csw xml for ebusiness

XML for e-Business: 

XML for e-Business Eve Maler Sun Microsystems, Inc.

Goals for this session: 

Goals for this session Learn about the Universal Business Language (UBL) and its significance to, and place in, modern e-business Study UBL’s design center and underlying model A model that may be useful for many information domains Study UBL as an application of XML And its lessons for other large XML undertakings Take a look at some real UBL inputs and outputs along the way

A little about me: 

A little about me I’m an XML Standards Architect in Web Technologies and Standards at Sun I co-founded the OASIS UBL Technical Committee and formerly chaired its biggest technical subcommittee In previous lives I helped develop XML itself, DocBook, XLink, Pipeline, and more I also coordinate Sun’s interaction with XML/web services security standards and take part in several related standards efforts

Agenda: 

Agenda XML for e-business: why and how? EDI, ebXML business web services, and UBL’s role Making UBL happen ebXML Core Components The UBL modeling methodology Designing the UBL schemas Resources Thanks to Jon Bosak and others in the OASIS UBL TC for content assistance!

XML for e-Business:Why and How?: 

XML for e-Business: Why and How?

Did you know…?: 

Did you know…? E-commerce essentially means electronic B2B Modernizing and improving B2B can provide huge benefits

Unreasonable goals for B2B: 

Unreasonable goals for B2B Magically enable universal interoperability merely through “using XML” Reinvent (disrupt?) our concept of what business means Abandon existing EDI (Electronic Data Interchange) systems Commoditize the universe Stop spending lots of effort on business relationships Eliminate humans from decision-making

More facts aboute-commerce: 

More facts about e-commerce It’s difficult to take the people out of business process, for reasons of: Trust relationships Error handling Legal action Business is built on the concept of standard, legally binding documents Legal intent requires meaning XML alone will never give you this

Reasonable goals for B2B: 

Reasonable goals for B2B Web-enable existing paper-based business practices Save money by eliminating re-keying Preserve investment in existing systems and allow businesses to migrate at their own pace Integrate SMEs into existing EDI-based supply chains Maintain a legally accessible audit trail Incrementally enable true global market availability

A global XML standard can help achieve these goals: 

A global XML standard can help achieve these goals Lower cost of commercial software Easier learning curve Standardized training More skilled workers Lower cost of integration through reuse of common structures Universally available pool of system integrators Lower overall cost of entry Thus, quicker adoption by SMEs

Enter UBL, the Universal Business Language: 

Enter UBL, the Universal Business Language An XML-based business language standard Leverages knowledge from existing EDI and XML B2B systems Applies across all industry sectors and domains of electronic trade Modular, reusable, and extensible in XML-aware ways Non-proprietary and committed to freedom from royalties Intended to become a legally recognized standard for international trade

UBL’s potential fit with existing XML B2B: 

UBL’s potential fit with existing XML B2B

EDI, ebXML Business Web Services, and UBL’s Role: 

EDI, ebXML Business Web Services, and UBL’s Role

The traditional EDI stack: 

The traditional EDI stack

Some EDI pressure points: 

Some EDI pressure points Private networks are expensive and require extensive point-to-point negotiation Though AS1 and AS2 mitigate this concern The business process data is “soft”, not machine-readable The interchange pipeline is large, with infinite possible subsets The data for adapting to different business contexts is also “soft”

Enter ebXML, the Electronic Business XML initiative: 

Enter ebXML, the Electronic Business XML initiative A joint 18-month effort, concluding in May 2001, of OASIS and UN/CEFACT The work continues in several forums today Over 1000 international participants The vision: a global electronic marketplace Enterprises of any size, anywhere, can find each other electronically and conduct business by exchanging XML messages

The ebXML stack for business web services: 

The ebXML stack for business web services ebMS BPSS CPPA Core Components Context Methodology ebXML Registry Packaging/ transport Business processes Business agreements Standard messages Message contextualization Discovery/ retrieval

ebXML for infrastructure is basically ready: 

ebXML for infrastructure is basically ready Components approved as OASIS Standards: ebXML Message Service (ebMS) V2.0 ebXML Registry (formerly “ebXML Reg/Rep”) V2.0 ebXML Collaboration Protocol Profile and Agreement (ebXML CPPA) V2.0 Business Process Schema Specification (BPSS) work is ongoing in UN/CEFACT Many implementations and interoperability/test events to date

ebXML for the payload is proceeding, but conceptual: 

ebXML for the payload is proceeding, but conceptual The ebXML Core Components Technical Specification is at V1.90 Syntax neutral and ready for mapping This includes the Context Methodology work Again, syntax neutral rather than syntax bound

