URe: ERP standards

[LEMENSE Robert]

Thank you Zack.

I appreciate forwarded "behind the back" comments from Mr Boyle.

 

Robert Lemense

 

 

Todd Boyle wrote:

 

.../...

> There are three groups on the planet, today, who give a
> damn about GL standards.
>
> - Eric Cohen and his group at the XBRL Consortium,
> - Robert Lemense and the D14 domain committee of EDIFACT, and,
> - our group at ArapXML who produced the OMG GL and OMG AR/AP models, and are
> members of the OMG and the Core Components workgroup of UN/CEFACT.

.../...

 

> The UN/CEFACT bodies only conduct their dialog in private discussions, and
> in physical meetings every 6 months in international locations, usually
> outside the US. 

 

If Mr Boyle is a member of the Core Components workgroup of UN/CEFACT (But is he really ???) he should know that the UN/CEFACT bodies do not "conduct their dialog in private discussions, ...."

The general rotation schedule is 2 meetings a year: 2 x 2 meetings alternatively Europe and US, with in between 1 in ASIA, or 1 in NZ-AU.

 

 

 

> In that sense they are like the Davos group.

 

United Nations like Davos Group ????

 

 

.../...

>
> Here is a typical encounter with Robert Lemense who never participates on
> technical or design discussions.  The guy is 65, he is part of the French
> EDI establishment.  He was a champion of ENTREC.
>

 

a) Robert Lemense "never participates..." on egotistical and unilateral thoughts for UN dealing is "consensus".

 

b) The guy is a forerunner in accounting standardisation search; therefore he is possibly a respectable ancestor. However, he is not (yet) 65 ...

 

c) .../... "is part of the French EDI establishment..." ???     Pure disinformation !

 

The guy is mandated by, and representing CSOEC (- Conseil Supérieur de l'Ordre des Experts Comptables) that is the French Council of Certified Accountants Institute:

The guy is also a member of EDIFICAS Europe, organisation founded by European accountants professional institutes, individual accountants, individual auditors and the European Federation of Accountants. In France, EDIFICAS is a member of EDIFRANCE, e-Business and EDI forum.

 

d) "He was a champion...." WAS is not right:

should read "He IS a champion...

 

The guy is not only a champion of ENTREC; he is a champion of all UN-Standard Messages developed by D14 since 1997 that are:

- BALANC

- BUSCRD

- CHACCO

- CHAMAP

- ENTREC

- INFENT

- LEDGER

- REGENT

 

Robert Lemense

 

---

 

 

----- Original Message -----

From: "Coffin, Zachary P" <address@hidden>

To: "'Todd Boyle'" <address@hidden>; "Neil Tiffin" <address@hidden>; "Derek A. Neighbors" <address@hidden>; "Ke Deng" <address@hidden>

