Skip to content

IBM Websphere, MS BizTalk, and OAGIS

In some of my recent presentations, I’ve talked about where HR-XML has enjoyed uptake within the broader HR services ecosphere and where it hasn’t. See slides 11 and 12 from the deck embedded below (or if the embed is giving you problems, view here). Simply stated, HR-XML has had some success as a starting point for B2B integrations, such as those between applicant tracking systems and screening service providers. This is good. There is a lot of value in such connections. Where HR-XML hasn’t proved as useful is for those stakeholders that need a data model that works in a consistent way across HR business processes. I’ve mentioned in prior posts, the forthcoming 3.0 library goes a long way towards providing the uniform model that has been lacking.

On slide 12, I cover support by “tool and platform” providers. There are a few success stories here, but these are fairly specialized offerings. For example, in one of our recent Webinars, Pilotfish Technology demonstrated an HR-XML-2_5-Enrollment to ASC-X12-834 transformation offered with their XCS eiConsole platform.

With the version 3.0 release, HR standards are much better positioned for some level of support by enterprise application integration (EAI) vendors. This is mainly because the version 3.0 release fits into an architecture that is bigger than just HR. As I’ve written elsewhere, the version 3.0 library will be the first industry standard to be designed as a plug-in to the Open Applications Group Integration Specification (OAGIS).

The Open Applications Group has been quite single minded in advancing the OAGIS architecture through 4 major revisions. OAGIS is now at a point in maturity where it is starting to get direct support by major EAI vendors. The latest evidence in this regard was Microsoft’s release at the end of September of a BizTalk Server 2006 Developer Guide for OAGIS. The document provides guidance on using BizTalk with OAGIS Business Object Documents (BODs) and goes through a simple purchase order processing scenario using the OAGIS AcknowledgePurchaseOrder, ConfirmBOD and ProcessPurchaseOrder BODs.

Microsoft is just latest to turn its attention to supporting OAGIS. IBM’s Websphere Commerce has for a couple of years offered a set of service interfaces based on OAGIS BODs. You can find very extensive documentation of these interfaces on the Websphere Commerce Website.

There are no guarantees. However, it sure makes sense that aligning HR business language standards with an architecture that is getting increasing attention by major EAI vendors increases the chances for direct support of HR standards as well. My slide 12 was the one dealing with “platform” support. Go back to slide 11. Better support in EAI tools ripples throughout the ecosphere. In 9 years of working with HR-XML, I’ve learned that there are widely varying capabilities out there. I can assure you there are some organizations that simply aren’t likely to adopt standards until they they are supported directly within the tool sets they already know and have deployed.

HR-XML 3.0 Preview: A Next Generation in Standards for HR Services
View SlideShare presentation or Upload your own. (tags: hr xml)
Tagged , , , , , , ,
2008 11 07 Chuck Allen Architecture
HR-XML
OAGIS Comments (0) Permalink

Introducing HRInterop: A laser focus on HR services interoperability

HRInterop

As you may know, I recently left the position that I had held with the HR-XML Consortium for 9 years. While this is a big change for me and for the HR-XML community, what hasn’t changed is my commitment to open, well-architected standards for HR services. The other item that hasn’t changed is my commitment to finalizing the Version 3.0 release that has occupied much of my time over the past year.

The HR-XML community has many achievements of which to be proud. However, reorganization and refocus are useful for any organization beginning its 10th year of operations. If you’ve visited www.hr-xml.org recently, you’ve noticed some changes. HRInterop.org is intended as the reorganized, refocused entity for carrying out the work started years ago within the HR-XML Consortium.

Recent blog posts available on the Website (www.hrinterop.org/blog) go into detail about the history of HR standards and the rationale behind the current changes. However, simply stated, HRInterop.org is intended to:

  • Refocus attention on the original goals behind HR-XML — to support HR services interoperability through vendor-neutral, well-architected business language standards,
  • “Open up” participation to a full range of stakeholders (customers as well as vendors),
  • “Lock-down” intellectual property to provide greater confidence and clarity for both implementers and contributors, and
  • Reduce the costs associated with maintaining HR services standards (participant costs should decrease, rather than increase as standards mature).

