of Australia's profile and interests in this arena.

OUTCOME YOU EXPECTED FROM ATTENDANCE: Non-attendee. Certain outcomes achieved via teleconference, please refer ICG meeting minutes.

PRIMARY GROUP YOU PARTICIPATED WITH: XML has grown from a little-known standard in 1998 into the basis for a Web computing infrastructure. Foundational e-Business standards such as those being developed within UN/CEFACT are key to wider evolution of XML. UN/CEFACT at an international level is defining the core business vocabularies and transactions, including input from the OASIS UBL community. The ICG is one of the five UN/CEFACT Groups and integral to the UN/CEFACT standardisation process with responsibilities for ensuring the release of quality technical specifications, inter alia:

* Business Requirements Specifications (BRSs)

* Requirements Specification Mappings (RSMs)

of 37

* UN/CEFACT Registry

* UN/CEFACT Code Recommendations

* UN/EDIFACT Directory Audits

A key facet of the current work is the development and implementation of the UN/CEFACT Registry, compliant with the ebXML registry specifications, for the storage and retrieval of UN/CEFACT artifacts. During Lyon meeting, all comments to V0.7 of the UN/CEFACT Registry Specification were reviewed and changes were approved for the V0.8 Release. An interim ICG meeting is scheduled, Paris 5-9 December 2005, in order to release V1.0 in January 2006 and facil itate a prototype implementation, with operation envisaged mid 2006.

Australia as a leading global economy, needs to be actively involved in influencing, defining and adopting UN/CEFACT standards to ensure its position as trading nation is maintained and enhanced through the adoption of open e-business standards that have been ratified at the international level, specifically including those developed and maintained under the UN/CEFACT umbrella. With respect to the UN/CEFACT Registry, this may give further impetus to the Australian BizDex initiative leading to potentially some form of future federation arrangement between BizDex Registry and the UN/CEFACT Registry??

UN/CEFACT Code Recommendations are widely used by trade, transport, procurement, customs, etc, inc luding initiatives such as GS1, both within Australia and globally.

SECONDARY GROUPS ATTENDED: None.

ANY SPECIFIC ROLES YOU CARRY RE UN/CEFACT: 1) Vice Chair, UN/CEFACT Information Content Management Group (ICG)

2) Web Master ICG Web site (http://www.disa.org/cefact-groups/icg/)

3) ICG Project Lead - UNCL Migration

4) Member ISO/TC 154-UN/CEFACT Joint Syntax Working Group (JSWG)

(http://gefeg.com/jswg/), Convenor of SWG4 (Sub Working Group 4 - Codes)

5) UN/CEFACT participant in MoU on electronic business between IEC, ISO, ITU, and UN/ECE (http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/e-business/mou/) [Intention is to withdraw from this group, as no longer directly involved in CSG/FMG]

YOUR ABILITY TO WORK ON INTERFORUM TEAMS: Currently participate in ICG interforum tele-conference calls, attendance at interim meetings dependant on business commitments and support.

YOUR INTENTION RE THE 3/2006 FORUM:

of 37

Planning to attend, assuming financial support.

YOUR INTEREST IN PARTICIPATING IN THE 'ENTITY': Certainly interested. Open to contributing and participating in its formation and ongoing development.

of 37

7.4 Call for re-engagement of past delegates

7.4.1 Margaret Pemberton

Note from HoD. The following chairpersons approach the Head of Delegation Australia seeking support that Margaret Pemberton be made available to the UN/CEFACT development efforts.

The HoD sought argument and explanation which has been provided and included here for consideration by the Australian Delegation and Standards Australia re funding matters.

Sue Probert

• Vice Chair of the Forum Management Group and Mary K. Blantz

• Chair, UN/CEFACT Core Components Work Group

• Chair, US TAG to ISO TC 154

• US HoD: ISO TC 154 International Need for Margaret Pemberton: UN/CEFACT CCMA and ISO TC 154

Margaret Pemberton served the international e-business community for many years as a member of and also as the Chair of UN/CEFACT EDIFACT Technical Assessment. In this role, she was consistently:

Hardworking

Extremely knowledgeable

A wise and effective leader

Tireless

Pleasant

Well- respected

Able to manage controversy and people.

As the Australian representative to ISO TC 154, she co-chaired the team that harmonized the UN/TDED, the UN/TDID, WCO data requirements and more. This effort resulted in the publication of the updated TDED, as well as the submission of approximately 1500 candidate Core Components to TBG17 (Harmonization.)

Now we find ourselves embarked on an effort to develop the specification for syntax-neutral Message Assembly. This specification will be Part 2 of the UN/CEFACT Core Components Technical Specification, and we have given it the acronym CCMA (Core Components Message Assembly). The project will include the use of UMM Business Message Assembly,

of 37

apply Core Components, and result in a specification that can be used to develop EDIFACT as well as XML business messages.

With Margaret’s knowledge of EDIFACT and XML and UMM and Core Components, she is uniquely suited to participate in this effort. With her extraordinary ability to manage a team, she is most probably the best candidate to chair the team or at least lead the Edit Team. Any role that Margaret would care to play will be immediately hers!

Already over 40 individuals have signed up to participate. They come from varying disciplines and from countries all over the globe. Several strongly believe that the work they have already done is the answer to all our problems; unfortunately, they do not agree with each other!

This effort will be a very difficult one (managing the team will be like “herding cats”), but Margaret Pemberton would be a very valuable resource in any role on this project.