Cc: "GNUe" <address@hidden>; <address@hidden>; <address@hidden>

Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2002 4:32 PM

Subject: RE: ERP standards

> 
> Todd, you really, really do the world a great 
disservice.  I’m sure anyone
> reading your posts, probably thinks 
you’re an okay guy.  I used to be your
> champion even.  But let 
me just say, anyone on this list who hasn’t yet met
> Todd, should beware; 
those of you who have, already know what I’m talking
> about.  Now 
let me back that up -
> 
> Todd’s statement:
>  “the XBRL 
GL which is occasionally released to the public after it's been
> decided 
by their members”
> Fact:
>  XBRL International has released 
the *DRAFT* GL taxonomy for public review
> and comment several 
times.  That’s why we have offered it to the world for
> 
comment.  The GL has not yet been released as a XBRL standard.
> Zack 
Opinion:
>  Wonder why Todd wants to misrepresent the facts.
> 
> Todd’s statement:
>  “Inevitably our three GL groups will 
zero in on the accurate picture and
> combine the models. Meanwhile they 
don't talk to me so, I can't tell you
> what the h*ll they are up 
to.”
> Fact:
>  XBRL and UN/CEFACT announced a liaison/alliance 
to tackle this area a year
> ago.  You know that.  You’ve known 
it a long time -
> http://www.xbrl.org/PressRoom/XBRL-PR-05162001.htm  
> Zack Opinion:
>  Wonder why Todd 
wants to misrepresent others.
> 
> Todd’s statement:
> 
 “I actually was stupid enough to fly to Orlando in December to meet 
with
> the XBRL GL group.  For a full 8-hour day, they did maintain 
an astonishing
> wall of confidentiality, just as CPAs do in commercial 
negotiations, never
> disclosing anything of their positions in design of 
a general ledger schema
> or economic ontology.”
> Fact:
> 
 Unverifiable.  His words against ours.
> Zack Opinion:
> 
 As one of the participants in that meeting, let me just assure you that 
I
> have zero interest in meeting with someone for 8 hours on a Saturday 
merely
> to “maintain an astonishing wall of confidentiality.”  Was 
that really my
> purpose?  No, it was the same reason as why XBRL was 
in Orlando in the first
> place.  We sponsored the first 
Interoperability Summit with OMG, OAG, OASIS,
> UN/CEFACT and 
HR-XML.  Does anyone really think I’d maintain some “wall of
> 
confidentiality” for 8 hours?  Listen, why waste the time.  If that’s 
all we
> did, why did we even bother staying more than 10 minutes?  
Why not go enjoy
> our Saturday.  No, we made a last final attempt to 
work with Todd.  I used
> to be Todd’s champion.  I’ve given 
up.
> 
> So, in general, I wonder why Todd wants to describe things 
the way he does.
> Let me guess.  Is it because he’s as biased as 
everyone else?
> 
> Todd’s NEVER-MADE statement:
>  “I’m 
as biased as everyone else.”
> Fact:
>  Todd Boyle works for 
NetAccount, a commercial company.
> Zack Opinion:
>  Everyone 
has some human bias.  But the difference between Todd/ArapXML and
> 
XBRL International (or Todd and the rest of the world), is that the first 
is
> driven by ONE person/company and the second is a group process - in 
XBRL’s
> case, 150 vendors, accounting firms, users, regulators, etc. from 
around the
> world WORKING TOGETHER.  Trust me, not just in Todd’s 
case, but always, the
> collaborative standards approach is safer.  
Everyone knows Todd only wants
> things HIS way (or, maybe I should say, 
NetAccount’s way).  But that’s not
> how standards are created.  
You don’t have a standard unless your users,
> vendors, regulators and 
competitors are sitting at the table arguing with
> and against you -- to 
produce the standards.  That’s XBRL.
> 
> On top of it all, 
Todd even criticizes the UN with “the UN/CEFACT bodies
> only conduct 
their dialog in private discussions, and in physical meetings
> every 6 
months in international locations, usually outside the US.”  What
> 
would he like - that all the meetings be in the U.S. so that poorer
> 
countries criticize it as a U.S. thing?  And Todd, it’s really pretty 
bad