The HRInterop 3.0 library is a derivative work produced under the HR-XML license. An HRInterop candidate release will begin a final 60-day public review period next week. Key facts to note about the version 3.0 library are that it:

  • Builds upon prior HR-XML work, but puts it within a uniform data model aligned with leading business language standards.
  • Is the first vertical standard to be designed as a plug-in to the Open Applications Integration Specification (OAGIS, see www.openapplications.org).
  • Is well positioned for adoption by OAGIS implementers (companies such as ADP, Boeing, Cisco, IBM, Infor, Ford, Lucent, Lenovo, Merck, etc.) as well as by those within HR and talent management services.
  • Serves both as a source of components for enterprises building canonical message architectures and as well as a source of specifications to enable B2B integration.
  • Is well positioned for support by platform and tool vendors because it fits into an architecture that is bigger than just HR. (OAGIS covers supply chain management, general ledger and accounting operations, customer relationship management, and risk controls, such as might support SarbOx compliance.)

Operationally, HRInterop represents a renewed focus of attention and resources on interoperability and usability. Going forward, HRInterop is committed to:

  • Semi-annual maintenance releases to the schema library.
  • Continuous development, refinement, and publication of non-normative guidelines, service definition templates, and other artifacts supporting implementations.
  • Making available library documentation in standard help file formats.
  • A program of education and workshops focused on supporting implementers.
  • Putting in place an advanced “test bed” that allows trading partners to test against the 3.0 library as well as profiles of it.
  • Continuing alignment and planning with the broader enterprise integration standards community.

For those of you that have actively supported and contributed to HR-XML standards, I hope that you will continue to support HRInterop. For those who haven’t participated within the HR-XML community in the past, I’m hoping that HRInterop.org, will provide you with new reasons to get involved.

A description of sponsor, contributor, and community-member opportunities are provided on the HRInterop.org website. Note that if you are a current HR-XML member in good standing, you can join as a sponsor for the duration of your current HR-XML membership at no additional cost. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Best Regards,

Chuck Allen,
Founder, HR-XML, HRInterop.org
———————————————–
HRInterop.org
A laser focus on HR services Interoperability
———————————————–

HRInterop.org is unaffiliated with the HR-XML Consortium, Inc.
———————————————–

Tagged , , ,
2008 11 06 Chuck Allen Architecture
HR-XML
OAGIS Comments (0) Permalink

HR Services Standards: The Return of The Customer

I concluded my last post, by saying that the vision for HRInterop is to “open up” (community participation), “lock-down” (lock-down IP for confidence and clarity among implementers and contributors), reduce costs, and improve standards quality and utility.

Opening Up

I’ve related in previous posts, that it is a sign of success that HR-XML now has more non-member implementers than members. As adoption increases, it is logical to expect there will be more total implementation experience outside of HR-XML than inside. In the course of the 3.0 project, it is fair to say that half or more of the feedback we received was from outside stakeholders.

New content, new channels of participation, and a new structure for managing intellectual property are changes that will support engagement of a broader community. HRInterop.org forums are a place where anyone can bring implementation questions and feedback. There is no cost to participate, but this does require registration and agreement with a feedback policy and community guidelines.

The Return of the Customer

With new channels of participation and new content we also believe we will see a return of HR services customers within the dialog shaping standards.

In its early years, HR-XML enjoyed participation from HR IT representatives at organizations such as Northrup Grumman, Shell, BP, and HP. We even attracted significant support from those working on a next generation HR system at U.S. Department of Defense. Unfortunately, we didn’t produce specifications directly addressing the problems of this segment. So it isn’t surprising that we weren’t able to sustain engagement with these stakeholders.

