At 02:41 AM 8/24/2000 -0700, martin wrote:
>My prediction, and I back it up with my investment in companies that work
>with XML technology.
With all due respect Martin, I would like to point out that because of
those investments and because you are CEO of such a company, you have a
large vested interest to maintain your point of view. So I know that
nothing I am going to say will change your mind. You are too heavily
invested in one point of view to risk changing your mind now. This is a
part of what I was talking about earlier in not being really free to
rationally evaluate the real pros and cons. True, I am sure you and others
studied this before jumping. But how much of that study was based on the
hype of others?
I think there are too many 10s and 100s of millions of dollars in Venture
capitol money tied into the success of XML for anyone to dare breath a word
different. To do so is very politically incorrect right now. If I were
invested as you are, then I would be saying the same things you do, Martin.
>The big boys of EDI will try hard to hold on to their market. But I give
>them 5 years at the very most for them to have a significant share of the
>EDI business.
I keep hearing differing estimates on how long EDIFACT/X12 will be
around. All these estimates are based on the false assumption that XML is
so much better in so many ways than current EDI formats and it is just the
inertia of moving everyone over and their loss of investment in X12/EDIFACT
that is the problem. Not!
THAT is not the problem! The real problems with EDI do not lie with the
EDIFACT or X12 formats. They lie with the differing formats between and
especially within supply chains. The XML format for business documents not
only does nothing to solve this, it actually exacerbates the
problem. Where maps differ in X12 only some few fields are different and
need conditional mapping. Where maps differ in XML ALL the fields are
different and need conversion (= more work and maintenance). So another
problem is that using the XML format is truly a step BACKWARD not a step
forward where XML/EDI is concerned!
>There is a great forward momentum of XML development by many companies
>that I can see an end to traditional EDI.
This is all because executives reading mis-guided articles like the one
recently pointed out from ZDnet get all excited about how much money they
are supposed to now save. That article has some falsehood and false
assumptions such as XML is better than EDI because is sent on the Web. Any
format can be sent HTTP or VAN. Format doesn't matter in
transport. Problem is too many very high level executives have bought into
this. Boy are they in for some surprises.
>We are in a new economy. It's wasteful to use traditional EDI.
From what I see on the XML projects I am familiar with, it is more
wasteful and costly to do XML.
>It's more cost effective to use some form of EDI-XML.
It is less cost effective! Some XML vs. X12 fallacies:
1. It is more readable that X12: False. Try reading a RosettaNet
document. It is so verbose you really strain to find the data. The term
Info-glut comes to mind = so much info it is hard to find what you
want. X12 is far simpler to read to a trained eye and that is all that
occasionally sees them in that format.
2. verbosity doesn't matter: False. RosettaNet XML messages are 30 to 50
times the size of their X12 counterparts. We do over 2 million EDI
transaction a month. Are you really going to tell me 30 to 50 times the
size is not going to matter?
3. XML is a single standard: At the language level yes. At the tag level
NO!. It is (and will be) more diversified than X12 or EDIFACT.
4. XML is cheaper because of new and often free tools: Doubtful. The real
expense is in the labor to set these things up and to maintain
them. Currently this is more labor intensive than X12.
5. It will bring in the little guys who are excluded from EDI due to
cost: This one is very false. Unfortunately it may be the carrot that
draws larger companies to spend big bucks to convert over to XML in the
hopes that they can now do electronic interchange with the small guys. The
real problem the little guys have in cost is because of differing
partnership models. This does not change in XML and may just be worse to
maintain. When little guys fail to show up at this party the house of
cards could fold.
>In the mean time some big companies will be forced to use some form of
>middle ware between traditional EDI and EDI-XML. But sooner than later XML
>will dominate the EDI market.
This is the inertia issue as above. I will grant you that XML is a
powerful technology with some excellent uses on the Web. Turning the WWW
from a global repository of data to a real searchable global database will
be fantastic. Trying to fit business documents in the XML will not be.
Because XML/EDI has been so hyped by big money, it just might overtake
X12/EDIFACT in five years as you say. Enough enthusiasm can shore up and
be the glue to any house of cards and make it stand. After all, as a
format XML is not THAT much worse than X12 or EDIFACT. It could be an
acceptable format except for some down-sides. It is just that once XML
fails to solve the main problems that EDI has also failed to solve (this
will take some years to become really evident to one and all), I think
we'll see a lot of disappointed faces.
>It is simply wasteful to use traditional EDI flavors.
It is simply wasteful to be unscientific and fervently marry oneself to a
technology only to find out later that we didn't really think this thing
through sufficiently before we made such an investment.
------ XML/edi Group Discussion List ------
Homepage = http://www.XMLedi-Group.org
Unsubscribe = send email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Leave the subject and body of the message blank
Questions/requests: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To receive only one message per day (digest format)
send the following message to [EMAIL PROTECTED],
(leave the subject line blank)
digest xmledi-group your-email-address
To join the XML/edi Group complete the form located at:
http://www.xmledi-group.org/xmledigroup/mail1.htm