> when you attack a guy like Robert Lemense - who’s put years of his 
life into
> standards - when you say, “The guy is 65, he is part of the 
French EDI
> establishment.”  That’s as bad as if someone said, “That 
guy’s only 18 -
> what does he know?”
> 
> Anyone who wants to 
learn more about XBRL, please go to www.xbrl.org.  
If
> you want to learn more about XBRL specifically for G/L, go to
> 
http://www.xbrl.org/gl/gl.htm, or for 
more detail,
> http://www.xbrl.org/gl/gldash.htm.
> 
> XBRL is creating the standards for financial 
statements, G/L, regulatory
> filings, statistics, etc. - anything that 
describes an organization’s
> performance or risk.  We are working 
from the sub-ledger to macro-economic
> statistics - the whole information 
reporting supply chain.
> 
> Somewhere this thread began with a 
question about ERP standards.  SAP,
> Oracle, Peoplesoft, Fujitsu 
(yes, in Japan, they have ERP software), etc.
> are all members of 
XBRL.  SAP is scheduled to be XBRL compliant this year -
> second 
quarter if I’m not mistaken.
> 
> Now, here’s the part where Todd 
says it just the big companies.  No, XBRL is
> for any organization, 
including SMEs, government agencies, non-profit
> organizations, 
etc.  We’re even opening up a new category of membership, for
> 
academics or individuals non-affiliated with a company.  In the 
meantime,
> the following organizations are members of XBRL and have 
COMMITTED to
> XBRL-enabling their products or services -
> 
> 
ACCPAC International, Inc. ACL Services Ltd.
> Acumen Alliance Advisor 
Technology Services
> American Institute of Certified Public Accountants 
Andersen
> Anthem Software Asia Securities Printing Co., Ltd.
> 
Aspect Computing Audicon
> Audit Software Systems Pty Ltd Australian and 
New Zealand Banking Group
> Limited
> Australian Prudential 
Regulation Authority Australian Stock Exchange
> BDO Seidman, LLP Beacon 
IT Inc.
> Best Software Bowne & Co., Inc.
> Bridge News Bryant 
College
> Business Wire Canadian Institute of Chartered 
Accountants
> Capital Printing Systems, Inc. CaseWare International 
Inc.
> Certified General Accountants Association of Canada Chuo System 
Service
> Co, Ltd
> Coca-Cola Amatil (AU) Cogniant, Inc.
> 
Count-net.com SA CPA Australia
> CPA2Biz Creative Solutions
> Crowe 
Chizek and Co., LLP DATEV e.G.
> Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Deutsche 
Bank
> Deutsche Börse AG Deutsche Bundesbank
> Deutsche Vereinigung 
für Finanzanalyse und Asset Mgt. Deutsches
> Rechnungslegungs Standards 
Committee e.V.
> Digital Notarization Authority Diva Corporation
> 
Dow Jones & Co., Inc. Dresdner Kleinwort Wasserstein
> EDGAR Online 
Inc. eKeeper.com
> eLedger.com, Inc. Elemental Interactive
> 
e-Numerate Solutions, Inc. ePace! Software
> ePartners, Inc. Epicor 
Software Corp.
> Ernst & Young, LLP eStilil Co., Ltd.
> Federal 
Deposit Insurance Corporation (U.S.) Fidelity Investments
> Financial 
Reporting Solutions Financial Software Group
> FinArch First Light 
Communications, Inc.
> FRx Software Corp. Fujitsu Ltd.
> Fujitsu 
Prime Software Technologies Limited Fujitsu Research Institute
> Gcom2 
Solutions General Electric Company
> Gerringong HiTech Pty Ltd Global 
Filings, Inc.
> Grant Thornton, LLP Haarmann, Hemmelrath & 
Partner
> Hitachi Hitachi System & Services, Ltd.
> HOLT Value 
Associates Hong Kong Exchanges and Clearing
> Hong Kong Registrar of 
Companies Hong Kong Society of Accountants
> Hyperion Solutions Corp. 
IBM
> UBMatrix.com I-Lumen, Inc.
> Information Management Australia 
Information Planning
> Infoteria Corp. InnoData GmbH (Semansys 
Technologies)
> Innovision Institut der Wirtschaftsprüfer (IdW)
> 
Institute of Certified Public Accountants in Singapore Institute of
> 
Chartered Accountants in Australia
> Institute of Chartered Accountants in 
England and Wales Institute of
> Chartered Accountants in Ireland
> 
Institute of Management Accountants (U.S.) International Accounting
> 
Standards Board (IASB)
> International Federation of Accountants (IFAC) 
Ipswich City Council (AU)