The early focus was on enabling B2B integrations. The resulting library really didn’t have much to offer in terms of enterprise-centric HR integration problems. The key data interchange problem of concern to enterprise HR (and that also touches almost every other stakeholder in the HR services ecosphere) is the basic provisioning and maintenance of employee/resource data across systems. In the 2.4 release, HR-XML offered the IndicativeData specification, which was a good start. In 3.0, we’ve greatly refined IndicativeData and from that exercise created a meta-model for employee/resource data. This consistent meta model (not necessarily the identical fields) has been rolled out within the HRMasterData, IndicativeData, EPMParticipant, StockPlanParticipant, USEnrollment, SavingsPlanEnrollment, and NewHire specifications among others.

So after 9 years, we have a unified way to represent information about employees, resources, and other associated individuals across our HR data interchange specifications! While the 3.0 release is only just about to make its debut as a candidate release, the 3.0 library already has been on a “shake-down” cruise by at least one major multinational pharmaceutical company and other major corporations that are beginning serious analysis for use in HR master data management.

So we have more to offer enterprises, which is good. However, what is even better is simply having customers engaged in discussions. The difference can be subtle, yet transformative. With a customer in the room, vendors will address topics on which they might otherwise remain silent. With customers present, there is more of an incentive for vendors to be active advocates for customer interests. In turn, customers gain insights into, and appreciation of, complexities they do not see when looking at a particular business process from merely an internal perspective. Do our vendor participants give up anything? My experience shows that getting a group of knowledgeable people in a dialogue with a balanced set of interests improves the conversation for everyone. Everyone stands to benefit both from the standpoint of standards quality as well as from enhanced business networking and partnering opportunities.

Locking Down (and Clarifying)

“Opening up” and “locking down” go hand in hand.

One of the things that has been of concern to some organizations that might otherwise have supported HR-XML, were the certain IP provisions within the membership agreement. For some companies, the provisions created excessive costs monitoring their IP obligations. The primary set of obligations within the agreement fall upon those organizations making “contributions.” The problem is that an organization has to apply and monitor if and when a representative’s participation in a workgroup constitutes a “contribution,” which triggers the IP requirements. For some companies, the cost of this legal review and monitoring will greatly exceed the cost of becoming a member.

HRInterop simplifies and provides much greater clarity around IP. The role of sponsor member is separate and distinct from contributor. Sponsors only become contributors when authorized representatives of the sponsor organization formally join a working group associated with a specific development effort and sign the contributor and intellectual property agreement covering that specific working group deliverable. There is no guessing as to who is a contributor. The contributor’s IP rights and obligations with respect to the specific development effort are clear and specific — which means less time and money spent with the lawyers. Happy days! It also imposes a certain discipline on those wanting to start standards projects to put together specific and effective project proposals.

As a benefit to HRInterop sponsors, we won’t charge them anything additional to become contributors. But note that you don’t have to be a sponsor to be a contributor. Anyone wanting to propose standards projects or participate within them, can become a working group contributor. This requires that the individual (who must be an authorized representative of his/her employer or affiliated organization) pay a modest registration fee and sign the contributor and intellectual property agreement for the specific development effort being pursued.

Reducing Costs, While Gaining Focus

As standards mature, it is logical to think that the costs to develop and maintain them would decrease, rather than increase.

Most HR-XML members saw an increase in their 2008 membership costs. Of course, 2008 was a bit of an unusual year in that it was also the year we were beginning the first major re-architecture since 2002. However, it is worth noting that in the year in which this critical release was being put together, more than 50 percent of the Consortium’s spending went towards the Partnering & Integration Summit. The Summit was not a bad idea - In fact, it was my idea. I proposed the annual summit to the HR-XML board of directors in late 2006. While everyone I know who attended the 2007 and 2008 Summits found them enjoyable, there is no evidence that they can become financially self-sustaining as currently conceived. While there were some good sessions highlighting HR-XML implementations, there also is no evidence that the investment has advanced our standards in a concrete or proportional way. It’s hard to be critical about something that you yourself helped create and for which you bear some responsibility, but my point is that the current year’s allocation of time and money towards the summit was way out of wack with the priority of shoring up the architectural integrity of the library. Managing “by doing what we did last year,” isn’t a good strategy for any organization and is particularly a bad idea for a thinly capitalized non-profit organization overseeing a maturing standards library within a rapidly changing Internet technology landscape.

