UBL 2.1 version approved?
Forum topic: Submitted by Skandels on Fri, 2011-06-03 13:40.
Question, what is the current state of the UBL 2.1 version? Is it already approved or is it still subjected to review? In the doc section I can see the 2.1 zip archive having a PRD description, however the news section does not mention a final release of the 2.1 version. If not approved what is the expectation when this will happen? Kind Regards,Skander
Search
SUBSCRIBE
RECENT CONTENT
- Exploring the future of eInvoicing (kenneth.bengtsson)
2 weeks ago - E-Invoicing Exchange Summit - Kuala Lumpur (kenneth.bengtsson)
2 weeks ago - Public Procurement Data Superpowers (kenneth.bengtsson)
3 weeks ago - UBL 2.4 approved as a Committee Specification (kenneth.bengtsson)
25 weeks ago - UBL TC face-to-face meeting in Dublin, September 2023 (kenneth.bengtsson)
26 weeks ago - Obtaining OASIS UBL 2.1 (ISO/IEC 19845:2015) (gkholman)
26 weeks ago
Currently online: 52 guests and 0 users:
UBL 2.1 PRD2 Submitted to OASIS for publishing
Thank you for your question! Though in the future it will be better to post such questions to the UBL-Dev mailing list as there are more people monitoring that list than this forum. See the instructions at http://ubl.xml.org/forum near the top of the content.
Just four days ago on May 30, 2011 the second public review draft (PRD2) for UBL 2.1 was sent to OASIS for publishing:
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl/201105/msg00032.html
When OASIS Administration complete their preparations, the 30-day review period will begin and you can make your comments to prepare for PRD3. A lot of work has already started on PRD3, so getting your comments in during the PRD2 period is important.
No official release date for UBL 2.1 has been or even can be announced, because it depends on the timing of OASIS Administration and the kinds of comments we get from the review periods.
It would be good to have UBL 2.1 completely finished and published before the end of 2011, close to the 5-year anniversary of the publishing of UBL 2.0. This isn't guaranteed, but in my personal opinion (and not an official opinion of a committee member) I think this goal can be easily achieved.
I hope this helps.
. . . . . . . . . Ken
Final questions
Thx for your response Ken. Final two questions, can you point me to any detailed info about the migration of UBL to an UN/CEFACT standard? On the net I can only find dated info. And, do you know if there is a forum on the net where public and private held companies exchange experiences about the use of UBL in there eBusiness processes?
I am currently involved in an e-procurement project for a large semi-public company and I am investigating the possibility of using UBL for procurement processes vs other standards. Based on all the info I read on the net and the adaption by several governments I believe it is a promising standard, but I am curious what this migration will mean. Major changes in the interface design after go-live with our suppliers will mean a lot of headaches.....
Thx!
SkanderSome answers to consider
(1) - you ask "migration of UBL to a UN/CEFACT standard" and I'm confused ... *which* UN/CEFACT standard are you asking about? UBL is already based on UN/CEFACT Core Components Technical Specification (CCTS) 2.01 (which is the latest finalized CCTS specification). So much so that the UN/CEFACT copyrighted schema components form the lowest level foundation of the UBL schema import tree. Everything in UBL is based on UN/CEFACT 2.01 core component types.
(2) The forum on the net where public and private companies exchange experiences with UBL is the UBL-Dev list I cited earlier: details at the top of the Forum home page on this site.
(3) You can either experiment or go live with UBL for the invoicing aspect of procurement at no charge whatsoever today using the http://Tradeshift.com cloud-based service ... the experimental server is at http://sandbox.Tradeshift.com and the production server is at http://go.Tradeshift.com ... France and Ireland and the British National Health Service (the world's fifth largest purchaser) are all on Tradeshift
(4) answering your question about what migration would mean to you is tricky over an email list ... you cite "major changes in the interface design", but for most users of UBL integration is simply a mapping exercise from and to legacy formats already implemented in systems. UBL says *nothing* about business processes ... it is only a document format. Tradeshift is a document exchange platform with social networking features, but it, too, says nothing about how a company does its business processes. Using UBL and using Tradeshift impacts an organization only at the edges of their systems, not at the core.
I think you'll be pleasantly surprised how straightforward it would be for you to augment your existing systems with UBL support and/or Tradeshift support without impacting your existing systems.
I've helped set up the http://goUBL.com web site for North American companies to learn more about UBL and Tradeshift. You don't say where you are from, but I've helped companies around the world with their XML, and as a co-editor of the UBL specification, I'm putting forward my services to help others understand how this all fits.
I think it best to continue this open discussion on UBL-Dev, and I would be pleased to continue to answer your public questions publicly ... as would other participants on UBL-Dev ... or we could talk more privately. I offer training classes on UBL, code lists and Tradeshift, as well as my consulting services.
Of course you may continue to post your questions here on UBL.xml.org, but this forum area specifically designates the UBL-Dev mail list as the place to hold such discussions. It will be important for you to get the opinions of others as well.
Good luck in your explorations! I look forward to your further questions, public or private.
. . . . . . . . . Ken