> Japan Information Service Industry Association 
Japan Notary Organization
> Japanese Institute Of Certified Public 
Accountants KPMG Consulting,
> Inc.
> KPMG International Lawson 
Software
> Macquarie Bank Media Fusion Co., Ltd.
> Microsoft Corp. 
Microsoft Great Plains
> MIP, Inc. MIS Deutschland GmbH
> Moody’s 
Risk Management Services, Inc. Morgan Stanley
> Multex.com, Inc. 
MYOB
> National Center of Charitable Statistics (U.S.) National 
Information
> Infrastructure Enterprise Promotion Association 
(Taiwan)
> NavisionDamgaard Software NEC Corporation
> NetLedger, 
Inc. New River, Inc.
> Nihombashi Corporation Nihon Intersystems Co., 
Ltd.
> Nihon Keizai Shimbun, Inc NTT Data Corporation
> Oracle 
Corporation Japan PCA Corporation
> PeopleSoft Pitcher Partners
> 
PPA Gesellschaft für Finanzanalyse & Benchmarks mbH Practitioners
> 
Publishing Company
> PricewaterhouseCoopers Quicken (AU)
> R.R. 
Donnelly Financial Reuters
> RIA Software RMIT University
> Royal 
Bank of Canada Royal NIVRA (Netherlands)
> Sage Software SAP AG
> 
Seattle Pacific University Center for Professional Development Shin Nihon 
&
> Co.
> Smithink Pty Ltd Software AG
> Solution 6 
Standard and Poor’s
> Statistics Canada Syspro Group
> Takara 
Printing Co., Ltd. Teikoku Databank, Ltd.
> Japanese Institute of 
Certified Public Accountants The Woodburn Group
> Thomson Financial Tokyo 
Shoko Research, Ltd.
> Toshiba Corporation Toyo Keizai, Inc.
> U.S. 
Census Bureau U.S. Dept. of Defense (DFAS)
> Visionart, Inc 
WebXcentric
> WMC Limited XSI (formerly XBRL Solutions, Inc.)
> 
> The world is moving towards this single business reporting 
framework.  I
> encourage those of you interested in standards, to 
get involved.  As a
> start, please register at www.xbrl.org and go to and review the messages at
> http://www.yahoogroups.com/xbrl-public.
> 
> Thanks for your consideration.
> 
> 
Regards,
> 
> Zack
> 
> 
> P.S. 
Todd/Mr.NetAccount, since you’ve attacked Eric and Robert behind their
> 
back, I’ve taken the liberty of cc’ing them on this email in case they 
want
> to add anything.  I think people want to know the 
truth.
> 
> 
> Zachary Coffin
> ザッカリー コッフィン
> XBRL 
International Steering Committee
> address@hidden
> 
> 
> KPMG Global XBRL Leader
> 355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 
2000
> Los Angeles, CA 90071-1568  USA
> Tel: +1-213-955-8508 * 
Fax: +1-213-630-5196
> Email: address@hidden
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Todd Boyle 
[mailto:address@hidden 
> Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2002 7:41 
PM
> To: Neil Tiffin; Derek A. Neighbors; Ke Deng
> Cc: GNUe
> 
Subject: Re: ERP standards
> 
> 
>  >>please feel 
free to enlighten me if a standard exists that is practical.
> 
> 
Neil, your comments are quite rational.  I agree, without 
reservations,
> there has not been any standard for the exchange of 
transactions among the
> internal applications of a company that had 
sufficient following to provide
> any payoffs.  OAGIS, could have 
been a candidate.  But it has some
> fundamental weaknesses.  
ERP is not even a candidate inasmuch as it ignores
> the 50 million SMEs 
in the world.
> 
> Now in 2002 you have three broad choices.
> 
> 1. General Ledger standards - By this I mean, standard conceptual 
elements
> and standard names for things like transaction dates, times, 
parties,
> accounts, etc. necessary for exchange of information to/from 
accounting or
> business systems.  There are three groups on the 
planet, today, who give a
> damn about GL standards.
> 
> - 
Eric Cohen and his group at the XBRL Consortium,
> - Robert Lemense and 
the D14 domain committee of EDIFACT, and,
> - our group at ArapXML who 
produced the OMG GL and OMG AR/AP models, and are
> members of the OMG and 
the Core Components workgroup of UN/CEFACT.
> 
> Inevitably our 
three GL groups will zero in on the accurate picture and
> combine the 
models. Meanwhile they don't talk to me so, I can't tell you
> what the 
h*ll they are up to.  XBRL does not listen to anybody or share
> 