UBL proposes to flesh out the ebXML stack: 

UBL proposes to flesh out the ebXML stack ebMS BPSS CPPA ebXML Registry Core Components Context Methodology UBL Library UBL Context Meth

The basic requirements: 

The basic requirements Semantic clarity through a binding from Core Components to a syntax Choosing XML as that syntax! Royalty-free IPR Usable “on the cheap” No ties to particular back-end implementations Urgency Allow for contextualization

The special requirement for context: 

The special requirement for context “Standard” business objects need to be different in different business contexts Addresses in Japan and the U.S. have different fields In some industries, addresses need GPS coordinates rather than streets Invoice items for shoes need to provide size information; for coffee, roast information These differences need to be accommodated without sacrificing interoperability

Making UBL Happen: 

Making UBL Happen

Slide24: 

UBL really is happening!

The standards venue: 

The standards venue UBL is being developed in an OASIS Technical Committee (TC) OASIS offers: An objective process Openness of its work to public view in real time Easy and inexpensive opportunities to join Jon Bosak is the chair and main founder The membership is diverse, including: Users, vendors, and governments XML and e-business experts

Formal liaisons (so far): 

Formal liaisons (so far) ACORD (insurance) ARTS (retail sales) ebXML Asia Committee (ebXML) e.centre (EAN UK) EIDX (electronics) HL7 (healthcare) Information Technology Standards Committee of Singapore NACS (convenience stores) Open Applications Group RosettaNet (information technology) SWIFT (banking) UIG (utilities) VCA (optical supplies) XBRL (accounting) ASC X12 COTG UN/CEFACT TBG UN/CEFACT ATG OASIS eGov TC OASIS CIQ TC

Business documents addressed in UBL: 

Business documents addressed in UBL The initial draft (V0p70) includes these trading cycle documents: Common building blocks Order Order response (simple) Order response (complex) Order cancellation Despatch advice Receipt advice Invoice Others will follow for materials management, payment, transport/logistics, catalogs, etc.

The trading cycle scenario: 

The trading cycle scenario

Deliverables: 

Deliverables The UBL Library Data model in spreadsheet form Normative W3C XML Schema (XSD) modules Non-normative UML class diagrams and ASN.1 schemas Schema naming and design rules Modeling methodology Simple (for now) context methodology Stylesheets for viewing and printing perl scripts for generating the schemas Sample XML instances and outputs Additional documentation

The work is done by subcommittees: 

The work is done by subcommittees Modeling and content Library Content (LC) Context Drivers XML representation and mechanisms Naming and Design Rules (NDR) Context Methodology Tools and Techniques Administrative functions Marketing Liaison Subcommittee Chairs

The UBL timeline: 

The UBL timeline The V0p70 review period is nearing its end V0p80 was scheduled for release in June 2003, specifically for review of RosettaNet and eGov issues The plan calls for a final UBL V1.0 release in mid-October 2003

Development strategies: 

Development strategies Start with the low-hanging fruit Focus on the 20% of documents and business objects actually used by 80% of e-business partners Defer the rocket science Produce useful, concrete outputs ASAP Don’t start with a blank slate Work from xCBL V3.0 (with no expectations of backwards compatibility) Take advantage of XML and business expertise

Some additional principles: 

Some additional principles Straightforward Internet use Account for usage of “various and sundry” tools Provide only one way to encode information Try to be prescriptive, within reason for interchange Leverage XML technology Be cautious about foreign namespace dependencies

How the ebXML Core Components Work: 

How the ebXML Core Components Work

Why base UBL on ebXML Core Components?: 

Why base UBL on ebXML Core Components? The Core Components substrate allows for correlation between different syntactic forms of business data that has the same meaning and purpose

The Core Components specifications: 

The Core Components specifications The Core Components Technical Specification (CCTS) defines a syntax-neutral metamodel for business semantics Work is ongoing to define an actual (syntax-neutral) data dictionary based on CCTS Core Components Supplementary Documents (CCSD) Currently non-normative UBL is, first and foremost, striving to use the CCTS metamodel accurately

Core components vs. business information entities: 

Core components vs. business information entities If “address” is defined as a generic CC… …a BIE with the geopolitical region set to “U.K.” might be a “U.K. address” UBL deals only in BIEs because it sets the business process So we’ll stick to that terminology

The CCTS follows ISO 11179: 

