Although the DoD is currently considering migration from ANSI X12 to UN/EDIFACT, there remains a need for the two standards to be interoperable. A subtle but fundamental difference between the two standards has led to a compatibility barrier, which necessitates developing a standardized methodology for both assessing the semantic equivalency and aligning the two standards. Through an analysis of the nuances of each standard, it was determined that the best starting point for assessing the potential "compatibility" of the two standards is to first focus purely on the semantics. By first focusing on only the semantics of the data, all of the peculiarities pertaining to the data format, structure, and syntax may be ignored. This allows the standards to be compared on even terms without giving up the ability to account for differences between corresponding data elements.
The BSR is focused on using semantics as an intermediate connection between the two standards. However, there are fundamental differences in their approach and objective. The underlying objective of the BSR project is to establish ISO as a registrar for BSR semantic units. In addition, the BSR's approach to defining semantic units involves the use of property classes, but does not include object classes, which therefore eliminates the consistency permitted by the UDEF approach.
Using the UDEF approach for assessing the equivalency of ANSI X12 transaction sets with UN/EDIFACT messages provides a formalized process for an otherwise disorderly and cumbersome task. Although the UDEF is based on an agreed set of defined objects and properties, additional sub-objects and sub-properties must be created to accurately define most, if not all, semantic units. Creating these sub-objects and sub-properties can be a very subjective process that can potentially result in definitions that are not universally applicable. It is therefore important for anyone using this approach to align these two standards to collaborate with industry/Government experts when updating the UDEF database. Some additional benefits provided by using the UDEF approach include its compliance with DoD 8320.1-M-1 naming requirements, its compliance with ISO/IEC 11179 requirements, its reusability, and the fact that it is object oriented in nature.
However, the BSRs and UDEFs have learned that their roles in the global repository cannot support a "repository war" as in the past. There are significant costs in maintaining repositories, and therefore, specific organizational and business needs are going to propel their own respective repository development efforts. Each of the repository factions now seems to realize that they must exist in parallel to provide the global repositories within their organization the necessary data, which also allows them to share the costs associated with maintaining such global repositories.
In summary, there are numerous competing efforts underway in the repository arena, each with its own supporters. Both the UN/CEFACT TMWG and the Accredited Standards Committee (ASC) X12/SITG standards development organizations have been working on the next generation of EDI standards for several years. They are termed OO-EDI, which briefly, is an Open-EDI approach using Unified Modeling Language (UML) models and object oriented technology. The SITG is just concluding an OO-EDI Demonstration Project that will be reporting the results of the Demo Project at the February X12 Trimester meeting. It is much too early to predict which repository architecture to fully support. A successful repository effort will incorporate other repositories and allow for a well-funded, centralized administration of the repository. The real effort will be in administering the global repository and semantically assessing the data within.