their work in progress, or allow your vote on it, unless you're either a
> 
target for their XBRL Framework, or, paying the $10,000 annual dues. 
Thats
> $800/month, for the privilege of then, contributing even more 
money and time
> to build the standards.
> 
> I actually was 
stupid enough to fly to Orlando in December to meet with the
> XBRL GL 
group.  For a full 8-hour day, they did maintain an astonishing 
wall
> of confidentiality, just as CPAs do in commercial negotiations, 
never
> disclosing anything of their positions in design of a general 
ledger schema
> or economic ontology.
> 
> The UN/CEFACT 
bodies only conduct their dialog in private discussions, and
> in physical 
meetings every 6 months in international locations, usually
> outside the 
US.  In that sense they are like the Davos group. I have asked
> many 
times for any drafts or even discussions of principle design, but the
> 
invariable result from this group is some assertions of political 
process,
> releases of whatever new regulatory body they have 
created.  Supposedly, the
> D14 of the UN/CEFACT will publish some 
kind of GL model soon, perhaps at the
> Barcelona meeting in Spain, in 
March.
> 
> Here is a typical encounter with Robert Lemense who 
never participates on
> technical or design discussions.  The guy is 
65, he is part of the French
> EDI establishment.  He was a champion 
of ENTREC.
> 
> http://lists.ebtwg.org/archives/ebtwg-ccs/200111/msg00084.html
> http://lists.ebtwg.org/archives/ebtwg-ccs/200111/msg00092.html
> 
> Bear in mind, the world is not beating down the 
doors looking for a GL
> specification or even a family of EAI integration 
schemas like OAGIS, SMBXML
> or QBXML.  They happen to work pretty 
well. But what difference does that
> make if *none* of the commercial 
software vendors is utilizing them?  other
> than perhaps, their own 
proprietary interface (if you're lucky)
> 
> It is only the 
individual and SME who really needs a GL standard...
> 
> 2. 
e-business integration standards.
> 
> Obviously, the number of 
industry specific semantic models has grown, and
> have gotten much more 
detailed and accurate in every industry.  Look at all
> these diverse 
standards! --new and old, continuing to evolve and develop.
> 
> 
http://www.diffuse.org/0201-ec.html
> http://www.diffuse.org/0112-ec.html
> 
> There's also the nearly daily news on Robin 
Cover pages, but that is just
> within the universe of XML 
(technology-specific), http://xml.coverpages.org/
> 
> These are not bad news and these, are the real battleground 
where e-
> business semantics are being forged. Not the centeralized 
standard
> bodies.   So, the question is, similar to General 
Ledger interface
> standards:  how can horizontal interop. be 
achieved in a world of excellent
> vertical schemas being used in every 
industry? There are two answers really.
> Bigtime mapping infrastructures 
like Biztalk Server or EAI platforms, or,
> hopefully, some future 
metadata registry and open source code, that enables
> developers 
toachieve mapping more easily.
> 
> 3.  The Core Components 
framework.
> 
> Core Components is the common metadata architecture 
that applies the
> principles of ISO 11179 to the business domain.  
This is a very large
> subject and the place to start is perhaps reading 
some easy warmups, from
> the magazines on the web.
> 
> Core 
components technical specification provides the rules, for designing
> 
semantic elements. Users can combine them anyway they like.  This is 
not
> about prescribing anything, it is about nailing down the most 
obvious and
> wellknown entities like dates, parties, locations, products, 
contacts, and
> the vocabulary for commitments and fulfillments.  
These conceptual entities
> are already well established in contract law. 
There is no doubt, their brief
> definitions can be stacked up like a 
dictionary, with unique identifiers,
> and we can all get down the road 
with a single language.
> 
> The Core Components framework removes 
the infighting over the naming of the
> element, or the syntax of 
