1. Proposal for a Revised Technical Framework for UN/CEFACT 1

2. REVISED TECHNICAL FRAMEWORK PROPOSAL Requirements 2

3. The current market Surveys, analysis and experience suggests: – Many established communities not using UN/CEFACT standards consistently – Situation is too fragmented to change Then and now… – UN/EDIFACT = single SDO (UN/CEFACT) – XML = many SDOs (W3C, OASIS, ISO, IEC, GS1) UN/CEFACT is not the sole arbiter of XML standards for eBusiness – No ‘one’ canonical standard will work 3

4. What Standard(s) Can We Achieve? One Standard to Rule them All – Centralized – Global agreement – Is my invoice everyone’s invoice? Or Islands of standardization – Foundational semantics – Satisfying different communities of use – Using specific EDI or XML formats – Transform between different formats – Needs coordination

5. Fragmented Standards – Who wins? Coordinated Standards – Common semantics – Federated approach The Options Before Us One Standard – Who decides? – What do they decide? – When do they decide?

6. The opportunity for UN/CEFACT Someone needs to facilitate the interoperability between these communities. UN/CEFACT can have that role – Standardize what can be agreed, to improve interoperability – ‘core’ processes, structures, components and data types (including code lists). – Allow communities to re-use these in their environments. 6

7. The role for UN/CEFACT A forum for coordinating a framework for interoperability for trade facilitation and eBusiness – Ensure everything is done, but … – Not to do everything Facilitators not owners Support disparate community implementations Build bridges not walls How do we do this? 7

8. Restructure what we have Agree on what the ‘end game’ should be: – What an effective framework for UN/CEFACT deliverables would look like. Plan how to reach the ‘end game’ – Who does what – Stop doing things that don’t fit this plan Manage the completion of these projects – Get the right resources Manage expectations – Communicate value

9. REVISED TECHNICAL FRAMEWORK PROPOSAL Interoperability 9

10. summary (proposed) Revised Technical Framework: Standardize on semantics not syntax or formats UN/CEFACT ‘core’ semantics establish foundation for interoperability Communities of use create their own implementations Process, components, structures, documents and syntax Statement of conformance Registry of conformant specifications published by UN/CEFACT UN/CEFACT is a facilitator of interoperability between communities Impact on programme of work: UN/CEFACT projects will develop… Profiles for business processes Business requirements, rules and semantics Published as Deliverables for Information Recommendation for use of standards Communities of use develop … Implementation profiles business requirements, rules and semantics and syntax 10

11. Framework for Interoperability For us its all about information exchange The ability of two or more systems or components to exchange information and to use the information that has been exchanged Requires mutual agreement on several levels

12. Legal Interoperability Legislative Alignment Organizational Interoperability Organization/Process Alignment Semantic Interoperability Semantic Alignment Technical Interoperability Interaction & Transport Political Context Interoperability levels

13. Legal Interoperability Legislative Alignment Organizational Interoperability Organization/Process Alignment Semantic Interoperability Semantic Alignment Technical Interoperability Interaction & Transport Political Context Requirements for Interoperability International Laws WTO/UN recommendations agreed business processes agreed components agreed documents agreed syntax Trade Agreements Requirements for Trade Facilitation agreed messaging protocol Trade Facilitation Recommendations Facilitating Interoperability in Trade

14. EDIFACT and XML expressions Of the models Legal Interoperability Legislative Alignment Organizational Interoperability Organization/Process Alignment Semantic Interoperability Semantic Alignment Technical Interoperability Interaction & Transport Political Context Requirements for Interoperability International Laws WTO/UN recommendations ‘core’ business processes ‘core’ components ‘core’ structures Trade Agreements Requirements for Trade Facilitation messaging protocols Trade Facilitation Recommendations The role for UN/CEFACT UNECE Recommendations Generic reference models for business processes Generic semantic data models Generic semantic data structure models EDIFACT and XML