There may yet be a way to produce a financially sustainable conference around HR services interoperability — but this concept requires more serious thinking than it has received to date (and likely a more favorable economic climate). I’m very interested in providing informative and vibrant virtual and face-to-face opportunities for members of the HR services community. You’ll soon see some plans announced for the first of these get-togethers. However, a standards organization spends the money of its members in ways that aren’t really directed towards improving the value of its standards, it has a serious problem. This lack of focus ensures the organization’s standards are destined for narrowing applicability if not a complete dead end.

The Motto

If you managed to read through some or these five posts (back to the beginning), I’m hoping you have some sense of where HR services standards have been and where they need to go. I’m sure it is a bit clearer to you what I mean in calling for “A laser focus on interoperability.” I also hope that you will find many benefits from joining the HRInterop community and consider supporting this initiative.

Tagged , ,
2008 11 03 Chuck Allen Uncategorized Comments (0) Permalink

Integrated Background Checks: Implementation Patterns

HR-XML’s background check (”screening”) specifications are an interesting case study in standards adoption. The screening schemas are the largest and arguably the most complex within HR-XML’s 2.* series of releases, but they also are among the most widely adopted. Why? This has a lot to do with market need and timing. You can trace the development of HR-XML’s Background Check specification back to discussions that began in 2001. It was a pretty good bet that such integration would take off. Integration provided employers with time savings, policy compliance control, and convenience. For screening service providers, integration meant new distribution channels for services. For the ATS in the middle, integration capabilities became a competitive differentiator, and later as the market matured, a required capability. In 2001, you could see that demand for integrated screening services would take off (even before the tragic events of 9/11). However, consider that when we began to develop the screening standards, there was not yet a lot of industry experience to inform design decisions.

Over the years, integration patterns within the screening industry have emerged. Within the forthcoming 3.0 library, we’ve taken in account some of the common usage patterns. The 3.0 library also offers what is a much more flexible, configurable component library for “what comes next.”

If you take a look at the Version 3.0 screening drafts, you can see that we reference three basic implementation patterns:

  • Order by Package Identifier   The most common pattern for handling screening orders is for trading partners to structure orders on the basis of a “Package ID.” Under this approach, collections of screening services are predefined within “packages” ordered by referencing an associated Package ID. No options can be added to what is predefined within a package. Structuring orders using pre-defined packages is the simplest implementation pattern.
  • “À La Carte”   Under the “à la carte” implementation pattern, the composition of services ordered is not pre-defined within a package, but rather is set at the time of the order. The customer specifies individual screenings within the order as well as any meta data necessary to execute the specific screenings. For example, details such as the type criminal records search to conduct and the number of years the search should cover might be explicitly specified when using the “à la carte” pattern.
  • “Order by Package, Plus”   A third pattern is termed “Order by Package, Plus”. This pattern is a combination of above approaches. Orders are based on a PackageID, but also may include additional screenings on top of the standard package.

With knowledge of these implementation patterns, we made a variety of changes within the version 3.0 specifications (in addition to the extensive top-to-bottom changes necessary to port the prior data model to the new architecture). The way the 2.* BackgroundCheck request was designed, it implied that the requester would take information from a candidate’s application and copy it within the separate, associated “Screening” components within the order regardless of whether the “order by package” or “à la carte” approach was used. For example, if employment verification was part of the services ordered you would put the employment history from the candidate’s application within the BackgroundCheck/BackgroundSearchPackage/Screenings/SearchEmployment node. The problem with this design is that it doesn’t fit the needs of those using the simpler “order by package” approach. It is a better fit with the “à la carte” style, which involves separate specification of the particular screenings ordered. Consider that for those using the “order by package” style, the scope of the search is pre-defined within the package (e.g., verify 5 years of employment). Thus, it would complicate matters for an implementer to try to extract information from the candidate’s application at the right level of granularity and copy it within the SearchEducation node (and in similar fashion, to do this with all the other pieces of data required for all the other types of screenings covered by the package). Consequently, some order-by-package style implementers actually have chosen not to use the HR-XML BackgroundCheck request message and instead used the HR-XML “Candidate” (or the prior “JobPositionSeeker” specification) to send an intact candidate profile over to the screening provider. This allowed the requester to keep the candidate information together and to send it to the screening provider, which would figure out what parts of supplied candidate profile to use based on the rules built-into the agreed-upon package.