In addition to returning Margaret to UN/CEFACT, it would be most benefic ial for Australia to return her to ISO TC 154 as the Australian HoD (Head of Delegation). Since the Core Components Technical Specification is an ISO, as well as UN/CEFACT standard, her work on this specification would be most benefic ial. Other responsibilities of ISO TC 154 include 9735 (the EDIFACT syntax), 8601 (date time formats) and the TDED, mentioned earlier.

of 37

7.5 Delegate Eligibility Criteria This section to be developed to define the criteria to be considered when recommending that DCITA funds under Standards Australia project management be applied to individuals that make up the Australian delegation to UN/CEFACT Forums and the Forum management group plenaries.

As a hypothesis suggestion, where bodies such as Customs, the Australian Steel Industry, are progressing significant etrading capability and funding experts to apply the UN/CEFACT technical specifications with the outputs of such work using and contributing to the UN/CEFACT public processes, then it would seem reasonable that those bodies be accountable to fund their representative to UN/CEFACT Forums.

Individuals can self-fund provided they meet the criteria of Delegate nomination.

The costs of the Head of delegation must be covered to the extent that the HoD is not funded separately, i.e. part funded by industry associations etc.

Australia has a number of globally recognised experts in relation to the work of UN/CEFACT, with these experts invariably contributing on a voluntary basis to the work of UN/CEFACT. These individuals would need to be considered on a case-by-case basis.

7.6 MRI workshop – Open Invitation:

Open invitation to attend the TMG/TBG Modellers Reference Initiative (MRI) Workshop to be conducted Sunday 25th September prior to the UN/CEFACT forum.

The MRI is an initiative jointly resourced with members from TMG and TBG for the purpose of undertaking a medium-term program of work as outlined in the Term of reference. The initiative Terms of Reference is an agreement between TMG, TBG and MRI on the overal l objectives (scope and purpose), key deliverables and delegated responsibilities.

The MRI has been working consistently since UN/CEFACT Kuala Lumpur March 2005 and will host a workshop from 10:00 hrs until 17:00 hrs to share with participants the experiences of developing compliant BRS documents. The MRI workgroup is your opportunity to not only learn but also influence the direction of improvements to the defined BRS process.

Background: as per the MRI Terms of Reference. Ref <http://www.untmg.org/wg/mri/>

The purpose of the MRI Modellers Initiative is to:

Assist and expedite the wide spread adoption of the UN/CEFACT modelling approach.

Identify and prioritize activities that will stimulate, facil itate and motivate the uptake of the UN/CEFACT modelling approach.

Create an environment that produces artefacts that are shareable, interoperable, and conformant to the UN/CEFACT modell ing approach.

Create a community of UN/CEFACT modell ing capable resources.

The benefits of the MRI Modellers Initiative are to:

Provide a structured regime by which TMG can actively support TBG groups modelling efforts.

Accelerate the production of reusable artefacts.

of 37

Create a stable platform for providing education regarding the UN/CEFACT modelling approach.

Encourage tool vendors to support the UN/CEFACT modell ing approach.

The approach is to work within the UN/CEFACT groups, identify inhibitors and assist, prioritize development and promote solutions that accelerate the uptake of the UN/CEFACT Modelling Approach.

MRI activities are within the mission and objectives of UN/CEFACT and its Groups.

A meeting room has been arranged for the Sunday 25th. September 2005.

Attendance is open, please meet in the Lobby of the forum hotel, Sofitel Lyon Bellecour, at 09:30, we will then move to the workshop facil ities.

/Ian Watt (MRI Chair, TBG1)

/Anders W. Tell (MRI Vice Chair, TMG)

Draft agenda for the workshop prior to Lyon:

Date: September 25th, 2005

Time: 10:00 – 17:00

0) Welcome and administrative matters (Ian, Anders)

Introduction to the "UMM Foundation Module" (30 min) [Presented by: Jens Dietrich]

A simplified version of UMM

The presentation will be based on an example

Introduction to UML Profiles for UMM

Introduction to the "CCTS Specialization Module" (30 min) [Presented by: To be confirmed]

How to model Core Components using UML

The presentation will be based on an example

Registry Repository Principles according to ICG

Introduction to UML Profile for Core Components

Experiences of the application of the UMM methodology and requirement for updated User Guide (30 min) [Presented by: Harry Moyer]

Experiences of the past

Moving forward to a new User Guide

BRS Status and Introduction (10 min) [Presented by: To be confirmed]

Presentation and analysis of existing applications of the BRS- and RSM-templates (30 min) – [Presented by: Keith Finkelde, Harry Moyer, Freddy De Vos, Kevin Smith/Hidekazu Enjo]

of 37

Discussion of how to integrate the UMM deliverables with BRS and RSM (30 min) – [Facil itated by: Ian Watt]

The “approval path for BRS and RSM” (30 min) - [Faci litated by: Ian Watt]

Expected work for the project leader of the BRS/RSM submission

How she/he is expected to interact with TBG17, ICG and ATG

Discussion (rest of the day) – [Facil itated by: Ian Watt]

Key areas for UN/CEFACT group and architecture integration

Requirements on methodologies and tools in UN/CEFACT modell ing approach.

Integration to BRS and RSM

Plan for group mtgs with TBG1, TBG6 & ATG2

Top 3 issues to be solved

MEETING REPORT - ehtsc.net.au

Documents

Transcript of MEETING REPORT - ehtsc.net.au