HR-XML 3.0: New Architecture,New Opportunities

Chuck Allen, HR-XML Consortium, Inc.

HR-XML in 2008 “The recognized authority on, and leading source of,

global interoperability standards for human resources management.”

Now in its ninth year, but relatively young compared to peer organizations.

Global – Broad interest in HR-XML in North America, Europe, Asia.

Solid adoption across many sectors, but still much to be achieved.

Beginning far-reaching re-architecture (our last in 2002). Known as “HR-XML 3.0”.

Recruiting• Candidate• Position Posting• Resume• New Hire

Benefits• Enrollment• Savings Plan Enrollment• Stock Plans•Audits

Staffing• Staffing Order• Assignment• Resume• New Hire

System Provisioning

• User Account• Indicative Data

Assessments• Assessment Order• Assessment Result• Assessment Catalog• Catalog Query

Payroll• Payroll Benefits Contributions• Payroll Instructions• Indicative Data

Background Check• Screening Order• Screening Report• Credit• Drug Test Result

Performance• EPM Result• Objectives Plan• Development Plan

Time • Time Card• Time Card Configuration

HR-XML Scope• HR-XML covers diverse sub-domains.

• 40+ nouns; 2500+ components in HR-XML 3.0

50+ Certified Solutions: HRCertify.org50+ Certified Solutions: HRCertify.org

HR-XML SIDES for FranceHR-XML SIDES for France

HR-XML SIDES for the NetherlandsHR-XML SIDES for the Netherlands

And Now, HR-XML SIDES for JapanAnd Now, HR-XML SIDES for Japan

HR-XML 4.0: Completely model-driven, syntax neutral?

HR-XML 3.0: First major, non-backwardly compatible release

since 2002.

HR-XML 1.0; 2.(*) All the advantages and disadvantages of being by-

passed by EDI. Pioneering, ground breaking work. Captured a rich

set of domain expertise.

Roadmap: Where We’re Headed

Long Live HR-XML 2.*! 2.0 model was released in April 2002 (at our Atlanta meeting).

The HR-XML library has grown tremendously since.

Current policy to protect our 2.5 adopters:

Continue to support members and certified organizations for 2.5 and earlier 2.* releases.

A company may newly certify against a release up to a year after that release has been superseded. If you have a 2.* certification, you may renew your certification.

No new work on 2.5, but HR-XML may publish a 2_6 for discrete requirements relating to existing specifications (small changes, bug fixes, regulatory changes, etc.).

Those who have made investments in 2.* are urged to contribute “test cases” for 3.0. This is a way for adopters to gain confidence that they will be able to migrate (not that they have to!).

Where Does 3.0 Stand 1st Q 2009 Ballot Oct. 13 Release of Candidate Specification at the

Partnering and Integration Summit. June. Initial analysis and conversion of library to new

modularity model is nearly complete. 2_5: 4882 Components With 90 percent the library converted: 2400

Components.

HR-XML 3.0 Goals Bring the large library we’ve developed over 8

years under a uniform architecture.

Support interoperability with the major ERP/HRIS vendors (ADP, Lawson, Oracle, SAP).

Align with approaches advanced by the Open Applications Group and UN/CEFACT.

Deliver component library that others will be able to reuse flexibly.

Prepare for more change.

Past Challenges to Forward Progress

Backward compatibility (eliminated in 3.0).Lack of architectural framework. Too much heavy

lifting put on the shoulders of our domain-oriented workgroups.

Dependencies on volunteers. Often difficult for a member to justify resources to advance the broader model if it just needs a slice.

Lack of the right expertise – good architects are a scarce resource. Aligning with OAGIS/UN/CEFACT gives us access to a brain trust that spans many .orgs.

Library design. 2.* had some nice documentation, but is large and brittle.

Standards Quality Measures* Can a subset of the standard be used or can the

standard be used as a component of another standard?

Does the standard maximize use of pre-existing high quality standards?

Is the standard well-factored/allow modular implementation?

Does the standard adequately represent the semantics of the information encoded within it?

Are the methods for describing metadata based on high quality standards?

* Bob Sutor, IBM, http://www.sutor.com/newsite/blog-open/?p=1799

Library Structure

HR-XML 2.*

What Does This Mean?HR-XML workgroups will be able to more easily build

documents with a tighter correlation of content to use. Better able to deliver on projects such as “talent

management provisioning” begun last year.HR-XML becomes more valuable as a resource for

implementers to use in constructing their vocabularies. Better able to “snap in” HR-XML content directly rather than using HR-XML merely as a source of ideas.

Easier for implementers to re-use HR-XML components within UserArea extensions.

Not all content will be global, some left locally scoped within particular documents (that which has “composition” versus “aggregation” relationship – in other words, the stuff not likely to be reused elsewhere.)

– BODs

– Developer

- ProcessTimeCard.xsd (HR-XML target namespace)- Optional - ProcessOnlineOrder.xsd (OAGIS target namespace)

– Resources

– Components

Financial

HR

+ Common

+

+

+ CoreComponents

– Nouns

- TimeCard.xsd (HR-XML target namespace)- Optional - OnlineOrder.xsd (OAGIS target namespace)

HR-XML 3.0

- Resources from which “Nouns” / BODs are built

- HR-XML is optionally installed with other verticals

-Globally-scoped HR-XML content here

- OAGIS 9.2 content here (all or subset?)