Within the Version 3.0 ScreeningOrder specification, a new design accommodates the three implementation approaches in a simpler fashion and removes ambiguity as to what information belongs where in which type of order. In the 3.0 version, the “ScreeningSubjectDetails” node accommodates the screening subject’s complete profile. So those wanting to use a simple “order by package” style no longer need to use the work around method of using HR-XML’s Candidate or JobPositionSeeker. Consider that under the “order by package, plus” pattern, you’d similarly use the full-profile capabilities of ScreeningSubjectDetails, but also use the appropriate “Screening” components to add on the “à la carte” items. Likewise, if the order was completely à la carte, you would include at least minimum required fields within ScreeningSubjectDetails based on the type of screening and populate the appropriate nodes under ScreeningOrderPackage/Screening with the details required to execute the particular screening services being ordered.

So the version 3.0 screening specifications preserve the detail and expressiveness of the 2.* screening schemas, but have been updated so they better fit known industry usage patterns. Furthermore, in recognition that there is a large segment of the market that only uses the “order by package” pattern, the 3.0 library also includes SimpleScreeningOrder, which is an interoperable subset of the full ScreeningOrder. While this post has been all about ScreeningOrder, the most common fulfillment pattern is not to return full results, but to simply return “status” or a summary result and an URL where authorized personnel can log-in to review full results if necessary. To support this simple fulfillment approach, SimpleScreeningReport (an interoperable subset of ScreeningReport) is available.

Take a look at the new drafts and tells us what you think. A feedback form available at the bottom of each page. The above are just a few of the changes. I think those in the industry will find many improvements, including better support for international use.

Tagged , ,
2008 11 03 Chuck Allen Uncategorized Comments (0) Permalink

Competencies, Miracles, and Fear

Someone just asked me to review what the 3.0 library has related to competencies, so I thought I’d write a post as I’m sure others are interested. I also will offer a related opinion or two based on some discussions at last week’s HR-XML Partnering and Integration Summit.

There is quite a lot that is new with respect to competencies in version 3.0. Here is a presentation I delivered back in May that covers this topic. I believe a few field names and other small details have changed in the interim, but that the deck basically covers the motivations for the changes.

Some of the competency-related material within the 3.0 library that you may want to review is brief explained below:

  • EPMResult. This is a result sent from an employee performance management system to a relying system (e.g., an LMS or other talent management system). A version of this came out with the 2_5 library. However, this is essentially new since implementations of EPMResult are only just beginning. The EPM result noun has a competency section that allows you to communicate information about groups of competencies, individual competencies, and individual behavioral indicators associated with a competency.

  • PositionCompetencyModel. This is a format for the exchange of information about competencies associated with a given position. The PositionCompetency noun allows you to group, weight, and annotate competencies associated with a given position. PositionCompetencyModel can be used to provision an EPM or other system with competencies information. For example, messages (we call them Business Object Documents - BODs), based on PositionCompetencyModel could be used to set up an EPM system with a base competency model that a given position incumbent would be appraised against. Some integrations with assessment providers or LMS systems might present similar requirements.

  • CompetencyDefinitions. This is just a simple structure to enable systems to “sync” definitions. The CompetencyDefinitions noun is based on the “reusable competency definition” concept advanced by groups such as the IMS Global Learning Consortium and the IEEE Learning Standards Technology Committee — but it is built with HR-XML and OAGIS components.

