August 2014  
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31            

  2014/03/06
Last changed: Mar 06, 2014 18:25 by Chris Hassler
Labels: p1014_odp5
Posted at 06 Mar @ 6:22 PM by Chris Hassler | 0 comments
Last changed: Mar 06, 2014 18:18 by Chris Hassler
Labels: p1014_odp4
Posted at 06 Mar @ 6:15 PM by Chris Hassler | 0 comments
  2014/01/28
Last changed: Jan 28, 2014 09:16 by Andrea Hampton
Labels: p1002_odp3_minutes

The workshop was chaired by Andrea Hampton and Remy Marchand and had 21 attendees, including Eva Chan who participated by Skype during the morning session.   A full list of attendees is provided at the end of these minutes.

The following agenda was proposed and adopted:

9:00        Summary of progress to date

9:30        Thematic 1: Clarifying the concept-       Presentation from the WCO on Globally Networked Customs

-       Presentation from UNECE on IOIS
10:30     Coffee Break

11:00     Thematic 2: Semantic interoperabilityTopics include:

-         Functional services versus semantics and the usability of ISO, OpenEDI

-         Data harmonization (Rec.34)

-         Usability of existing interoperability models (e.g. PAA, APEC).
13:00     Lunch Break

14:00     Thematic 3: Legal and organisational aspectsTopics include:

-         ASW

-         Mutual Recognition
15:30     Coffee Break

16:00     Discussion of Next Steps

17:00     End

Presentation Links

Workshop overview presentation

WCO presentation on Globally Networked Customs

Workshop Ouputs

Minutes of the meeting

Summary of Progress to Date

The co-chair gave a summary of the work produced to date in preparation of this Recommendation in line with agreements made in previous working group meetings.  Namely:

  • A working draft  of the recommendation (Part 1 has been drafted, Parts 2 and 3 - guidelines and case studies - still to be drafted).* A questionnaire to assist in gathering requirements and relevant information for the Recommendation* A "glossy" informational piece on the Recommendation to be used potentially in conjunction with a conference on Single Window interoperability still to be planned.

These documents are all published on Confluence project site but are to be seen as only preliminary as it was deemed that further clarity was necessary in terms of defining the scope and principles of Recommendation 36.   As part of the effort to help provide further clarity and structure to the approach for this Recommendation, three thematic areas were identified to be discussed and further defined during this workshop.

Thematic 1: Clarifying the concept

A few areas for clarification were grouped under this thematic area:

  • The implications of "interoperability" versus "interconnectivity".* Sources of case studies.* The implications for interoperability when multiple Single Windows exist within a country.* What data needs to be exchanged between SW systems.

The representative from the Netherlands highlighted the fact that several "SW" systems exist there, including a privately run system to manage canal barge cargo.  The co-chair proposed that the scope of Recommendation 36 must be primarily aimed towards Single Windows that perform [some] regulatory functions for import and export in order to align with the definition provided in Recommendation 33 but that examples for interoperability may come from any and all types of Single Window. This was met with broad agreement. Jari Salo (Finland) highlighted the benefit of maintaining broad perspectives on Single Window in order to "fertilize" the action and gain publicity.

SP Sahu of the WCO gave a presentation on the current status of the Globally Networked Customs (GNC) activities from which several areas were particularly useful in terms of crossovers for the development of Recommendation 36, namely: the IEEE's definition of interoperability from which a definition can be adapted for Recommendation 36; the EU's Interoperability Framework; the use of (functional) utility blocks to define interoperability in the context of GNC; and ongoing challenges for interoperability. The Utility Block approach may be a useful one to adapt for determining what data needs to be exchanged between SW systems.  It was agreed that developing a set of core services for the recommendation 36 would also be an important exercise.

