# Presentation: 589338

## XML Working Group

- Joan Ugljesa
- NDIA PMSCApril, 2004

- 949-609-2999jugljesa@aim-pmcs.com

## Background – EDI Working Group

- 1992
- 806 and 839 approved for publication

- 1992
- International Performance Management Council Established

- 1993
- US DoD begins prototyping 839

- 1993
- Western European (WE) construction industry develops, prototypes PROTAP

- September, 1993
- Berlin JRT WE, US submit PROTAP as joint message

- 1994
- US A&D, utility industry prototype 806

- January, 1995
- US DoD sets policy to use 806, 839 for cost and schedule reporting

- September, 1996
- US DoD begins update to PROTAP

- October, 1996
- US DoD begins work on PROCST

- 1994 – 1997
- US A&D, DoD implements 839, prototypes 806.  DoD, Federal implementation conventions (ICs) approved

- February, 1997
- PROTAP UNSM submitted, review ends 11/97

- May, 1997
- PROCST MiD submitted, review ends 1/98

- 1996 - 1997
- Japanese and WE construction industry, US DoD correspondence exchange (PROTAP, PROCST)

- July, 1997
- US DoD sets policy for digital program office environment

- June, 1998
- 806, 839 ICs moved to v/r 4010 (Y2K)

- 1998 – 1999
- PROTAP, PROCST ICs approved at DoD and Federal level

- August, 1989
- US A&D community begins 806, 839 development

**Industries and Countries involved in development:**
**Construction (Schedule)**	**A&D, Ministries of Defense (Cost, Schedule)**
-     Western European	    Australia
-     Japanese		    Canada
-     US (limited)		    New Zealand
-  		    Sweden
**Utility (Schedule)**	    UK
-     US		    US
- 		    COTS software vendors

**Notes:**
A bit of history.  

## Background

- Resurrected the EDI Working group in August, 2003 for the purpose of migrating the essence of the cost and schedule (839 and 806) ANSI X12 transaction sets, UN/EDIFACT messages to an XML format
- Began research on best path forward

**Notes:**
Quick background introduction for anyone who has not been attending the NDIA meetings.  
Discuss purpose and scope (cost and schedule only, not CCDR’s).  
Note the use of the word “essence”.  Goal is to take a more flexible approach with XML schemas that is not so married to paper forms.    

## Background 

- XML is a W3C specification that provides the rules used to create a markup language for a specific purpose
- Use W3C XML Schema specification to define an XML vocabulary
- Schemas describe the structure and constrain contents of an XML document
- Which path to follow to develop a schema?
- Non formal
- Formal (sanctioned standards body)

**Notes:**
Purpose is to clarify XML vs. an XML schema.  Not enough to just say “XML”.  XML is a spec with a set of rules for creating a markup language.  
Need a schema to define the markup language vocabulary.
First thing we investigated was to determine what was the best path forward.  Do we develop a non formal or a formal (go through a sanctioned standards body)?  

## Current Status

- January, 2004 NDIA PMSC meeting
- Motion made and carried to take the formal standards path for an XML schema
- Have pursued two possible paths:
- XBRL (eXtensible Business Reporting Language)
- International industry group focused on financial reporting (financial firms, accountants)
- ebXML (electronic business XML)
- A collaboration between OASIS and UN/CEFACT

**Notes:**
UN/CEFACT – UN Center for Trade Facilitation and Electronic Business (is one of the few de jure standards bodies in the world; others include ANSI and ISO)
OASIS – the Organization for Advancement of Structured Information Standards

## XBRL 

- Provided background document to XBRL steering committee (January)
- Identified possible resource to help us develop XBRL taxonomies (February)
- Quickly discovered XBRL organization lacks process and support system to assist in development process
- Issues:
- Limited implementations
- Limited industry focus (accounting/finance)
- Industry association, not a sanctioned standards setting body
- Moved on to investigate Plan B - ebXML

**Notes:**
The plan A approach did not pan out.  Outside of any technical issues, the biggest factor is no demonstrated proof that they have the necessary support system in place to help someone develop a set of taxonomies (schemas) and shepherd it though their process.  We did identify a resource that was willing to help us develop a set of schemas, unfortunately, their company is no longer a member of XBRL and they were familiar with the old XBRL specification (new spec hit the streets in December, 2003).  The other item of concern was the lack of implementations to date – they don’t have an implementation plan or adoption milestones that other XML groups such as RosettaNet* have that help to build momentum.  And, what drew us to look at them in the first place, business financial reporting, has a down side to it.  Its narrow focus limits a broad implementation of the standard.  And, XBRL is an industry organization, not a sanctioned standards setting body.  Determined we needed to look at Plan B.  