15. Interoperability Framework UN/CEFACT Publications Legal Interoperability Legislative Alignment Organizational Interoperability Organization/Process Alignment Semantic Interoperability Semantic Alignment Technical Interoperability Interaction & Transport Political Context International Laws WTO/UN recommendations ‘core’ business processes ‘core’ components ‘core’ structures EDIFACT and XML expressions Trade Agreements messaging protocols Trade Facilitation Recommendations Requirements for Trade Facilitation [ODP] UN/CEFACT deliverables for information Deliverables that support how one or more Business Standards and/or Recommendations shall be implemented

16. 1. Union of all usages (A,B,C,D,E,F,G) 2. Designed set (A,C,F,Z) community A B C D E F G A C Z F Everything everyone wants: Xcomplex to understand Xcomplex to maintain (harmonize) enables compliance of legacy/current solutions Xcompliance does not ensure interoperability What we think everyone needs: Xcreates yet another standard Xchallenges compliance of legacy/current solutions compliance ensures interoperability commuity Defining the ‘core’

17. 3. Intersection of all usages (F) F 4. Intersection of common usage (B,C,F,G) B C F G What everyone uses: simple to understand easier to maintain encourages compliance of legacy/current solutions compliance ensures (limited) interoperability What many use: still simple to understand harder to maintain (harmonize) enables compliance to subsets by legacy/current solutions Xcompliance does not ensure interoperability can evolve towards Defining the ‘core’

18. International Laws WTO/UN recommendations ‘core’ business processes ‘core’ components ‘core’ structures Trade Agreements messaging protocols Trade Facilitation Recommendations Requirements for Trade Facilitation Core Interoperable Foundation Library Based on standard repository schema Based on standard repository schema syntax expressions of models EDIFACT XML Published in 18 The Core Interoperable Foundation Library

19. communities of use… Trading environments around specific: – business domains, – industry groups, – governments, – regions, – technologies or – commercial service models Communities contain smaller communities No organization exists in only one community – members overlap – communities form webs not hierarchies They are identified by context – requirements defined by business rules May support disparate implementations by members 19

20. communities specify their own implementation guides Business processes – Establish context of use Document requirements – Invoice, Freight Invoice, Utility Invoice, Bill, etc, etc. – Process determines function NOT name of document Business rules (incl. code lists) – “In cases when invoices are issued in other currencies than the national currency of the seller, the seller may be required to provide information about the VAT total amount in his national currency.” Syntax – EDIFACT, X12, ASN.1, XML Formats – XML vocabularies (UBL, GS1, OAGi, XBRL, ISO20022) 20

21. Used in ‘core’‘community of use’ business processes components and code lists structures syntax expressions creating a ‘core’ semantic reference for eBusiness 21

22. Communities define ‘common’ ‘common’ to the insurance community (B,F,G) ‘common’ to the CBRA community (F,G,C) ‘common’ to the procurement community (B,F,C) Insurance community Insurance community Insurance community A B F G Customs community CBRA community Single window community C E F G Procurement community Procurement community Procurement community B C D F

23. Governance CommunitiesImplementations Agriculture Domain UN/CEFACT communities may have different implementations Cross Border Agriculture domain Core Interoperable Foundation Library Conformance to core semantics Conformance to core semantics Conformance to community semantics Conformance to community semantics 23

24. assurances of conformity Sample: – “This specification is in conformity to the UN/CEFACT Core Interoperable Foundation Library in that it uses the following generic components… – All new components introduced in this specification are defined in reference to these generic components and are consistent with them.”      Communities issue statements of self conformance – no certification It is assumed that the industry will police itself and that most communities will determine that it is in their own best interests to make truthful and accurate claims. 24

25. registry of community specifications IVI Consortium IMS Global Learning Consortium European Commission Joinup Registry Community Specifications 25

26. ISO 20022 Registry 26

27. Towards Sustainable Collaboration Contributing to Global Trade

28. International Supply Chain Reference Model

29. Services supporting Global Supply Chain Communities SUPPLIER BUYER PROCUREMENT FINANCIAL REGULATORY LOGISTICS Malaysian Single Window Korean Single Window INTTRA GTNexus ARIBA GS/1 STANDARD CHARTERED HSBC Information sharing based on foundation of UN/CEFACT semantics