Tom Butterly of UNECE outlined the recent work on Inter-Organisational Information Systems (IOIS) which may serve as useful sources of case studies and illustrations for interoperability between multiple single windows

Thematic 2: Semantic Requirements

Originally labelled "Technical Requirements", the co-chair explained that this could be re-labelled to "Semantic Requirements" to be more in-keeping with a technology neutral approach to this Recommendation. A few of the areas for discussion under this thematic include:

  • the technical / semantic implications of interoperability* the current international standards exist that can be used in SW interoperability* the impact of business requirements on the technical considerations

Thematic lead, Eva Chan, highlighted the need for greater participation in order to build on previous Recommendation 36 work as input to date has been limited.  The co-chairs call on working group members to identify their capacity to allocate time accordingly to assist in the development of this recommendation. 

While there are technical considerations such as the WCO data model, EDI, these specifics may be referenced in the guidelines and do not form a major part of the development of the Recommendation.

Case study examples were mentioned such as US-Canada, China-Korea-Japan collaboration and the IATA project, Netherlands SW for barge cargo, e-Maritime, and the Italian SW project which is working with several countries (SWs) outside Europe.  More understanding of the ASEAN Single Window (ASW) is needed.

Tom Butterly mentioned the Transport data model and the fact that there is a Common Reporting Schema for transport and regulatory reports.

The chair, Remy Marchand, mentioned that open EDI provides very clear directions for interoperability and also pointed out the differences between business process execution (a service, like network protocols) versus business process definition (part of Business operations with e-documents, data models).

There was some discussion around the different SAD systems (in Europe, Asia, SELA etc.) which SP had detailed in his presentation and the WCO concept of Basic information packages.

The importance of the guidelines (currently Part 2 of the working draft) was discussed and agreed to really be the starting point for the Recommendation 36.  The guidelines ought to detail an approach for interoperability from a user's perspective answering the questions: What do I exchange? Using which standards? Which tools are available? Legal framework needs to be established, needs, technology, business case etc. 

Thematic 3: Legal and organisational aspects

Although there were no specific legal experts present among the working group's participants, legal and organisational aspects were considered.

The co-chair described the reasoning at this stage to bundle legal and organisational (by which is meant administrative or management) aspects together.  That is the fact that these two are usually intrinsically linked (the legislative and policy framework shapes the administrative aspects and vice-versa) but this linkage is often forgotten in implementation leading to such questions as to who is going to manage the SW? and how? coming too late and leading to operational and funding challenges across Single Window implementations worldwide.

Several of the WCO's GNC Utility Blocks involve Mutual Recognition Agreements (MRA) and the representative from the Netherlands suggested further investigation into different types of MRA, comparing their contents as they relate to SW interoperability issues such as AEO and trader identification.

The question was also raised as to the legal and administrative framework in countries where there are multiple SW in existence.   How might an agreement between them look and how might the national legal framework relate to legal agreements with another country.   The example of Korea was discussed with input from workshop participants NIPPA, KLnet, and Lance and it was agreed further investigation of the legal and administrative set-ups in this case would be useful.

Outcomes

The meeting was wrapped up with a discussion of the outcomes of the day which were summarised with participation of all the working group members present.  They were as follows:

Assumptions:

  • Focus on single windows that perform regulatory functions (in line with Rec.33) but seek examples on interoperability from other (private sector/logistics) single windows to facilitate trade and data pipelines.* There can be more than one single window within a national border performing regulatory functions.* Adaptation of the IEEE definition of interoperability for Recommendation 36.  This was adapted to read: "The ability of two or more systems or components to exchange information and without special effort on the part of the trader to use the information that has been exchanged."

Context (that may shape differences in the various approaches to SW interoperability)

  • Existence of multiple single windows within a single country* Interoperability business needs between single windows within a national border* National legal framework* International legal framework (stages of regional integration) * Interoperability business needs across borders and regionally (needs driven by regional integration and/or trade corridors)

Challenges

The following challenges were identified, among which are crossovers with challenges faced by the WCO's Globally Networked Customs project.