expressing it as EDI, XML etc. or national
> biases or *any other 
objection.*   Since it is fundamentally a
> dictionary of atomic 
elements, you can assemble them into any document you
> desire. There is 
no doubt, this is the way forward. Core components can
> describe all of 
those excellent vertical XML schemas.  They don't have to
> cooperate 
and they can wish it wasn't true.  Nothing can stop you from
> 
creating a core component version of AnythingXML, which is therby,
> 
interoperable to some degree, with your own component model. Nothing can
> 
stop me from interoperating with Robert Lemenses' thing if he ever 
publishes
> it, or with the XBRL GL which is occasionally released to the 
public after
> it's been decided by their members. And, nothing will stop 
the users of ARAP
> GLIE's from abandoning it and adopting the XBRL or the 
UN/CEFACT GL.
> 
> This is where my fingers get tired.  You 
really should install Poseidon and
> join with Arne and I to continue the 
work on the version 2 of ARAP
> Submission to the OMG with its associated 
set of Core Component semantics.
> Let's make it just better.  The 
registry is a meritocracy. Regardless of
> whoever discovers, and 
correctly defines, the atomic entities, or the
> correctly designed 
aggregate entities, they will be there for 100 years.
> Picture yourself 
during the renaissance, when scholars argued over the
> definitions in the 
Oxford dictionary.  That's what's happening here, except
> that it 
will not take long.  A couple more years.
> 
> Thanks for 
listening if you're still there,
> Todd
> Todd Boyle CPA  
9745-128th Ave NE  Kirkland WA
> International Accounting Services, 
LLC  www.gldialtone.com
> address@hidden  
425-827-3107  project www.arapxml.net
> 
> 
> 
>  > At 04:04 PM 2/23/02, Neil Tiffin 
wrote:
>  > At 3:18 PM -0800 2/23/02, Todd Boyle wrote:
> 
 >> GNUE project is certainly not unique in ignoring various
> 
 >> standards of course.  We should count our blessings 
and
>  >> salute Neil, Derek, and other key developers for 
their generosity  >> in
> offering this open source project to 
the community.  They're  >  > Having
> worked with 
GNUE for almost 2 years I think the issue is NOT the  > lack of
> 
desire to use standards.  I for one would much rather use  > 
someone else's
> prior work in the form of standards instead of trying 
to  > create a beast
> from scratch.  >  > My 
problem is that I am not an accountant and don't have
> the time to  
> sort through all of the noise (standards that are being
> proposed, 
but  > will never be implemented or represent an accepted
> 
standard).  >  > I have not found an accounting standard that 
applies to
> GNUe.  There are  > all sorts of standard that 
are vying for control of how
> accounting is  > done.  But I 
have not found one that is geared for internal
> systems.  > Most 
of the ones mentioned, so far, have been for data
> interchange and  
> they are not currently practical for high volume
> transactions 
internal  > to a company.  >  > Of course, my look 
at
> accounting standard has only been cursory, so  > please feel 
free to
> enlighten me if a standard exists that is practical.  
>  > Neil
> 
> 
> 
_______________________________________________
> Gnue mailing 
list
> address@hidden
> http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnue
> 
*****************************************************************************
> 
The information in this email is confidential and may be legally 
privileged.
> It is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this 
email by anyone else
> is unauthorized. 
> 
> If you are not 
the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution
> or any 
action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited
> and 
may be unlawful. When addressed to our clients any opinions or advice
> 
contained in this email are subject to the terms and conditions expressed 
in
> the governing KPMG client engagement 
letter.         
> 
*****************************************************************************
>