The CCTS follows ISO 11179 A standard OO-friendly basis for precision in describing pieces of business information and their relationships Governs how to define data dictionaries for object classes, properties, and representation terms A tiny sample dictionary for illustration (cardinality elided for simplicity):

Summary of the BIE (and CC) system: 

Summary of the BIE (and CC) system

Mapping our example to the BIE system: 

Mapping our example to the BIE system Name: text Birth: date Residence address: Address Official address: Address

The set of Core Component Types: 

The set of Core Component Types Conceptually similar to W3C XML Schema built-in types But they don’t come with pre-assigned syntactic constraints And they are themselves “complex”: primary content plus supplementary metadata

Giving unique names to dictionary entries: 

Giving unique names to dictionary entries Object classes: Object_Class_Term. “Details” Properties: Object_Class_Term. [Qualifier_]Property_Term. [Qualifier_] Representation_Term CCTs: CCT_Name. “Type”

A real excerpt from UBL’s data dictionary: 

A real excerpt from UBL’s data dictionary

The UBL Modeling Methodology: 

The UBL Modeling Methodology

The modeling process, in brief: 

The modeling process, in brief Identify content components At three levels: atomic, aggregate, and document Using xCBL V3.0 to prime the pump Identify functional dependencies and normalize the model of each component Choose a single hierarchical “view” from among the possible data relationships Identify the relevant business context Define the whole in terms of a “scope” (business process scenario)

More about normalization: 

More about normalization “If the value of one component changes when another component's value changes, then the former is said to be functionally dependent on the latter” “Normalization yields models that describe the network of associations between logical groups of components in optimal ways that minimise redundancy and prevent inadvertent errors or information loss when components are added or deleted” Many XML information modelers do this intuitively, if not rigorously XML nesting and repeatability pose challenges here

Looking at UBL’s syntax-neutral model: 

Looking at UBL’s syntax-neutral model The data dictionary in spreadsheet form The generated UML class diagrams The generated ASN.1 schemas The syntax-specific XML Schema versions? Patience…

Designing the UBL Schemas: 

Designing the UBL Schemas

The role of design rules in UBL schema creation: 

The role of design rules in UBL schema creation

For any one model, the schema options are infinite: 

For any one model, the schema options are infinite The schema representation can vary along many dimensions – for example: Elements and types in separate hierarchies Rich simple types Type inheritance and specialization in the style of OO Independent local scoping of elements, attributes, and types Namespace support for better federation of component creation and reuse The instance might look identical in all cases

Some of the major constraints on our rules: 

Some of the major constraints on our rules Leverage XML technology, but make choices that keep it interoperable Support customization and reuse Allow customizers to use the same rules that govern the UBL Library itself Selectively allow “outsourcing” to foreign schemas Make the names of XML constructs readable and natural Ensure that most of the rules are deterministic

Are the UBL rules applicable to your XML projects?: 

Are the UBL rules applicable to your XML projects? It all depends… Do you share our design principles and constraints? Do you share our business object metamodel (or something close to it)? Do you have the same profile of XML vs. application-specific tool usage? At the very least, you might pick up some interesting ideas Many industry groups are going through this same exercise We’ve communicated with several of them

A sampling of some draft UBL rules: 

A sampling of some draft UBL rules

Categories of rules: 

Categories of rules Overall selection of standards to adhere to Constraining names assigned during modeling for I18N and readability reasons Constraining the modeling process so that the results are amenable to schema conversion Populating schema documentation fields Modularity, namespaces, and versioning of schemas Generating and naming elements, attributes, types, and other constructs derived from the model Handling code lists Enabling the context methodology

Modularity, Namespaces, and Versioning: 

Modularity, Namespaces, and Versioning

UBL schema packaging concepts: 

UBL schema packaging concepts Modnamver: modularity, namespaces, and versioning, of course Schema module: schema document Root schema module: declares a target namespace and is likely to include or import other modules Internal schema module: does not declare a target namespace and is never imported, only included

Examples of UBL Library packaging: 

Examples of UBL Library packaging

Some additional modnamver rules: 

Some additional modnamver rules Minor versions must remain backwards compatible And can’t break software conforming to prior versions through semantic changes All new versions, both major and minor, receive unique namespaces All changes are thus persistent and uniquely addressable

Schema Componentry: 

Schema Componentry

Mapping BIEs to XML constructs: 

Mapping BIEs to XML constructs Object classes (such as Person. Details) become complex types Properties (such as Person. Name. Text etc.) become elements in those types’ content models Representation terms (such as Text, Date, and Address – or Address. Details, actually) become the types bound to the property elements

Mapping BIE names to XML names: 

Mapping BIE names to XML names Remove redundant and nearly redundant words in the property field (as in *. Identification. Identifier) Remove periods, spaces, and underscores Replace “Details” with “Type” When the representation term is “Text”, remove it When the representation term is “Identifier”, truncate it to “ID” Remove the object class name on properties, as the XML parent labels it sufficiently The spreadsheet does this with some wild formulas!