  • Cross-border trader identification (incl. trusted trader)* Cross-border supply-chain transaction identification (UCR)* Cross-border Product Identification* Lack of unified data models* Different [conflicting] Legal requirements (including data protection constraints)

Themes

It was agreed that the three originally identified thematic areas will be better renamed / refocused:

  • Clarifying the Concept would become Business Needs
    • New question: what is the link between context and business needs?* Parallels with EIF "Organisational Interoperability"* Technical Requirements would become *Semantic Requirements* Legal & Organisational would become Legal, Managerial, and Administrative Aspects
    • With an additional question re: legal constraints between SW within countries

Methodology and Next Steps

Action
Who
  • Develop guidelines / working methodology that starts from (user) trader perspective
Andrea Hampton and Remy Marchand to draft outline structure for the Guidelines
  • Case Study: Korea - multiple Single Windows, Legislative framework and possible examples from South America
Korea: KLnet, Lance Thompson, NIPPA, + KTnet, etc
South America: Tom Butterly to identify contact
  • Identify business needs (what needs to be shared, by whom) à functional / utility blocks
    • AEO Mutual Recognition (& Trader Identification?)* Control Mutual Recognition* Dematerialization of supporting documents (coordinate with UNCITRAL)** Information sharing on Commercial Fraud
SP Sahu, Eva Chan + others to be identified
  • Develop a list of Core Services to support SW interoperability (SP Sahu)
SP Sahu (and others to be identified)
  • Revise and distribute the Survey
    • Must be focused on interoperability.** Must be able to capture multiple perspectives per country.
Andrea Hampton / Remy Marchand



List of Attendees

Alexander Friedman, Croatian Chamber of the Economy

Andrea Hampton, Crown Agents, UK

Eva Chan, DJava Factory

Francesca Zadro, Italian Trade Agency

Guillaume Laurency, Bureau Veritas

Hasan Ali Hidir, Ministry of Customs and Trade, Turkey

Jari Salo, TIEKE

Jasmine Chang, NIPA-KR

Jaume Bagot, IAPH - Port of Barcelona

Julien Hue, SOGET

Lance Thompson, Conex FR

Matti Oivukkamaki, Ministry of Employment and the Economy, Finland

Mike Onder, C3 Consulting

Mitsuru Ishigaki, JASTPRO

Paloma Bernal, Georgetown University

Remy Marchand, Afnet

Rob van Kwik, Ministry of Finance, Netherlands

SP Sahu, WCO

Sunho Park, KL-Net

Wonjae Park, KL-Net

Youngkon Lee, KPU

Youngkon Lee, KPU

Note : All the documents workshop can be accessed via the UN/CEFACT projects page on the website. The presentations made during the workshop have been added at the same URL address.

Ex

Posted at 28 Jan @ 9:00 AM by Andrea Hampton | 0 comments
  2013/12/18
Last changed: Dec 18, 2013 16:37 by Paloma Bernal Turnes
Labels: p1017_odp3_minutes
Posted at 18 Dec @ 4:36 PM by Paloma Bernal Turnes | 0 comments
  2013/10/15
Last changed: Oct 15, 2013 12:22 by Andrea Hampton
Labels: p1002_odp3_minutes

2013-04-17 Geneva Rec36 Workshop Minutes

2013-04-17 Geneva Rec36 Workshop Minutes


UN/CEFACT Workshop on Recommendation 36 Single Window Interoperability

Minutes of the workshop April the 17th, 2013-04-18

The workshop was opened by Johan Ponten

The initial agenda was slightly modified to take into account last minute organizational arrangements due to remote interventions.

The APEC progress report was cancelled.

The final agenda was adopted:

9-18   Project on Single Window Interoperability

1.       Roll call of participants [9 am 9.30 am]

2.       Review of Part One of the proposed Recommendation 36 [9.30 am - 11 am]

 a.        Adoption of the final plan

 b.       Adoption of the chapters considered as having Final status ready for public review (in particular the Recommendation itself and the Benefits)

 c.        Allocation of tasks for writing other chapters

3.       Presentation of progress reports by Regional Single Window (RSW) initiatives [11 am - 1 pm]

 a.        Africa by IbrahimaDiagne GAINDE 2000

 b.       Korea by Young Mi Kim of Korean customs

 c.        ASW (Japanese survey) by Mitsuru Ishigaki  of JASPRO

Lunch break [1 pm - 2 pm]

4.       Data models Data simplification the Ecuador case by Jina Choi

5.       Brain storming on guidelines [3pm - 5 pm]

 a.        Lessons learned from RSW or NSW

 b.       Single Window Implementation Framework ITAID European project by Markus Pikart

 c.        Expectations from practical and useful guidelines by Saadia Sanchez (SELA)

 d.       Discussion

6.       Legal aspects by Michael Coffee

7.       Wrap up and plan of work from April till September [5pm - 6pm]

The presentations have been transmitted to the UNCEFACT secretariat for publication.

