Economic and Social Council

Transcription

1 UNITED NATIONS E Economic and Social Council Distr. RESTRICTED TRADE/WP.4/R January 1996 ENGLISH ONLY ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE COMMITTEE ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF TRADE Working Party on Facilitation of International Trade Procedures (Item 7 of the provisional agenda of the Meeting of Experts on Data Elements and Automatic Data Interchange (GE.1) Fifty-third session, March 1996) INTERNATIONAL STANDARDIZATION AFFECTING TRADE INTERCHANGE Standards Liaison Executive Summary Submitted by the Standards Liaison Rapporteur * This document was prepared under the Terms of Reference of the Standards Liaison Rapporteur who is requested to report to each GE.1 session. The Group of Experts is invited: - to review and discuss the information presented in this document; - to approve the recommendation found in paragraph 6. * The present document is reproduced in the form in which it was submitted by the secretariat. GE.96-

2 page 2 INTERNATIONAL STANDARDIZATION AFFECTING TRADE INTERCHANGE Standards Liaison Executive Summary SOURCE: STANDARDS LIAISON RAPPORTEUR STATUS: RAPPORTEUR REPORT ACTION: FOR APPROVAL, GE.1 March 1996, agenda item 7

3 Introduction 1. Since the September 1995 session there were no ISO meetings which were attended by members of the Standards Liaison Team (SLT). Therefore no SLT meeting report has been submitted. Standards Liaison Team Update 2. SLT meet under its new scope for the second time during the Oxford JRT (see Appendix A). The group agreed to progress most of its work on the review of the ISO/IEC JTC1/SC30 CD (Open-edi Reference Model) via Due to the limited time the SLT meets during a JRT progress to develop a work plan was not possible. The team agreed to progress the work via for review of the first draft during the Brazil JRT. The plan will identify the areas of "international" standardization dealing and/or affecting the work of UN/EDIFACT. Further, the plan will determine the resources that are needed and available to liaise with the relevant groups. CD Ballot of CD14662 (Open-edi) Reference Model 4. During the Oxford JRT SLT started the review of the second Committee Draft (CD) ballot of the Open-edi reference model as well as the reply from SC30 to the UN/ECE on its comments on the 1st CD. The review was concluded via in early January and the comments as Liaison A were forwarded to SC30 (see Appendix B). 5. In summary, SLT does not believe that the draft should be approved as a CD. The group feels, that it earlier comments on the first draft are still valid and approval would indicate that the work is ready, after minor editing, to move to Draft International Standard (DIS) status, in order to become an International Standard (IS) very soon. In its comments the SLT has taken into account the decision by the ISO, IEC, UN/ECE MoU Coordinating Committee, that the current CD (2nd version) does not satisfy the requirement as outlined in the IAeG report which was signed by ISO, IEC, ITU and UN/ECE. SLT still believes there is much work ahead before this document should ever become a CD. 6. The Standards Liaison Rapporteur requests that GE.1/WP.4 support the comments put forward to SC30 as under the ToR of the SLT. Recommendation 1: GE.1/WP.4 support the SLT comments on the second version of CD as put forward by the Standards Liaison Rapporteur.

4 page 4 Appendix A T6 - Standards Liaison Team Minutes, 11 & 15 September 1995, Oxford, England 11 September, Monday Review of the Liaison Meeting and Status Report (Sept. 95, WP.4 session) Group reviewed R.1161 (Standards Liaison Executive Summary): Review of the activities of JRT Technical Work Groups The chair(s) of the Syntax Development Group (SDG), Interactive-EDI (T4), Security (T7), Business & Information Modelling (T5), Message Design Guidelines Group (MDGG) and Multilingual Team gave an update about their activities. Review of the latest status of the Open-edi Reference Model JTC1/SC30 responded to SLT comments on CD via a Liaison Statement. SLT started the review cycle by asking all JRT Technical Groups to review the new revised CD Review of the latest status of the BSR In order to have a UN/EDIFACT view point on the outcome of the BSR Work Shop, held this summer, the JRT Technical Groups are asked to review: BSR/MC/95N The BSR Project - Purpose, objective and procedure BSR/PROJ/N0021/Rev.1 - BSR Workshop - Draft output document BSR Meta Data Model Review of the latest status of the ISO/IEC TC154 Claude Chiaramonti, John Berge and Tuisko Buchmann gave a report of the TC154 meeting held 2 weeks ago. The resolutions were made available to SLT. Identification of work items for this week Two work items identified above, review of revised CD14662 (Open-edi reference model) and the BSR work shop documents were identified. The group will review the outcome during it Friday meeting. 15 September, Friday Review the work items, as identified during the Monday Session BSR Work Shop Output Documents The SLT Rapporteur was ask to use the initial work done by the technical groups to prepare a report to serve as input to the BSR management committee meeting.

