Canonical Model
other Linktoparent
| Submitted date | Last Update Date | Version | Project Proposal Status | Project Page | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
Project Purpose
| Excerpt | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Text Area | | |||
|
| Info | ||
|---|---|---|
| ||
|
What does “canonical” mean?
(adj.) Authoritative or standard: conforming to an accepted rule or procedure. When referring to programming, canonical means conforming to well-established patterns or rules. The term is typically used to describe whether or not a programming interface follows the already established standard. |
The
opportunity
&
the
driving
forces
UN/CEFACT
is
poised
to
significantly
contribute
to:
• Blockchain enabled “Trust” applied to the supply chain • Internet enabled “Collaboration” applied to the supply chain “Data Pipeline” • The uptake of process driven as distinct to document driven supply chains as required to gain benefit from blockchain and IoT technologies, and in support of “Event Driven Architectures” based services • Deployment of UN/CEFACT’s Reference Data Model approach To deliver UN/CEFACT must now focus on processes and choreography moving beyond primarily focussing only on message- Blockchain enabled “Trust” applied to the supply chain
- Internet enabled “Collaboration” applied to the supply chain “Data Pipeline”
- The uptake of process driven as distinct to document driven supply chains as required to gain benefit from blockchain and IoT technologies, and in support of “Event Driven Architectures” based services
- Deployment of UN/CEFACT’s Reference Data Model approach
To deliver UN/CEFACT must now focus on processes and choreography moving beyond primarily focussing only on message definition.
Project Scope
| Text Area | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
The project will examine all current UN/CEFACT deliverables covering BRS; RSM; ISCRM; CCL: SCRDM & MMT-RDM; MA & schema. Based on the existing UMM (2003) and CCTS (2003) both designed to ensure that UN/CEFACT works to the delivery of the required canonical model, and in considering newer technologies, an analysis will be conducted to determine the extent to which modernization may be required of the base UN/CEFACT instruments and methods. Preliminary assessment and experience dating back to 2002 indicates that to original developers of the UN/CEFACT instruments UMM & CCTS held great insight into the directions of future technologies including blockchain and sensor technology. The project will assess any identifiable gap in existing instruments, tools and methods, make recommendations as to how to address, and then to develop guidelines to ensure that the opportunity to use to greater purpose in particular UMM and related artifacts is addressing the global move to Event Driven Architectures applied to software based business solutions. This project may result in subsequent projects where technical specifications may need to be updated to the latest technologies. |
Project Deliverables
| Text Area | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
The project deliverables are:
• Gap analysis and recommendations with respect to any ‘modernization’ required of existing instruments, methods or deliverables.
• Report on the current and proposed use of tools, both commercial and bespoke as deployed in the work of developing UN/CEFACT recommendations and standards
• Development of Guidelines for extended/deeper use of UMM, CCTS and resultant BRS, RSM, ISCRM, SCRDM, MMT-RDM, CCL, schema
• Executive guide material suited to communication of the UN/CEFACT capability in standards development
|
Exit Criteria
| Text Area | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
The exit criteria will be:
• Gap analysis and recommendations with respect to any ‘modernization’ required of existing instruments, methods or deliverables.
o Analysis and recommendations presented to the Bureau for Project Exit
• Report on the current and proposed use of tools, both commercial and bespoke as deployed in the work of developing UN/CEFACT recommendations and standards
o Report presented to the Bureau for Project Exit
• Development of Guidelines for extended/deeper use of UMM, CCTS and resultant BRS, RSM, ISCRM, SCRDM, MMT-RDM, CCL, schema
o Guideline presented to the Bureau and intended to be circulated to all Domains and eventually published on the website for future usage guidance.
• Executive guide material suited to communication of the UN/CEFACT capability in standards development
o Guide presented to the Bureau and intended to be presented to the Plenary for information and published on the website. |
Project Team Membership and Required Functional Expertise
| Text Area | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
The project team is open to experts with broad knowledge and experience in the area of supply chain and related activities as well as in modelling techniques. In addition, Heads of Delegations may invite technical experts from their constituency to participate in the work. Experts are expected to contribute to the work based solely on their expertise and to comply with the UN/CEFACT Code of Conduct and Ethics. |
Head of Delegation Support
| Text Area | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
HoD support not required for internal / communication deliverables. |
Geographical Focus
| Text Area | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
The geographical focus is global. |
Initial Contributions
| Text Area | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
• UN/CEFACT Modelling Methodology (CEFACT/TMG/N093)
• UN/CEFACT ebXML Core Components Technical Specification Version 2.01
• UN/EDIFACT Data element directory D.16A
• BRS and RSM Templates |
Resource Requirements
| Text Area | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
No additional secretariat resources will required. |
Project Leadership
| Text Area | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Proposed Project Leader. Tat Tsen Jonathon Koh |
Milestones
DELIVERABLE NAME | Project Inception | Expected Completion Date | Requirements Gathering | Expected Completion Date | Draft Development | Expected Completion Date | Public Review | Expected Completion Date | Project Exit | Expected Completion Date | Publication | Expected Completion Date | Maintenance | Expected Completion Date | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Project Proposal Files
| Attachments | ||
|---|---|---|
|