An introduction to UN/CEFACT's eBTWG activities
XML Magazine Japan, May 2002
Klaus-Dieter Naujok
Table of Contents
- Background
- What is standardized within eBTWG
- When will the second phase of ebXML standardization be completed?
- Future of ebXML - what is required for its success?
- Relationship with other standards efforts
Background
UN/CEFACT' Steering Group (CSG) created the eBusiness Transition Working Group (eBTWG) in July 2001 for the purpose of continuing UN/CEFACT's role in pioneering the development of XML standards for electronic business. The group was formed to build on the success of the earlier ebXML Joint Initiative between UN/CEFACT and OASIS, which delivered its first set of specifications in May 2001.
The mission of the eBTWG is to identify specific work items to facilitate the completion of the activities related to the ebXML Business Process and Core Components Projects and to oversee the further development of those items. In addition, the group was to be responsible for developing and maintaining the UN/CEFACT eBusiness architecture to ensure consistency with the ebXML architecture specification.
UN/CEFACT is expected to establish a new structure for its permanent working groups, which will provide a single forum for all UN/EDIFACT standardization, united through the development of common business process and information models. Given that the formation of the new structure requires full consideration and consultation with user communities, it was agreed that, in the interim, the eBTWG would serve as a bridge from the completed phase one of the ebXML initiative to the new UN/CEFACT working group structure.
NOTE: UN/CEFACT transitioned to its
new structure in September 2002. All eBTWG work items were
transferred to the new Techniques and Methodologies Group
(TMG). In principle TMG is the old TMWG and eBTWG combined.
This article still provides enough relevant information
about those ebXML projects that continued under eBTWG and
are now within TMG.
What is standardized within eBTWG
eBTWG is continuing the work started under phase one, that is to advance ebXML development as related to Business Processes, Core Components and eBusiness Architecture. The diagram below shows the relationships amongst the various projects. This diagram has by default become the high level eBTWG Overview.
eBTWG consists of eleven project teams:
The UN/CEFACT Modeling Methodology (UMM) provides the framework under which the eBTWG project teams concurrently develop technical specifications that fit seamlessly together with sufficient detail for eBTWG conformant implementation. Thus the interfaces between UMM and BPC&MC, BEL, and BCP. As direct users of the UMM, the emphasis of the BCP&MC, BEL, and BCP project teams has been to validate and refine the Business Requirements View (BRV) of the UMM Meta-Model to fully support the commitment - fulfillment activities of a business process collaboration. Thus the feedback link to UMM from these projects.
An ebXML business process and information model draws from reusable
-
common business process models as provided for in a reference library by BP CAT (imported from various levels of business process models, i.e., transactions, collaborations, processes),
-
simple "best in class" business collaboration patterns as determined from industry examples by BCP&MC,
-
pieces of collaboration patterns, e.g., patterns of how commitment categories are specified, resources are described, etc., as determined in BCP&MC,
-
business transaction patterns as already established in the UMM Business Transaction View (BTV),
-
business entity types, defined by BEL as business information objects that each have a life cycle that transitions through defined states in the fulfillment of the commitments in a collaboration,
-
core components/business information entities as defined by CC.
It is evident that BCP&MC must coordinate with BP CAT, BEL, and CC, as well as with the TMWG in proposed UMM updates. BCP will show how all layers and patterns of the business collaboration should be integrated into a "protocol" of business information and business signal exchanges that can be implemented in compatible business service interfaces by business partners. Thus, BCP draws heavily from the business collaboration requirements and patterns as determined by BCP&MC, and in turn provides the Implementation Framework View (IFV) of the UMM.
CC and BPSS are carried over from ebXML Phase 1, and are now coming into fruition in Phase 2 with the benefit of much iteration of revisions and comments. Information required to enter and determine successful execution of a business collaboration or transaction, i.e., states of business entities, will benefit from the CC library as a reference for conceptual information entities. Business entities in the UMM BRV (requirements workflow) will then be normalized in on-the-wire business documents as business information entities in the UMM BSV (design workflow). CCS provides independent validation of the CC Technical Specification through industry applications of the CC methodology. In turn, reusable blocks of core components/business information entities are harvested in creating the initial content of a CC library. CCR provides the technical specification for "realizing" conceptual core components/business information entities in XML format so that they can be stored and retrieved in (from) the ebXML REG/REP.
BPSS is a semantic subset of the UMM Meta-Model that supports the specification of the business process elements necessary to configure a runtime system capable of executing ebXML business transactions (in BPSS 2.0) and business collaborations (in BPSS 3.0). Thus, we have the BPSS 2.0 interaction with UMM, and CPPA and MSG of the ebXML infrastructure in configuring a runtime system among pairs of business partners. The additional input of BCP&MC and BCP is required for BPSS 3.0 to incorporate the UMM BRV model.
The runtime BPSS must necessarily be accessible in XML format in the ebXML REG/REP. BPIMES will facilitate this by providing the requirements for storage and exchange schema for ebXML business process and information models. UML2XML provides production rules for mapping UML-based business process and information models, as assembled by BCP&MC, into a BPSS. Together BPIMES and UML2XML provide the specification for production, storage and exchange of business process and information models in XML format.
UEA provides the umbrella specification that covers the work of all of the UN/CEFACT eBusiness projects. As such it elaborates on the eBTWG projects discussed in this overview and shows how they relate to the other eBusiness activity in UN/CEFACT.
