> >
> > To my understanding of CCTS, having just one possible NDR is against
> > the spirit of CCTS - completely against it. CCTS should be 
> implementation
> > technology agnostic - that's one of the main tenets behind 
> it's very 
> > concept.

Agreed.  I think there is some confusion here about the CCTS standards
stack in general, and the UN/CEFACT Standards Stack in particular. The
CCTS standards stack consists of CCTS.  It requires the use of no other
specification - UN/CEFACT or other - for implementation. The UN/CEFACT
CCTS standards stack however does have a defined XML NDR as part of the
stack - for use by UN/CEFACT. Further CCTS does not require any syntax
specific set of rules.  In fact its power is in its syntax neutrality
and its context mechanisms. 

> There are actually three XML NDRs for CCTS:
> 
> 1. UBL 2.0 NDR
> 2. ATG2 XML NDR 2.0, and 1.0
> 3. OAGIs 9 v0.7 NDR

Actually, there are many more and I am not sure I would include OAGi 9
at this point.  The US Department of the Navy for example has their own
CCTS NDR.  What is interesting is that many SDOs have realized - driven
in large part by their membership - that it makes no sense to have
different flavors of NDRs and that yes there is real value in being able
to auto generate schema from the business models.  OAGi, GS1, CIDX,
ACORD, UN/CEFACT, UBL,RosettaNet, AIAG and others have come together to
work collaboratively on the next set of UN/CEFACT XML NDRs that will
serve as a convergence point for all of these organizations. 
 
Kind Regards,

Mark Crawford 
SAP Standards Architect
Global Ecosystem and Partner Group 
Office: 703 670-0920 
Mobile: 703 485-5232
---------------------------------------------------------- 
Chair UN/CEFACT Applied Technologies Group 
Lead, UN/CEFACT XML NDR Standard
Lead Editor, UN/CEFACT Core Components