  • PositionCompetency and PersonCompetency. We’ve basically scrapped the prior “CPO” we called “Competency” (If you don’t know what a CPO is, don’t worry. We don’t have them in the 3.0 library). The prior version of Competency basically has been broken apart and rationalized into what is a collection of component types. However, broadly speaking, the common uses of Competency within the HR-XML 2.* releases have been replaced in the equivalent places of the 3.0 library with either PositionCompetency or PersonCompetency depending on the context.

Miracles and Fear

Now for the opinion part of the post. Competencies are hard. I’m glad it is not my job (and the HR world rejoices as well) to come up with competency models that can be validated in terms of business outcomes. Because there is much variation in thought about what competencies are (or even what to call them), a source of integration issues is simply that relying systems often have very different data models with respect to competencies than the source systems for competency content. Furthermore, simple things such as provisioning a system with competency content can be made more complicated by requirements around rights management for proprietary competency content.

My belabored point is that an XML standard by itself isn’t likely to solve the above-referenced problems any more than it might make water flow uphill, bring world peace, etc. That said, I am very confident that the competency specifications within the version 3.0 library will be very useful and more than up-to-task of handling the piece of the competency integration puzzle for which they were designed — to provide a well-modeled, neutral specification for the communication of competency data. So my message is for two camps out there: those who are looking for a competency data exchange standard to perform miracles; and those who fear a competency data standard will diminish the value of their competency-related content or services. You both are wrong.

My hope is that we can bypass both those awaiting miracles as well as those wrongly fearing data exchange standards, simply by giving developers ready-to-go packages that get the job done. With respect to SOAP-based web services, we have a start towards this goal in the “packages” published earlier this month. For example, here’s one (.zip) related to sync-ing competency definitions. As I mentioned in a blog post earlier this year, I believe there also are some interesting possibilities with respect to competency content and RESTful web services. The “packages” as they exist today aren’t anything like complete web service definitions as much as they are “starter kits.” By the same token, I don’t think we will be designing anyone’s RESTful API for competency content, but maybe there are some examples or other artifacts we can add to the packages that would be of help if someone wanted to integrate competency content using a RESTful approach.

Tagged , ,
2008 10 23 Chuck Allen Competencies
HR-XML
OAGIS
RESTful
Uncategorized Comments (0) Permalink

Looking Forward, Looking Back, Part 1

At the recent HR-XML Partnering and Integration Summit I was asked about the timing for the release of HR-XML 4.0. To clarify, version 4.0 would be the “next, next-generation” of HR interoperability standards. Version 3.0 is only just about to make its debut as a candidate release. My answer was that implementers do not yet have a good reason to even pencil-in a version 4.0 within their product pipelines nor was it yet time for implementers to be planning for specific design changes beyond those communicated within version 3.0.

While I’m not sure it was exactly understood, my follow-up comment was that while 4.0 simply isn’t a matter for any individual implementer to focus on today, that it was absolutely imperative for the Consortium — as an independent, vendor-neutral organization representing the collective interests of standards stakeholders — to be sketching out, planning, and communicating a maturity model beyond version 3.0. My basic point is that there are requirements for ensuring the continued availability of quality business language standards for HR services that will go beyond short-term interests of individual companies — particularly those that have already invested in a current generation of specifications.

For some, the point I’m making in the last paragraph is simply common sense. You might say the decisions to be made regarding a maturity model for standards are similar to those faced by a product manager of a maturing, but still profitable product offering. A classic product management challenge is how to advance a new product offering, without spooking an installed base? As a matter of fact, you might say the standards planning problem is identical to the product planning problem, other than the fact that the standards planning takes place within a committee-run, volunteer-driven organization rather than in a corporate setting. But then again, perhaps I shouldn’t underestimate the committee battles our product manager faces even within a single company.

In the next several posts, I’m going to try to share some of the insights and lessons learned in my 9 years of work with the HR-XML Consortium. What I hope readers will come a way with is confidence in some new approaches for developing and maintaining business languages standards for HR services.

Tagged ,
2008 10 22 Chuck Allen Architecture
HR-XML
OAGIS Comments (0) Permalink

A Battle of Ideas?