A set of documents sent before the workshop has been published on the URL: https://letscrate.com/c/78ye

Additional documents will be published and used for e-Collaboration activities during the coming month.

These documents will be proposed for publication and the team of experts will validate the publication.

Minutes of the meeting

1.       Roll call of attendees

38 attendees from different parts of the world attended the meeting. The attendance list has been transmitted to the secretariat. Part of the meeting has been attended from Venezuela by a team of SELA experts. 

2.       Review of Part One of the proposed Recommendation 36

The chair introduced the overall objectives of the project and shared his views in this respect.  The chair pointed out that many efforts are underway, including projects currently studied by the forum which assume that cross border exchanges are developing that involve customs and other government agencies (OGA), transporters, and sectors. The success of such projects depends upon the interoperability of Single Window systems, including public and private partners. One of the main prerequisites for success in this field in his view is that there should be mutual trust between the countries concerned in any interoperability project. 

The editor observed that simplistic treatment of the Single Window interoperability should be avoided. An earlier project in the United Kingdom to exchange exportation data to allow easier importation in the partner country failed due to differences in data elements required for these purposes (if only 40% of data can be reused, there is very little reduction of administrative burden in the end as the 60 % of data will still need to be provided on the importation side). Moreover trade volumes should also be taken into account when considering the usefulness of interoperability efforts. Small volumes do not justify the investments necessary both on the government and on the business side.

The review of Part One of the Recommendation was then addressed:

a.       The final plan of part one has been adopted without modifications

b.      The chapters of Part One have been adopted with some modifications.  These are reflected in version 4 of Recommendation 36. In particular, the Recommendation itself, chapter 7, has been amended to take into account the importance of the financial and governance issues "The inventory should also list all financial and governance models available to ensure interoperability is resourced, funded and sustainable".

c.       The presentation of chapter 8 Benefits of Single Window interoperability has been modified but still needs to be validated by the group. The finalisation of Part One will be done before the coming forum, at the latest. 

3.       Regional window progress report

a.       Regional Single Window in Africa

Ibrahim Diagne, speaking on behalf of the Pan-African Alliance for e-Commerce, presented the present situation of the RSW which associates several African countries and incorporates different languages. Within the Pan-African Alliance, five National Single Windows are operating with various stages of development, five are under construction, two are considered for development.

The retained definition of Single Window (SW) in Africa has been adopted by the Pan-African Alliance for e-Commerce: "The Single Window for trade is a national or regional system mainly built on a computer platform initiated by government or an ad hoc entity to allows parties involved in trade and transport to lodge standardized information and documents with a single entry point to fulfill all import, export, and transit-related regulatory requirements". 

The presentation was discussed.

An African SW conference will be held in September 2013. 

b.      Single Window in Korea and participation of Korea to multilateral or bilateral SW interoperability

Korea has established a SW system - UNIPASS - which collects all exchanges of data involving customs or other government agencies. UNIPASS has independently defined its connectivity requirements which are different from the PAA set of specifications. Three other SW systems exist, the main one being KT Net, which is also a member of the Pan Asian Alliance for e-Commerce. These three SW systems are used for B2B cross border exchanges but exchanges with Customs and other government agencies are sent via UNIPASS. Korean traders can access UNIPASS directly. 

c.       ASEAN Single Window ASW

The RSW system built under the auspices of the ASW project was presented by Mitsuru Ishigaki  of JASPRO. His report demonstrated that NSW systems having different organisational set-up, as is indicated possible in Recommendation 33, can however coexist in a RSW system. JASPRO's comparative study has been validated by the ASW team as correctly representing the situation. It was not possible to have a presentation by the ASW team themselves due to their being preoccupied with the imminent launch of the ASW system. 