When will the second phase of ebXML standardization be completed?
Standardization at this level will be an ongoing activity for many years to come. However, since May 2001, "infrastructure" specifications have been in place. As a result, we are starting to see implementations. The next release (maintenance and minor improvements) of those specifications is in the final process as part of ebXML phase two. As to the work under UN/CEFACT related to business process and information modeling (BPIM) (content and context), we are on schedule to have the first release of these specifications finalized before year end. We are the first to do this at this level. This is a very complex area of standardization, requiring extra time. The result will be worth the wait.
Future of ebXML - what is required for its success?
As with any standard, success is measured by its acceptance and implementations based upon it. We are seeing both. To succeed we must complete the work and not get side tracked by other activities that may seem like they are competing. One should also remember that on the content and context side (UN/CEFACT's ebXML responsibility) there is no dependency on technology. In other words, it could be called ebWS (eBusiness Web Services) since the business process and information specifications can sit on top of any infrastructure, not just ebXML's messaging service. This technology and protocol neutral work will survive many different infrastructure solutions. However, to be accepted as such, implementers must have the vision and patience for the work to be completed. Rushing the work will result in failure since it does take extra time to develop a framework and its details that is future proof by being not tied to any specific technology. The past has shown that it is simpler and quicker to develop proprietary solutions based on a single technology. However, as technology changes technology specific specifications become obsolete, and implementers are faced with migrating to new solutions. UN/CEFACT's content and context work (BPIM and Core Components) promises that businesses donմ have to translate their interactions (collaboration) as the infrastructure solutions progress overtime. That is where the success will come from.
Relationship with other standards efforts
OASIS
At the end of phase one in May 2001, both UN/CEFACT and OASIS agreed to continue the ebXML work by splitting the responsibilities such as to leverage each organization' strength and expertise. OASIS took on the work related to the infrastructure that includes messaging, registry and repository, and collaboration partner profile and agreement. UN/CEFACT continued the work as related to content and context, i.e., BPIM-based specifications and the core component work. In addition, both organizations are jointly responsible for maintaining the ebXML architecture as well as continuing the ebXML marketing efforts. To ensure that there is no diversion in the technical work done by both organizations created A Joint Coordination Committee (JCC) ensures that there is no diversion in the technical work done by both organizations. The JCC holds weekly conference calls to address administrative issues as well as technical coordination. As a result of the JCC work in May this year a special ebXML day was part of XML Europe 2002 in Barcelona where organizations gave testimony of their ebXML implementations. In addition, during that same week, OASIS and eBTWG Technical Experts convened a joint one-day ebXML meeting of what will become the ebXML Joint Technical Liaison Team. The ebXML marketing team met as well that week. All in all, it is evident that the two founding organizations are continuing jointly in their efforts to ensure that the ebXML work continues in harmony.
Universal Business Language (UBL) TC
There is some concern by followers of the ebXML effort that the work by OASIS's UBL TC to define standard library of XML business documents is in competition with UN/CEFACT's Core Components work. In addition to the concern, there has been much confusion about the relationship between the two efforts.
As to the concern, UBL and the content work under UN/CEFACT are not in competition. If anything, UBL incorporates the Core Components work of UN/CEFACT. Confusion arises with the understanding that both UBL and Core Components are content and context related, and therefore both should be done under UN/CEFACT. Many explanations have been offered on how UBL ended up under OASIS. However, no useful purpose is served to debate the real reasons at this stage. There is however good news. Since the creation of the OASIS UBL TC, UBL chair (Jon Bozak) and OASIS President and CEO (Patrick Gannon) have made public statements that UBL will transition to UN/CEFACT's new working group structure, once it is in place. This new structure was accepted in May 2002 by UN/CEFACT's plenary. There is great hope, by most ebXML participants, that OASIS will make good on their promise.
ISO
UN/CEFACT and ISO are members of the ISO/IEC/ITU/UNECE MoU (Memorandum of Understanding on eBusiness). Our cooperation is very good and active, especially at the TC154 level. UN/CEFACT's goal is to have the ebXML specifications adopted as UN/CEFACT recommendations that would automatically make them International Standards. If after that, there is still a desire to make ebXML specifications ISO standards, that would become a topic for the MoU management group.
Web Service Standardization
Many deficiencies must be addressed in order to standardize Web Services. From the ebXML perspective, Web Services do not have the required features for eBusiness transactions. Web Services standards only address the transport layer. However, ebXML provides the standards for interoperability at the business layer, making it the standard solution for Web Business Services.
In other words, ebXML is the missing ingredient for Web services. The ebXML development effort could fail to seize this collaborative opportunity, and Web Services vendors could "standardize" on one of their preferred proprietary solutions.
However, if ebXML seizes this opportunity, its vision for a global economic exchange standard would be brightened indeed. Current Web Services are a temporary stopgap measure. However, if the ebXML work can engage Web Services initiatives in a tactical alliance, the broader UN/CEFACT objective of Web resources as business entities engaged in collaborations will be realized. Remember, the XML implementation aspect of ebXML is just the next generation of EDI. The next generation (5 years?) will likely be different from both the current Web Services and ebXML.
NOTE: During its May 2003 the
UN/CEFACT plenary adopted the following resolution:
In order to keep pace with the current UN/CEFACT vision of
a general business collaboration framework (BCF), the
Plenary recommended that it is now appropriate to direct
the CSG and the appropriate empowered groups, and
especially the TMG, to move closer to web
services.