5 page 5 Revised Open-edi Reference Model This work is to be progressed via the SLT List (open to SLT members only) in order to prepare a outline of comments against the CD. This will be followed by making the SLT text available on the Open-edi List (open to all UN/EDIFACT users) for review and comments. The final comments will be formulated, based on all comments by the SLT via the private SLT list. Update of Work item/issues List To be done via the SLT List. Review and updating of SLT work plan To be done via the SLT List. Other Business In order to allow the chairs/co-chairs to get their own groups started the SLT will meet on Monday 1 hour AFTER the closing of the opening plenary, instead of immediately after. The meeting will be for two hours. No change to the Friday session.

6 page 6 T6 (SLT) Agenda for March 1996 JRT NOTE: The meeting of T6 (SLT) are open to all JRT attendees. However, in order to ensure that the technical support groups are informed about, and involved in liaison activities the Chair(s)/Co-chair(s) of SDG, Security, I-EDI, BIM, MDGG and MLT are requested to attend the T6 meetings. Monday (1 hour after the Opening Plenary Session, for 2 hours) a) Review of the Liaison Meeting and Status Report (September 95 WP.4 session) b) Review of the activities of Special Technical Work Groups to coordinate the efforts between the groups as well as outside Standards activities affecting the work of UN/EDIFACT. - SDG (incl. interactive EDI and security) - BIM - MDGG - MLT c) Review of the latest status of the Open-edi Reference Model. d) Review of the latest status of the BSR. e) Review of the latest status of the ISO/IEC TC154 f) Identification of items, as a result of the review above, which need to be review by the those Special Technical Work Groups meeting this week, to coordinate the efforts between the groups as well as outside Standards activities affecting the work of UN/EDIFACT. Friday (8:00-10:00 am) g) Review the items, as identified under f) during the Monday Session h) Update of Work item/issues List i) Review and updating of SLT work plan

7 page 7 Appendix B UN/ECE Comments on CD (Open-edi Reference Model) Introduction The UN/ECE notes that the start of the work being progressed by SC30 was initiated in 1988 by the ISO/IEC JTC1/SWG-EDI. This resulted in the publication of the "Open-edi Conceptual Model", which in turn resulted in the approval and creation of JTC1/WG3 (now JTC1/SC30). From the UN/ECE viewpoint, this approval was on the understanding that the continuation of the activity would then concentrate upon producing a practical, workable standard, in the form of the "Open-edi Reference Model". In the view of the UN/ECE, CD falls far short of what was both expected, and indeed, required in terms of SC30 Work Item 1. Below is set out a detailed set of comments, which the UN/ECE believe need to be discussed in depth by SC30, in order to move the Reference Model forward. General Comments The ISO/IEC JTC 1 directives do not prescribe that a JTC1 Sub Committee has the responsibility to mandate its own procedures for the processing of comments on a CD under ballot. The UN/ECE has chosen not to use the SC30 "revision text" methodology (which was adopted by SC30 for its internal work progression). Accordingly, it is requested that SC30 recognizes and gives due attention to the UN/ECE position expressed in this contribution, particularly since the UN/ECE represents a very significant community of existing EDI users. The UN/ECE believes that the CD has fundamental flaws in that it does not meet the key requirement of being a reference model that can serve as the framework for coordinating the development of existing and future standards appropriate in an open trading environment. The CD in its present form represents more of a "conceptual model" rather than a "reference model" and is being viewed in this context by the UN/EDIFACT user community. Furthermore, the UN/ECE believes that these problems can not be corrected through the submission of proposals for revisions to the CD text, but rather needs to be addressed through an in depth discussion at a full plenary session of SC30. The UN/ECE had hoped for such a discussion at the last SC30 meeting (in Paris), since various ballot comments (specifically those from Australia and the UN/ECE) questioned at that time, the overall direction of the CD with regard to the SC30 Work Item 1. The UN/ECE wishes, again, to draw the attention of SC30 to a number of current edi standards activities (those which we are aware of) that are either under way or relatively well advanced, not only by the UN/ECE (EDIFACT), but also by TC68 (banking messages), TC184 (STEP), various JTC 1 SCs (ODA, FTAM, etc.) as well as work by CALS (such as CITIS, IDEF, etc.), and by EWOS (technical guide on EDI). All of these activities are significant EDI standardisation initiatives that need to be referenced in the model, including the identification of their individual scope and boundaries. The CD states that it is "the framework for the co-ordination and for the integration of existing and emerging standards and the development of future