Two important observations were made: 

1) National Single Window systems can participate in different regional alliances. This is the case of TradeXchange (Singapore) for example.

2) ASW has elaborated a RSW application which is used to maintain the interoperability between NSW systems. It has been estimated that such an application was indispensible in order to preserve interoperability from the threat of frequent changes to NSW (actors, roles, business process id etc.. The time was not sufficient to examine the characteristics of this application.  

4.       Contribution of Data Models to SW interoperability

It has been noted that the World Customs Organisation's Data Model is becoming widely adopted. It accepts the two syntaxes EDIFACT and XML.

The use of Recommendation 34 proves to be effective as explained by Jina Choi in the context of the establishment of the standardised data set in Ecuador. 21 agencies have been considered, 600 documents, and 400 schemas produced. While the WCO Data Model has been used, limitations in its scope were observed, namely that it mainly pertains to Customs and OGA.

5.       Presentation of the SELA RSW

Saadia Sanchez provided a presentation of the SELA initiative from Caracas remotely. The RSW initiative has been recently revived and placed under the authority of an ambassador. The presentation was transmitted to the UNCEFACT secretariat. The main idea governing the NSW developments is to guide them via a regional methodology - such a role could be played by the Recommendation 36 once completed. At the present time, SELA has developed a Single Window Interoperability Framework (SWIF) elaborated with funding support from the EU. SELA experts are interested in the development of Recommendation 36 and contact will be maintained to take into account all demands arising from the SELA project and addressed to the Recommendation 36 team. These demands will help identifying relevant topics to interoperability.

6.       Single Window Implementation Framework

This and related work to which UNECE has contributed was presented by Markus Pikart. These documents addressing different facets of SW are published on the e-Collaboration site of the Recommendation 36 team and their value will be considered as inputs for the Recommendation 36 (Guidelines). 

7.       Brain Storming

The discussion was limited due to lack of time. It was observed that in the APEC region, Single Window interoperability is considered "Business as usual". The different RSW alliances are more or less interfaced in this region. Progress is made on a continuous basis, often with very precise themes being addressed.

The Questionnaire that was proposed following the last meeting in Vienna will be revised to face the demand of some trading partners such as FIATA. The present version does not address the concerns of some categories of users. In addition to this the new version will be exploited to bring the results of the consultation which will be an incentive at the time of the collection of the answers.

A team has been formed to decide upon the new version of the Questionnaire

8.       UNECE and Single Window interoperability

Mr Tom Butterly intervened to expose his views concerning the future of the work concerning Recommendation 36. In light of the recent IMO meeting, and also considering the fact that Single Window is a term which is being used with different meanings and scope, such as the EU e-Maritime program or e-Freight of IATA, he advanced the idea to organize an official three days meeting which will help considering thoroughly the different problems which should be studied to assist in establishing a real policy to progress towards a global although nuanced approach of SW interoperability. 

Future work

The Recommendation 36 team will work in the future as it is proposed by the draft document structuring the production of any UNECE Recommendation, even if this document is not yet finalised.

e-Collaboration, already used, will be continued and better structured.

Specific items of work will be defined by a core team of experts, such as the Questionnaire, Trading partner identification, review of existing legal agreements (and their comparison).

Regular Conference calls will be decided and documents will be distributed in advance using the Confluence site and/or any other publication facility.

The existing Regional Single Window initiatives will be closely associated to the workshop. The same attitude will be adopted concerning Single Window initiatives with a limited scope (sector based).

Note : All the documents published before the April Recommendation workshop can be accessed on a dedicated site.The presentations made during the workshop have been added at the same URL address.