* RosettaNet is a consortium focused on the IT, semiconductor, and electronic components industry.   They are a subsidiary of the Uniform Code Council (UCC).  

## ebXML

- ebXML is built on XML and other Internet standards to create an infrastructure for information and process based electronic business
- Is open and free to anyone with interest
- Based on process models encoded in XML
- Supports any type of data
- Provides framework and core components
- Gaining momentum fast – merging many XML, Internet, and ISO standards efforts
- Recognized by ISO

**Notes:**
Background information on ebXML.  First horizontal standard designed to address the exchange of information between enterprises.  As opposed to other standards efforts (industry or function focus), it is a complete standard that addresses:
Business processes
Core data components
Collaboration protocol agreements (standard information exchange and structure)
Messaging
Registries and repositories
Security
Has been gaining momentum in 2003 and into 2004.  Recently (March 29, 2004) OASIS and ebXML standards have been recognized and endorsed by ISO that enables business data interchange over the internet (ISO 15000).  Widely used internationally.  Industry endorsements and support include:  RosettaNet, Global Commerce Initiative, Automotive Industry Action Group, Health Level Seven, Open Applications Group, SWIFT (financial).  DoD has implemented for EMALL.    

## ebXML – Path Forward

- Two possible standards organization paths for new development:
- Data Interchange Standards Association (DISA) - ANSI X12
- UN/CEFACT
- Both build on ebXML framework
- Both in process of finalizing basic components needed to define standards-based schemas
- Both are working with the NIST eBusiness Standards Convergence Forum

**Notes:**
DISA (ANSI X12) tends to have a North American focus with some use in Asia.  This is less important in the XML world vs. the EDI world – underlying format was an issue in older EDI format.  DISA is better organized with a formal secretariat.   Also have a long history (celebrating 25 years this year).  
UN/CEFACT is more international (Europe, Asia) – most work is done by European working groups.  Lacks a formal organization and secretariat.  
There are pluses and minuses to either approach.  Based on conversations with people in the industry, ANSI may be the first to deliver with their core components – UN/CEFACT simply takes longer because they have no formal secretariat.  They don’t have the organization structure in place to move work through quickly.  ANSI meets 3 times per year to move things forward, UN/CEFACT meets twice a year.     

## Caveats

- Standards approach is not a fast process and there are always some trade-offs
- Depending on selected standards group, anticipate official project proposal will be submitted in the summer (DISA) or fall time frame (UN/CEFACT)
- Either way, must create a series of deliverables that conform to development approach and complete approval process

**Notes:**
This route is not a fast process.  We will be doing well if we have something within a 2 year time frame.  
There are always some trade-offs when you go the standards route.  On the minus side, are more constrained in approach – don’t have the free range when you define your own schema that doesn’t follow anyone’s rules but your own.  And many times must compromise on approach because other people/industries want to share or use the same common components.  On the plus side, when you follow a set of industry rules and are part of bigger initiative, there is a greater potential that the schema becomes more widely used and adopted.  You can also take advantage of basic components that others have already created and can build on existing standards – you don’t have to reinvent the wheel.  It also lends legitimacy to the effort because the result is sanctioned by a formal standards body.     

## What’s the End Benefit?

- A library of XML cost and schedule components defined in a broadly used international standard that can be used across industries
- Established a formal standard that can be cited in contracts and requirements much like the ANSI X12 EDI transaction sets or the EIA/ANSI 748 EVMS standard

## The Way Things Are...

- Live with current vendor or contractor specific XML vocabularies for the time being
- At least it is easy to transform data from one XML vocabulary to another
- XML is an expansive and convergent technology
- Initial wave of implementation is chaotic with everyone taking their own schema path
- Not any different from any other process change initiative

## The Way Things Are...

- XML technical standards are in place (W3C)
- Business standards lagging – now closer to reality
- ebXML combined with either ANSI or CEFACT
- Main issue:  Lack of official mandate to take a common, specific path on the schemas
- Lack Federal Secretariat to present a single face to industry as was done with EDI in the 90’s
- Specified X12 or UN/EDIFACT
- Defined set of federal implementation conventions

## Resources

| ebXML | www.ebxml.org |
| --- | --- |
| OASIS | www.oasis-open.org |
| Data Interchange Standards Association – ANSI X12 | www.disa.org |
| UN/CEFACT | www.unece.org/cefact/index.htm |
| NIST eBusiness Standards Convergence Forum | www.mel.nist.gov/div826/msid/sima/ebsc/
 |
| Log of working group activities and documents | www.aim-pmcs.com
Follow the link at the bottom of the home page
 |