- OAGIS implementation of UN/CEFACT CCTS

- Messages (Verb-Noun Constructs)

- i.e., modular. Also will have “Standalone” version

- Miss HR-XML 2.*? Look here for equivalent major schemas.

- Globally available content

HR

Fields<.xsd>

Components<.xsd>

Codelists<.xsd>

EnumeratedValues, “Lists”

“ReusableAggregates”

“Leaf-Level”Elements,

SimpleTypes,Complex Types

With SimpleContent

3.0/Resources/Components/HR

HR reusable content will have the similar modularity model as OAGIS common components – Fields, Components, Codelists.

Core ComponentsHR-XML’s won’t access “core-component types”

directly – HR-XML fields will be built with “unqualified” and “qualified” data types.

Benefits: No longer have to wrestle with technical nuances of a

large number xsd:datatypes. Most everything thing we need is there.

May use certain xsd:types.

Unqualified Data Types

AmountTypeBinaryObjectTypeGraphicTypePictureTypeSoundTypeVideoTypeCodeTypeDateTimeTypeDateTypeTimeType

IdentifierType IndicatorTypeMeasureTypeNumericTypePercentTypeRateTypeQuantityTypeTextTypeNameType

3.0/Resources/Components/CoreComponents/UnqualifiedDataTypes.xsd

BODs

Imports

Core Components

QualifiedData Types

<. xsd>

UnqualifiedData Types

<. xsd>

OAGIS Common

Meta

<.xsd>

CodeLists

<.xsd>

Imports

ProcessResume

<.xsd>

Nouns

Resume

<.xsd>

HR-XML Components

Includes

Components

<. xsd>

CodeLists

<. xsd>

Fields

<. xsd>

Includes

Includes

Includes

Imports

ModularityModel

New model is not without

complexities, but promisesimprovementover the prior

model.

http://weblogs.java.net/blog/kirillcool/archive/2005/07/visualize_your.html

Codelists

A character string (letters, figures or symbols) that for brevity and / or language independence may be used to represent or replace a definitive value or text of a Property.

HR-XML 2.* did not have much organization under our lists – i.e., enumerated values.

HR-XML 3.0 gives us the opportunity to apply best practices, the OAGIS architecture, and to simplify/re-evaluate our content.

Codelists

External: Well-known, official, “standard” codelists for the

particular value domain. Proprietary codelists.

HR-XML Closed: These are lists HR-XML develops and maintains. A

closed list implies that the list will be implemented without restriction or extension.

HR-XML Open: Provides a base or suggested list of values. No schema

enforcement. No conformance requirements unless workgroups set business rules.

See: http://docs.hr-xml.org/wiki/doku.php?id=code_lists

Naming

The Queen’s EnglishCCTS references the

Oxford English Dictionary (OED) as the authoritative source for spellings/meanings.

20+ volumes in printAvailable by

subscription online at oed.com

Has proven very helpful in solving “choose-a-word” debates.

NamingIn 3.0, we are aiming for business-meaningful,

but concise “tag” names, paired with a formal “data element names.”

Data Element Name, developed in accordance with ISO 11179 and CCTS principles in our analysis and naming.

This approach moves us closer to our model-driven ideal. Also provides a way to keep tag names brief.

CCTS/ISO 11179 Naming

HR-XML 3.0 will involve analysis using CCTS and ISO 11179-5 concepts.

Under ISO 11179-5 sets out a model for data elements.A data element name (DEN) is composed of (in order):1. An Object class term 2. Property class term3. Representation termA DEN uses a period ( “.” ) to separate between terms.

CCTS/ISO 11179 Naming

"Object Class" refers to concepts, abstractions, things in the real world that can be identified within clear boundaries and meanings and whose behavior follow the same rules (examples: person, organization, employer ...)

"Property" is a characteristic feature shared by all the instances of an object class (examples: age, income, address ...)

The "representation" describes the data type and its value range (examples: a date can be represented with date or datetime value domains).

Qualifiers

May be attached to object class terms, property terms, and representation terms to narrow or uniquely define a data element. DEN uses a underscore “_” appended to the end of a term to represent a qualifying term.

Examples:Person. Hire Date. Date

Person. Proposed_ Hire Date. Date (qualifies the property)

Organization. Name

Employer_ Organization. Name (qualifies the object class)

ISO 11179/CCTS Naming

Multi-word object, property, and representation terms also are allowed.

Consider:• Organization. Name. Name

(Organization object class, name property, name representation type)

• Education_ Organization. Name. Name(A profile or narrowed version of the broader Organization object class.)

• Education Organization. Name. Name (This is a different object class.)

ISO 11179/CCTS Naming

Naming: Property RepresentationName Fields by “representation type”. Driven from

UnqualifiedDataTypes for example: IdentifierType – e.g., OrganizationID CodeType – e.g., JobClassificationCode IndicatorType (Boolean) – e.g., BillableIndicator MeasureType (something requiring a unit code) -- e.g.,

HeightMeasure

Aggregates:When it is necessary to distinguish a component

(aggregate) from a field use “Details” – E.g., EducationScoreDetails (not an EducationScore, which may be a field, a collection of data relating to an EducationScore)