Ex


Posted at 15 Oct @ 12:10 PM by Andrea Hampton | 0 comments
  2013/06/18
  2013/02/19
Last changed: Feb 19, 2013 04:35 by Tim McGrath
Labels: p1001_odp2

An editorial subteam formulated requirements based on the current work programmes of TC 154 and UN/CEFACT

Posted at 19 Feb @ 4:33 AM by Tim McGrath | 0 comments
Last changed: Feb 19, 2013 04:32 by Tim McGrath
Labels: p1001_odp1_minutes

Draft Minutes - ISO/TC154 ODIF Project Team conference call - 31 May 2012, 14:00 UTC
Participants: Klaus-Dieter Naujok (K-DN), Andrew Schoka (AS), Chris Hassler (CH), Chris Nelson (CN), Kenji Itoh (KI), Mary Kay Blantz (MKB), Sue Probert (SP), Michael Dill (MD), Hisanao Sugamata (HS), Ian Watt (IW), James Whittle (JW), Anders Grangard (AG)

Excused: Bernd Boesler (BB), Francois Vuilleumier (FV), Ken Holman (KH), Tim McGrath (TMG), Kevin Smith (KS)

Approval of Agenda - Approved
Team Member Introduction - Each participant introduced themselves and described their interest in this project.
Review of Project Proposal
Scope of Work - K-DN reviewed the project proposal and described the background of the project. The project is under ISO/TC 154, but results are jointly published with UN/CEFACT. ISO/TC 154 and UN/CEFACT will be reviewing the report and recommendations under their own process.
Ballot Results - Project was approved. Comments submitted by Canada and the Netherlands. The comments will be discussed at the appropriate time as work progresses.
Other - This project was presented to the MoU/MG; announced on ISO/TC 154's and UN/CEFACT's public web sites and notifications were send to all internal and external liaisons to TC 154.
Introduction to ISO/TC154's Collaboration Website
Usage - K-DN demonstrated the features of the website.
General
Comments
Use of Markdown
Notifications
Progression of the Technical Report
Notebook Layout - K-DN outline the usage of the collaboration web site and described the table of contents and the information added to date. The final item section will be 'Recommendations'; these will be sent to ISO/TC 154 and UN/CEFACT for review, approval, and publication.
Next steps
Start work on the Current Work Programs section by identifying the relevant technical specifications and standards that are being maintained, developed or given consideration in work programs and strategies. The following participants voluntered to help with this work:
UN/CEFACT: TM, HS
ISO/TC 154: K-DN, SP
Relevant Work Items within Liaison Organizations: JW, AG
Other Business
Frequency of Conference Calls: The question was raised about the time table, which is very aggressive. The team agreed to review the bi-weekly call schedule on its next call to determine if there is a need to switch to weekly calls.
All: Send email to K-DN with name and email address of anyone who should be invited to join the group.
Next Meeting: 14 June 2012, starting at 14:00 UTC.

Posted at 19 Feb @ 4:31 AM by Tim McGrath | 0 comments
  2013/02/18
Last changed: Feb 18, 2013 15:32 by Claudio Meza
Labels: p1001_odp3_minutes

Draft Minutes - ISO/TC154 ODIF Project Team conference call - 25 October 2012, 14:00 UTC

Participants: Klaus-Dieter Naujok (K-DN), Chris Hassler (CH), Chris Nelson (CN), Hisanao Sugamata (HS), Francois Vuilleumier (FV), Kenji Itoh (KI), Kevin Smith (KS), Mary Kay Blantz (MKB), Mei-Li Chen (M-LC), Sue Probert (SP), Sylvia Webb (SW)

Excused: Anders Grangard (AG), Ian Watt (IW), James Whittle (JW), Jasmine Jang (JJ), Tim McGrath (TMG)

Not Present: Andrew Schoka (AS), Bernd Boesler (BB), Ian Watt (IW), Juan Carlos Cruellas (CC), Ken Holman (KH), Michael Dill (MD), Peter Potgieser (PP), Sean Lockhead (SL), Wenfeng SUN (WS)

Approval of Agenda - approval

Summary Report from the F2F Meetings in Concord

K-DN: The ODIF team met all day Monday, Tuesday late afternoon and on Wednesday afternoon. There was unanimous agreement, other than from TMG. Since ISO rules allow only facilitation by the conveyors, there is unanimous agreement by all participating experts on the Draft Report. K-DN has spoken with the Chair of UN/CEFACT, Stuart Feder, and he will discuss this with TMG.

