In the former presentation, « Opening the EPC Namespace » was not considered as a technical issue to be solved :

  • The EPC Naming space is already technically « open » (as mentioned on slide 4) and able to be used with many other naming schemes (DUNS, EHIBCC, PURLS, etc.)

However the question was about the control of the issuing of EPC numbers (current naming structure) in an EPCGlobal environment : I.E. assignment of parts of the namespace (ranges of numbers) to others entities (Today 100% Gs1/EPCGlobal : fee based)

  • For other entities to be able to issue EPC# to their communities / customers

CURRENT SCHEME : Diapositive3.PNG

ALTERNATIVE 1 : Diapositive4.PNG

ALTERNATIVE 2 : Diapositive5.PNG

CONCLUSION :

Current EPCGlobal scheme is immature and only addresses B2B issues such as the existing supply chains (does not facilitates quick adoption based on merchandising, marketing, consumer apps.)

Alternative 1 is acceptable but will slow down adoption of EPCGlobal standards since B2B supply chains (EPCGlobal based) and downstream part of the value chains will not be based on 100% similar schemes (Discovery services)

Alternative 2 has open questions to be solved but will help EPCGlobal standards adoption if EPCGlobal’s scope is widened from B2B to a B2Any perspective

Maintaining a distinction between B2B (GS1/EPCGlobal) and « rest of world » could lead Industries to use different « name issuing entities » (different from EPCGlobal). Consumer is generally the end user of those manufactured products : he is also a citizen and….
…. the ultimate arbiter will be THE « Citizen », not the industry…..