It is a fair comment and one which comes up increasingly as various XML
initiatives seek alliances to increase their market share.
I personally still believe that rather than many bilateral 'alignments'
we should all aim for a single standard. That is, align with one common
standard. The analogy is something like encouraging a GATT-type
solution rather than many bilateral, free-trade agreements.
At present the most likely candidate for facilitating that is
UN/CEFACT. So my preferred approach is to avoid market confusion
(creating a possible n x n set of intermediary standards) and not waste
resources on short term strategies. Then we can focus on the
convergence with UN/CEFACT as the best way forward for UBL.
stephen.green@systml.co.uk wrote:
> Folks
>
> In view of today's news
>
> http://www.hr-xml.org/blog/?p=128
>
> I wondered (as I expect many have) whether there is more UBL
> can do now (or ATG2) to align as fully with OAGIS as HR-XML to
> create just one big bundle. UBL might be distinctive by its
> being strongly document-like and perhaps easier to implement
> in certain scenarios but even a common library might be a
> possibility. Are there political issues? How would it affect
> UBL / CEFACT convergence? Would HR-XML/OAGIS be seeking as much
> convergence with CEFACT as UBL? Could this all lead in some way
> to a single library? Maybe a removal of duplication? Alignment
> on the UDT library was one thing but presenting a united/common
> front and maybe even a common library might be very nice to
> see and help interoperability while still providing choice in
> which 'documents' to use - the OAGIS-like ones or the UBL-like
> ones.
>
> All the best
>
> Stephen Green
>
>
> --No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.11/721 - Release Date:
> 13/03/2007 4:51 PM
>
>
--
regards
tim mcgrath
phone: +618 93352228
postal: po box 1289 fremantle western australia 6160
web: http://www.portcomm.com.au/tmcgrath