This doesn’t tell the whole story: 

This doesn’t tell the whole story Within a complex type, should the elements be local (declared in situ) or global (references to separate declarations) or some combination? How does this issue interact with namespaces? On what criteria should these decisions be based?

The four most obvious options: 

The four most obvious options The yellow squares are elements The blue rounded squares are types Roger Costello of xfront.com invented the first three There are many variations we won’t go into here Russian Doll Salami Slice Venetian Blind The Garden of Eden

Russian Doll: 

Russian Doll <xs:schema … > <xs:element name=“Person”> <xs:complexType> keep nesting ever more deeply… <xs:sequence> <xs:element name=“Name” type=“NameType”/> <xs:element name=“BirthDate” type=“DateType”/> <xs:element name=“ResidenceAddress”> <xs:complexType> <xs:element name=“Street” type=“TextType”/> … </xs:complexType> </xs:element> <xs:element name=“OfficialAddress”> <xs:complexType> … </xs:complexType> </xs:element> </xs:sequence> </xs:complexType> </xs:element> </xs:schema>

Salami Slice: 

Salami Slice <xs:schema … > <xs:element name=“Person”> only elements are at the top level… <xs:complexType> <xs:sequence> <xs:element ref=“Name”/> <xs:element ref=“BirthDate”/> <xs:element ref=“ResidenceAddress”/> <xs:element ref=“OfficialAddress”/> </xs:sequence> </xs:complexType> </xs:element> <xs:element name=“Name” type=“TextType”/> <xs:element name=“BirthDate” type=“DateType”/> <xs:element name=“ResidenceAddress”> <xs:complexType> … </xs:complexType> </xs:element> </xs:schema>

Venetian Blind: 

Venetian Blind <xs:schema … > mostly types are at the top level… <xs:element name=“Person” type=“PersonType”> <xs:complexType name=“PersonType”> <xs:sequence> <xs:element name=“Name” type=“NameType”/> <xs:element name=“BirthDate” type=“DateType”/> <xs:element name=“ResidenceAddress” type=“AddressType”/> <xs:element name=“OfficialAddress” type=“AddressType”/> </xs:sequence> </xs:complexType> <xs:complexType name=“AddressType”> <xs:sequence> <xs:element name=“Street” type=“TextType”/> <xs:element name=“PostCode” type=“TextType”/> <xs:element name=“Town” type=“TextType”/> <xs:element name=“CountryID” type=“…”/> </xs:sequence> </xs:complexType> </xs:schema>

The Garden of Eden: 

The Garden of Eden <xs:schema targetNamespace=“http://www.example.com/BIEs” … > everything’s at the top level… <xs:element name=“Person” type=“PersonType”> <xs:complexType name=“PersonType”> <xs:sequence> <xs:element ref=“Name”/> <xs:element ref=“BirthDate”/> <xs:element ref=“ResidenceAddress”/> <xs:element ref=“OfficialAddress”/> </xs:sequence> </xs:complexType> <xs:element name=“Name” type=“TextType”/> <xs:complexType name=“TextType”> … </xs:complexType> … </xs:schema>

Some potential criteria for choosing: 

Some potential criteria for choosing Flexibility Does the vocabulary need to adapt, chameleon-like, to different namespaces? Consistency Is it acceptable for the markup to bounce between qualified and unqualified? between different namespaces? What happens when importing schemas do overrides? Reuse What constructs might someone want to reuse wholesale? Specialization What constructs might someone want to modify?

UBL’s criteria: 

UBL’s criteria The UBL Library is explicitly intended for reuse and specialization We have two use cases: Tweaking document structures for a new business context Creating whole new document types out of existing piece-parts The challenge: make the right set of schema components reusable to meet both use cases, while adhering to all our other principles

It’s easy for UBL to choose global types: 

It’s easy for UBL to choose global types To support our “tweaking” use case and our requirement for leveraging XML tools, we need to allow for XSD type specialization To extend or restrict a type, you must be able to reference it; hence, named top-level types Russian Doll Salami Slice Venetian Blind The Garden of Eden X X ? ?