8 page 8 standards for the inter-working of organisations via Open-EDI". In its current form the CD represents, at best, an extremely skeletal framework. It certainly does not "place existing EDI standards in perspective". The EDI standards in use today (including, but not limited to, those mentioned above) are not referenced and no description is provided on how each individual standard relates to the model. No direction is offered on how the overall EDI standards integration might be achieved. In other words, there is no sound basis prescribed on how the framework relates to the current "real world" EDI. Specific Comments The UN/ECE (via the SLT) in seeking the reactions of UN/EDIFACT users to the current CD, has received limited comment. However, the UN/ECE views this limited response as a statement of the position of the UN/EDIFACT user community. The comments submitted are summarised in the following key points:- The CD is a difficult document to read and comprehend. There is a considerable degree of repetition in its contents. It is written at an abstract generic level with insufficient examples, to explain how it can be implemented. While the conceptual ideas outlined, in the main, are supported, there are major doubts about how practical an undertaking it is. Questions arise such as: How will the world of practitioners be kept up to date? How will solutions, scenarios etc. be delivered / made available? Who will represent the interests of the various industry sectors, and where? Who will be responsible for owne rship and maintenance of the framework, scenarios etc.? There are questions about whether it will be possible to get the right type of people involved, i.e. users rather than theoretical specialists. There are major concerns that the initiative appears to be creating competition in standards making activity, and this is the last thing we need. More practical explanations with examples are needed to help people to understand exactly what is being proposed. Assurances are needed that industry sect ors will be represented in the developmental work in the best possible way, and are listened to with respect. People need to be kept informed about progress, but do not wish to be subjected to generic cerebral papers.

9 page 9 Many UN/EDIFACT users perceive the CD as:- A result of mainly academic and theoretical thinking. Having lost sight of the realities of EDI. Only conceptualizing in a generic and abstract way. Being unable to contribute practical substance to outlined theories. Indeed the theories themselves appear to be a rather thin gloss and do not come together into a robust and cohesive framework that can serve as the principal reference criteria for the development of existing and future EDI standards, as well as taking into account the dynamics of business and advances in information technology. The insistence by SC30 that comment on the current CD be limited to "revision text only", precludes any major re-work of the document which is considered necessary in order to overcome the unacceptable level of negative perceptions to the CD. Conclusions Following the review by the UN/ECE/TRADE/WP.4/SLT (Standard Liaison Team), taking in to account the action by the ISO-IEC-UN/ECE MoU/Co-ordination Committee (of replacing the reference to the Open-edi Reference model with the reference to the matrixes as per IAeG Report), and the fact that the UN/ECE comments on the first CD were substantially the same, the UN/ECE response (via the SLT) on CD to SC30 is as follows: The UN/ECE contends that the current CD (and the Australian contribution; a proposed rewrite) does not fulfil the basic requirement of a reference model (Reference: SC 30 Work Item 1 - DEVELOPMENT OF A REFERENCE MODEL THAT SERVES AS THE FRAMEWORK FOR COORDINATING THE DEVELOPMENT OF EXISTING AND FUTURE STANDARDS FOR THE INTERWORKING OF ORGANISATIONS VIA OPEN-EDI AND WILL PROVIDE A REFERENCE FOR THOSE STANDARDS). It focuses on the conceptual aspects rather than the base reference criteria. Therefore, it cannot act as the framework as envisaged in the IAeG report or in any MoU based on the IAeG report. In summary, it reinforces a very grave concern held by the UN/ECE, as it would appear there is a very strong bias towards "creating a whole _NEW_ set of standards and concepts for EDI" without regard to the existing user base and a plan for migration. While the present EDI standards, techniques and concepts may not be perfect, the UN/ECE contends that one should not "throw the baby out with the bath-water", but rather one should seek to "mould its character as it grows" in order to have the acceptance by the user, such as the Small and Medium Enterprises (SME s).

10 page 10 However, the UN/ECE does very firmly support the concept of "business scenarios" and believes it to be an important advance in making EDI more accessible. The availability of detailed business scenario specifications that describe the dialogue between business partners, the reasons why and when particular details/aspects of the dialogue are used, and other relevant information, would be a valuable tool to achieving a better level of inter-operation between the respective business information systems. The area that does concern the UN/ECE is the likely size of such a business scenario library. In the UK, the construction industry has been implementing trade related EDI messages, and the use of business scenarios has lead to a much clearer understanding of EDI and EDI standards by prospective users. But it does require a large number of business scenarios to achieve the level of detail and coverage required. If this were to be extended, for example, to cover the complete range of areas/sectors currently addressed by UN/EDIFACT, the library would be very extensive. The requisite maintenance and distribution functions would of necessity, need to be efficient and effective.