Finalization of Section 9.5 (Benefits and Risks)

This section was developed based on a brainstorming session during the F2F meetings by the team. This call resulted in:
Completion of sections 9.5.1 (Benefits) and 9.5.2 (Risks).

Adding additional text to the end of section 9.2 to provide General Recommendations for both organizations.
Other Business

Next Meeting: To be determined.

Posted at 18 Feb @ 3:30 PM by Claudio Meza | 0 comments
  2013/02/15
Last changed: Feb 15, 2013 02:21 by Tim McGrath
Labels: p1001_odp1_minutes

Draft Minutes - ISO/TC154 ODIF Project Team conference call - 26 July 2012, 14:00 UTC
Participants: Klaus-Dieter Naujok (K-DN), Tim McGrath (TMG), Chris Hassler (CH), Chris Nelson (CN), Francois Vuilleumier (FV), Hisanao Sugamata (HS), Kenji Itoh (KI), Kevin Smith (KS), Mei-Li Chen (M-LC), Sean Lockhead (SL), Sue Probert (SP), Sylvia Webb (SW)

Excused: Anders Grangard (AG), Andrew Schoka (AS), Ian Watt (IW), Ken Holman (KH), Mary Kay Blantz (MKB),

Not present: Bernd Boesler (BB), James Whittle (JW), Juan Carlos Cruellas (CC), Michael Dill (MD), Peter Potgieser (PP), Wenfeng SUN (WS)

Approval of Agenda - approved
Review and adoption of Draft Minutes from 19 July call - approved
Review of 1st Draft TR
Completed review of section 6, Identified issues, taking into account comments received from HS
Due to late time of night for some of our members it was agreed to schedule an editing team meeting tomorrow (Friday 27 July, same stating time - 14:00 UTC) to review the rest of the document, starting with section 7, Analysis. The WebEx information is available via this link.
Other Business
Next Meeting: Thursday, 02 August 2012, starting at 14:00 UTC.

Posted at 15 Feb @ 2:20 AM by Tim McGrath | 0 comments
Last changed: Feb 15, 2013 02:08 by Tim McGrath
Labels: p1001_odp3

UN/CEFACT has been made aware that ISO TC154 are currently balloting a draft Technical Report known as ISO/DTR 18262 "Processes, data elements and documents in commerce, industry and administration — Open data interchange framework".

Overall, we are pleased with the analysis and documentation of the current scenario. However, we believe the current recommendations need further discussion in order to be shared and agreed with UN/CEFACT through bilateral consultation and review.

The following are some of the UN/CEFACT concerns:

a. Scope.
According to the UN/CEFACT view, the document appears not to have completely realized its scope, in that:

"... the identification of technical specifications and standards that are being maintained, developed or given consideration in work programmes and strategies that respond to stakeholder requirements for the open interchange of structured data in support of administration, commerce and trade;
Note:This may include work from Standards Development Organizations (SDO) other than ISO and United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE)."

We wish to draw attention to the Note. The current draft somehow appears to recommend that ISO TC 154 is the only external standardization group that can address UN/CEFACT's requirements for methodological and technical standards, whereas the scope of the MOU on eBusiness brings other Standards Development Organisations and consortia into the picture.

b. Identification of Issues.
We consider that many of the issues raised here are not part of a discussion about the relationships and dependencies of relevant specifications and standards. Many are issues of governance and management rather than responsibilities.

c. Content.
The concepts of the Open Data Interchange Framework appears to be not fully explained and there is, in our opinion, a need for further explanation of its relationship to the final recommendations.

In conclusion, we believe that it is in our common interest to initially agree on a document making recommendations to the major sponsor organization before making decisons on its publication. We therefore hope that further consultation will take place in order to achieve a common understanding of all issues related to the ODIF. This consultation and consequent agreement may certainly be facilitated by the fact that several UNCEFACT experts participated in the project.

Thank you very much for your attention.