Benefits of global elements: 

Benefits of global elements A global, namespaced element can potentially be referenced for many purposes: Root element Head element of substitution group Component of wildcard content Component of new foreign content models (directly applying to our “creating” use case)

Costs of global elements: 

Costs of global elements Every element in a namespace must have a completely unique name Every variation in content must result in a new name This can mean a lot of elements Generated representations must expand to account for the public interface that the element is projecting Such as UML and JAXB-produced Java code

Benefits of local elements: 

Benefits of local elements A local element is scoped just to the type that defined it Mapping neatly to properties of OO classes Multiple local elements can have the same name while having different “guts” Useful for controlling element explosions

Costs of local elements: 

Costs of local elements You can only reuse types, not elements – breaking non-type-aware code such as V1.0 XPaths <my:doctype>

UBL’s choice: 

UBL’s choice Call it…the Garden of Venice? Every object class turns into a complex type, and a corresponding generic global element for use by customizers in creating new document types For example, both AddressType and <ubl:Address> Within complex types, element declarations use ref= instead of name= With one exception: when the representation term is *. *. Identifier, make the element local A compromise to account for the syntactic divergence/semantic convergence of the many ID elements

Code Lists: 

Code Lists

The huge need for codes: 

The huge need for codes A code is a character string that represents a definitive value Code lists are valuable as unambiguous taxonomies In many cases, such as product classifications, code lists are big business Some code list owners charge for their use Colors Pick one: 01=white 02=blue 03=red … Countries Pick one: AW=Aruba CA=Canada FR=France …

Options for formally representing code lists: 

Options for formally representing code lists Often they are merely maintained in text documents But formal encodings are extremely useful, for example: RDF ontologies The ebXML Registry Information Model’s <ClassificationScheme> markup XSD (such as enumerated simple types) You could develop different representations for different purposes

The attractions of code lists in XSD form: 

The attractions of code lists in XSD form Schema validation can do code checking “for free” This step usually occurs early in the processing pipeline This encoding benefits from tool availability And could even be generated from a more-primary XML representation These all support UBL’s “leverage XML technology” goal

The downsides: 

The downsides Many code lists are too large (~10K codes) or dynamic (~daily) to take advantage of XSD But one study showed more than one-third of legacy code lists to be variants of Yes/No! Validation through schemas will never be complete for some applications Such as codes that become dynamically invalid depending on previous code choices

Each user of a code list could reproduce it in a schema: 

Each user of a code list could reproduce it in a schema But re-coding a code list over and over in different schemas is costly and prone to error Better to help code list owners produce their own code list schema modules UBL elements… UBL types… Colors Pick one: 01=white 02=blue 03=red … UBL elements… UBL types… Colors Pick one: 01=white 02=blue 03=red …

UBL’s solution: code list schema module rules: 

UBL’s solution: code list schema module rules A code list owner can choose to conform to the rules by producing a reusable schema module that defines a code list datatype The level of validation is entirely up to them Enumeration Regular expression No constraints The “normative status” of the module is also up to them They just need to provide enough metadata to uniquely identify the meaning of each code We’re working with a number of groups to help them do this

UBL and others can bind the type to their own elements: 

UBL and others can bind the type to their own elements UBL elements would be bound to a foreign type defined by a code list owner This would be done in the “code list adapter module” The metadata attributes could be defaulted, or even fixed <ubl:CountryID xsi:type=“unece:ISO3166CountryCodeType” various metadata attributes...> FR </ubl:CountryID>

A global marketplace in XML-based code lists?: 

A global marketplace in XML-based code lists? If all goes well, we could see the following benefits: Less duplication of work in XML vocabulary development Wider application support for well-known code lists Earlier validation of code values Standardization of more code lists, and even formally described subsets and extensions Greater “semantic clarity” through identifying standard code list metadata

Adding Business Context to Documents: 

Adding Business Context to Documents

Recall the UBL requirement for business context: 

Recall the UBL requirement for business context A lot of business factors can require changes to the “shape” of a business object Core Component (CC) Building block for exchange of semantically correct and meaningful information Business Information Entity (BIE) CC to which a business context has been applied Apply business context: Business process Product classification Geopolitical region Official constraint Business process role Supporting role System capabilities

The customization community around UBL: 

The customization community around UBL The UBL Library is intended to be an XML-based international “core” Similar to UN/EDIFACT or X12 Customization is expected By national and industry groups By smaller user communities These changes are driven by real-world requirements