If you’ve worked in standards development for any time, you’ve likely seen skirmishes as well as major battles. Some prove to be worthy fights, while some have proven to be an absolute waste of everyone’s time. Few produce absolute, bright-line resolution, but many do influence the directions of all parties - often for the better. Some are civil, while some involve behavior that we probably wouldn’t want our children to emulate. However, this post isn’t a rant about manners.

I’d be curious about what others who have worked in the area of business language and messaging standards would consider the most unruly standards battle of the past decade? “WS-*” web services versus ebXML? OAGIS vs. UBL? UN/CEFACT CCTS vs. ASC X12 CICA? While “REST” isn’t so much a standard or specification, some of the “WS-*” web services vs REST debates have approached the same decibal levels. Even the “un-standards body,” Microformats community, has had a bitter debate or two within its ranks.

While avoiding acrimony is desirable, the level of rancor within a discussion isn’t by itself an indicator of progress or a lack of it. You can certainly find examples of individuals and organizations who were opposite sides of some of the aforementioned battles who have found enough common ground to be working actively and constructively on standards projects today. Really, this is the very essences of standards making — going from the divergent to the common — so those who have managed to reconcile differences to work with former competitors truly are the unsung heroes within their standards-making communities.

Time is money and neither are flowing towards the support of information technology standards nearly to the same degree as in the heady days of 1999, when I founded the HR-XML Consortium. While avoiding unproductive and wasteful debates is critical, it occurs to me that the only thing more detrimental to HR standards (or any legitimate effort to develop industry specifications with a broad cross-section of input), is for there not to be a battle of ideas at all, but rather a battle for control, which takes place behind closed doors.

I hope you will return to this new forum on HR standards. I will be sharing my work on HR services interoperability here and I hope many of you will join me in hopefully gentle (and sometimes not-so-gentle) conversations and deliberations advancing HR services interoperability.

Tagged , , , , , , , , ,
2008 10 15 Chuck Allen Architecture
HR-XML
OAGIS Comments (0) Permalink

45 things a web services developer can do with Version 3.0

I’ve written in the past about HR-XML 3.0’s potential as a common information model. But what if you aren’t really so interested in a “component library,” as much as you are interested in just few key interfaces with trading partner — for example, an HR-XML-based interface for accepting assessment or screening orders. Don’t worry - we’ll make it easy for you by publishing “packages” of assets drawn from the broader library just for these types of integration requirements.

“Packages,” as I’m using the term, combine several schemas into a single flattened schema. Packages were prepared in contemplation of common or typical services implementers need to support. Each package contains an example Web Services Description Language (WSDL) file that may be used as a starting point for deploying related services.

From this page, you can browse and download individual DRAFT packages or download the distribution file that includes all of them. Links to related documentation are provided. If you are not yet familiar with OAGIS Business Object Documents (BODs), spending some time reviewing the documentation on OAGIS data management would be wise. Note that a feedback form is available at the bottom of each page of documentation, so don’t hesitate to let us know what works, what doesn’t, and what is missing.

Tagged , , , , ,
2008 10 12 Chuck Allen Architecture
Canonical
HR-XML
OAGIS
SOA Comments (0) Permalink

Streamlining Testing, Trading Partner Integration, and Certification

In our next webinar, we are going to be taking a look at a platform and methodologies for interoperability testing. If you’ve followed HR-XML this past year, you know that our current work more than ever before incorporates best practices of peer standards organizations. For example, readers of this blog know that HR-XML’s 3.0 release is substantially aligned with the Open Applications Group architecture.

The testing platform that is the subject of this webinar is something we learned of through liaison with our colleagues at Acord, the insurance standards organization. Register for the webinar to learn more. However, a good introduction is provided in this video available on the Acord website.

