|Stephen GOULD||Dec 14, 2006 4:57 am|
|robe...@javest.com||Dec 14, 2006 6:51 am|
|David RR Webber (XML)||Dec 14, 2006 7:26 am|
|David RR Webber (XML)||Dec 14, 2006 7:48 am|
|robe...@javest.com||Dec 14, 2006 8:40 am|
|David RR Webber (XML)||Dec 14, 2006 8:55 am|
|Stephen GOULD||Dec 15, 2006 4:09 pm|
|Fulton Wilcox||Dec 15, 2006 6:23 pm|
|Stephen GOULD||Dec 18, 2006 8:33 pm|
|Subject:||Time to review Edifact NAD format ?|
|From:||Stephen GOULD (step...@halisa.net)|
|Date:||Dec 14, 2006 4:57:27 am|
EDI is proving to be a disaster around the world mainly because the Standards were formulated over 20 years ago with the driving force being to reduce Purchasing costs not facilitate Trade
EDIFACT was first release in 1987 and the format has not been revised hence the normal business problem of unclear instruction results in mayhem.
There are two address formats in the NAD Data Segment without any directions to stipulate when each format should be used
With the advent of XML and the Internet perhaps it is time to have very clear instructions when to use each format or just reduce it to one format only
A TECHNICAL PROBLEM WITH MULTIPLE ADDRESS FORMATS
The OIC Expert IT eCommittee formed to resolve the single XML address for ASA 4590 has initially confirmed that the Complex version can replace the Simplex version to establish a single XML Address format
It now appears that UN/CEFACT (EDIFACT) has the same problem with different options in the Name and Address (NAD) Data Segment for each Trade Document
Whilst I appreciate you will not have reviewed the details of the data elements and data components of UN/CEFACT, here is a link to the "NAD" Data Segments and three eTrade documents downloaded from the Australia TradeGate Importer/Exporter Web Site http://www.oic.org/z/XZIG/UNCEFACT/ZXAAECR1.htm
As you can see there will be much confusion as to whether software developers should use Data Element CO58 or CO80 and CO59.
However the main problem is that software will have to be written to check which whether "CO58 has been used" or whether "CO80 has been used thru to 3207" http://www.halisa.net/R/EDIFACT/edieraa1.htm
B PORT OF MELBOURNE EOI 13110
The Government Responses to Questions to the Port of Melbourne eCommunity PoMC EOI 13110 indicates there is much confusion from Government responses on the use of Ecommerce Standards http://www.oic.org/z/XZIG/tdr/BCbAAWL7/BCbAAWQ1.htm#Ah
It is appropriate UN/CEFACT to clarify the issues prior to the RFT being published as EOI 13110 states all importers and exporters must use EDIFACT.
C UN/CEFACT SUPPORT FOR TRADE FACILITATION
The Mission Statement of UN/CEFACT states it "supports activities dedicated to improving the ability of business, trade and administrative organizations, from developed, developing and transitional economies, to exchange products and relevant services effectively" http://www.oic.org/z/FZIG/AUJS/p/C/1UCAAEB1.htm
In Sep 2004 you and I reviewed your draft eCommerce Trade Strategy for the Asia Pacific Region http://www.oic.org/A/U/
On reviewing that Strategy again, I believe the key issue for Trade Facilitation is the single address format within the "NAD" Data Segment for all eTrade Documents.
Hence I believe the recommendations on the AS 4590 Standard will be pertinent to UN/CEFACT.
What do you think ?