Posted at 15 Feb @ 2:08 AM by Tim McGrath | 0 comments
Last changed: Feb 15, 2013 01:55 by Tim McGrath
Labels: p1001_odp2_minutes

Draft Minutes - ISO/TC154 ODIF Project Team conference call - 02 August 2012, 14:00 UTC
Participants: Klaus-Dieter Naujok (K-DN), Francois Vuilleumier (FV), Kenji Itoh (KI), Kevin Smith (KS), Mary Kay Blantz (MKB), Mei-Li Chen (M-LC), Sean Lockhead (SL), Sue Probert (SP), Sylvia Webb (SW)

Excused: Anders Grangard (AG), Chris Nelson (CN), James Whittle (JW), Ken Holman (KH)

Not Present: Tim McGrath (TMG), Andrew Schoka (AS), Bernd Boesler (BB), Chris Hassler (CH), Hisanao Sugamata (HS), Ian Watt (IW), Juan Carlos Cruellas (CC), Michael Dill (MD), Peter Potgieser (PP), Wenfeng SUN (WS)

Approval of Agenda - approval
Review and adoption of Draft Minutes from 26 July call - approval
Outline new schedule for moving forward with the DTR
K-DN outline the agreed schedule, the current status and way for moving forward:
Previously-approved milestones were:
07 May-20 July => Drafting TR
23 July-22 September => Two (2) months DTR ballot
24 September-07 October => Two (2) week comments review before plenary
08-11 October => Address and resolve any outstanding comments during TC 154 meeting
12 October => At plenary, either a) approve the TR for publication (pass to ISO for publication) or b) if still outstanding comments/issues, agree to a forward path.
We missed the 23rd July deadline, but agreed to use the two weeks (24September-07 October) allocated for ballot comment review, to extend the final draft deadline and ballot start to today. This would require all comments to be addressed during the F2F meeting in Concord.
Current status: we have missed the deadline to allow a ballot to be started with the result available for review, and final editing during the F2F meeting of TC 154 in October, so that we could present the final document for approval by the TC 154 plenary for publication.
Moving forward: Let's concentrate on making he best use of the next two months before our F2F ODIF team meeting. Therefore, instead of continuing with weekly ODIF project team calls, we suspend these call to allow the editing team to do their work. The new schedule will be:
16 August => The editing team next call.
This will allow time to take the latest version's text and transfer it to the Notebook to allow the editing team to use the collaboration features moving forward. It takes little to move the final agreed to text from the Notebook pages into the ISO template. In addition all outstanding comments and issues will be listed via blog entries allowing team members to start a dialogue.
16 August - 20 September => The editing team can decide the frequency of their WebEx calls as required.
20 September => Editing team presents the final draft to the ODIF.
The editors will introduce the final draft, outline the 2 week internal commenting period, and answer general questions for clarification.
Note: This call is during the UN/CEFACT Forum and since a number of ODIF project team members are in Vienna, this would allow them to organize a session to join the call via WebEx.
27 September => ODIF Team call to address and comments received.
05 October => Comment cut-off date
08 October => Scheduled ODIF F2F (and WebEx) meeting to address all outstanding comments to finalize the draft. If needed a final F2F (and WebEx) meeting can be scheduled for 10th October, Wednesday afternoon.
12 October => Present the final draft to the TC 154 plenary for their approval to send out for ballot.
The following members agreed to participate in the Edit Team:
K-DN, TMG, MKB, SP, IW, CH, FV, HS, KS, SW, KI
Other members wishing to participate are asked to notify K-DN not later then 8th August.
Other Business
Action Items
K-DN: Contact TMG to find out status of draft documents, TR and spreadsheet.
Next Meetings:
Full ODIF: Thursday, 20 September 2012, starting at 14:00 UTC (during the UN/CEFACT Forum)
Edit Team: Thursday, 16 August 2012, starting at 14:00 UTC.

Posted at 15 Feb @ 1:54 AM by Tim McGrath | 0 comments
Last changed: Feb 15, 2013 02:43 by Tim McGrath
Labels: p1001_odp1

To comply with ISO rules UN/CEFACT experts should register with the ISO TC 154 Chair as members under the agreement between UNECE and ISO.

Posted at 15 Feb @ 1:43 AM by Tim McGrath | 0 comments