Streamlining Testing, Trading Partner Integration, and Certification: A Look at PilotFish Technology’s XCS eiPlatform and HR-XML

2008 July 23, 1:00 pm - 2:15 PM EDT; 10:00 AM - 11:15 AM PDT

Reserve your Webinar seat now at:
https://www1.gotomeeting.com/register/297314148

A growing number of enterprises are looking to vertical and horizontal standards organizations as sources for the canonical data models and message schemas necessary to support service oriented architectures (SOAs) and to enable agile integration with trading partners. The good news is that there is increasing maturity and even convergence among a variety of XML standards. Nevertheless, challenges remain. While libraries such as HR-XML’s forthcoming Version 3.0 release are informed by almost 10 years of industry contributions and are architecturally more consistent and robust than ever before, the breadth of these libraries and the options available therein pose their own challenges to implementers.

This webinar will examine the value of a flexible validation server to support testing against industry standards — and against profiles of those standards that particular enterprises and their trading partners may implement. The HR-XML Consortium is among several industry standards groups evaluating the Pilotfish XCS eiPlatform as a tool to assist its community with testing and conformance.

This Webinar will give a quick overview of HR-XML forthcoming 3.0 release and discuss new requirements and possible new directions in standards certification.

PilotFish Technology’s XCS eiPlatform will be introduced and near real-time response to messages submitted for validation demonstrated. The webinar will also review how trading-partner profiles and extensions might be accommodated.

Presenter Panel
Chuck Allen, HR-XML Consortium, will moderate the panel:

Neil Schappert – President

Neil is the founder of PilotFish Technology. Neil has over 30 years experience in the computer software and services industry. Before founding PilotFish, Neil held positions as: Chief Operating Officer for Sherwood International, President of Alliance-One, a wholly owned business process outsourcing subsidiary of Computer Sciences Corporation, and Executive Vice President of Computer Sciences Corporation in charge of the Life & Annuity division. Neil is a Magna Cum Laude graduate of Boston College where he earned a Bachelor of Science degree with a concentration in finance.

Alex Valys - Research

Alex has over 6 years experience with PilotFish Technology. He has been instrumental in defining the architecture and design of our flagship products, the XCS eiPlatform, XCS eiConsole, and Dashboard. Alex is a graduate of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology where he earned a Bachelor of Science degree in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science.

Jamie Mazur – Client Services

Jamie has over 6 years experience with PilotFish Technology. Jamie has worked closely with the Research and Development groups within PilotFish to identify and respond to customer requirements and requested enhancements. He has overseen dozens of implementations of the PilotFish software and is considered an expert relative to the implementation of the XML standards. Jamie is a Summa Cum Laude graduate of Trinity College where he earned a Bachelor of Science in Computer Science.

Tagged , , , , ,
2008 07 10 Chuck Allen Architecture
HR-XML
SOA Comments (0) Permalink

OAGIS 9.3: Platform for Standards Developers

David Connelly, CEO, Open Application Group has announced the availability of the OAGIS 9.3 Release Candidate (9.3 RC1). Take a look.

One of the items David mentions below is the “OAGIS Business Integration Platform for
standards developers.” What is that about? It is an platform architecture into which horizontal standards like HR-XML and vertical standards groups like Starstandards.org, AIAG.org, and other groups with OAGIS-based architectures can plug-in. If you are an HR-XML implementer that wants to use a bit of OAGIS, or if you are a STAR or OAGIS implementer that wants to mix in some HR-XML, this will be a great convenience. My personal hope would be that some of the learning and education standards will buy into the platform concept.

David Connelly writes:

I am very pleased to announce that OAGIS 9.3 Release Candidate One is
now available for Public Review. This process is done to ensure the
highest quality possible standards available to our users.

This phase is expected to last 30 days after which time we will take the
Release Candidate off the web site, review all feedback, and make the
changes deemed necessary by our member driven quality assurance team.
We will then prepare the final version of OAGIS 9.2 and post it for
general availability.

This is a very exciting release of OAGIS with some never before features
including:

1) High Tech Order To Cash and Procure to Pay support
2) Mid Market version of OAGIS for Order to Cash
3) The first release of the new OAGIS Business Integration Platform for
standards developers

We encourage people to download and review this Release Candidate and to
give us your feedback.

You can learn more and download the standard here.

2008 06 10 Chuck Allen Uncategorized Comments (0) Permalink