The EDI precedent: 

The EDI precedent EDI uses a prose-based subsetting approach UN/EDIFACT  industry implementation guide  trading partner IG  departmental IG Some XML-based B2B vocabularies now use schema-based extension Core vocabulary + extensions at each level

UBL leverages both approaches: 

UBL leverages both approaches It picks an 80/20 point in supplying fields likely to be needed Then it allows both subsetting and extension to the limit of XSD’s abilities Again, leveraging existing XML software and standards UBL makes a key addition: the XSD derivations must be accompanied by a machine-readable description of the business context

Successive sharing and customization: 

Successive sharing and customization The core standard is subsetted and extended further each time Each circle would have its own set of schemas/namespaces and corresponding business context metadata UBL Core Industry Implementation User-Specific Implementation

The business context metadata: 

The business context metadata UBL starts out identifying only the business process

The draft contextualization process: 

The draft contextualization process Customizers will need to do two things: Handcraft an XSD derivation, adhering to XSD rules Attach the business context, adhering to UBL rules One UBL rule: context drivers can be specialized, but not reset USMaine, not USJapan Eventually, the goal is for the context methodology to be more automated So that you can input the drivers to a registry and get a freshly generated schema

An example of how the context can be specialized: 

An example of how the context can be specialized UBL Purchase Order Line Item Type U.S. Purchase Order Line Item Type Japan Purchase Order Line Item Type U.S. Purchase Order Shoe Line Item Type geo=“US” (geo=“US”) prod=“shoe” geo= “Japan”

Sometimes the 80/20 point isn’t sufficient: 

Sometimes the 80/20 point isn’t sufficient Let’s say a core UBL Address requires a street, city, country, etc. (Though the cardinalities are currently looser than this) But for parts delivery to a mobile oil-drilling platform in international waters, the ship-to information for an order must be only GPS coordinates Ideally, software would be able to associate this kind of address with a UBL Address somehow To reuse whatever parts of the processing still apply

When business requirements and technical abilities diverge: 

When business requirements and technical abilities diverge Several actions are needed here: Characterize this situation as a formally described business context Add GPS coordinate data as required fields Remove fields (city etc.) that are normally required Neither EDI subsetting nor XSD derivation allows this last one – even if combined

UBL proposes to increase interoperability even here: 

UBL proposes to increase interoperability even here One alternative is to build a whole new core But this compromises the investment in the semantic substrate Another alternative is to build a “prior core” – an “Ur-Library” – on which to layer the UBL Library itself Its base types would allow for optional fields where UBL doesn’t The types would be abstract UBL would become a restriction of these types

Customizing from the Ur-Library: 

Customizing from the Ur-Library Customizers could derive from the Ur-Library if necessary And get the benefits of using well-defined types underlying UBL However, they wouldn’t be able to claim “UBL conformance” UBL Ur-Library UBL Core UBL-Using Industry Implementation UBL-Conforming Industry Implementation

Current status of the UBL context methodology: 

Current status of the UBL context methodology Even the simpler “non-Ur” ideas are as yet not fully tested Work remains to be done on the code values for the business context drivers However, a good paper describing the work to date has been written At least UBL has no reliance on an application-specific mechanism that would require significant investment in extra tools You can use existing tools to build derivations

Resources: 

Resources

Learning more about UBL: 

Learning more about UBL The public OASIS web page: www.oasis-open.org/committees/ubl The subcommittees have their own portals, linked from here White papers, presentations, and the latest draft release are available You can also find instructions on how to submit comments The Cover Pages roundup on UBL: xml.coverpages.org/ubl.html Pointers to articles, mailing lists, and so on ebXML information: ebxml.org, ebxmlforum.org, freebxml.org

Make sure to review the UBL release cover letter: 

Make sure to review the UBL release cover letter It supplies additional business process scenarios and examples Buying Office Supplies Buying Joinery These include process diagrams and sample UBL trading documents

Conclusion: 

Conclusion

UBL offers important and interesting solutions: 

UBL offers important and interesting solutions As a B2B standard: It is user-driven, with deep experience and partnership resources to call on It is committed to truly global trade and interoperability Its standards process is transparent As an XML application: It is layered on existing successful standards It is tackling difficult technical problems without losing sight of the human dimension

Ponder this: 

Ponder this HTTP + HTML = Web Publishing. ebXML + UBL = Web Commerce?

Thank You!Questions?: 

Thank You! Questions? Eve Maler eve.maler@sun.com