Rachel Foerster wrote:
>
> In general terms I agree with Richard. However, I do have a problem
> (more like heartburn!) with his proposed XML version of the X12 850
> PO. Why on earth would you want to describe and convey all of those
> X12 codes. That's where the real semantic information is. Thus, I
> would suggest something like this would be more appropriate:
>
The XML I displayed was something I came up with impromptu. Generally I
would not put X12 codes in XML - but who cares - we are talking about
EDI thus what is in the XML document is irrelavant because we don't need
to "read" it anyway. Everyone's own crow is the blackest with XML data
layout.
>
> It's the codes -- both in X12 and UN/EDIFACT -- where all of the
> semantic is buried. Forget about the code values, use the code
> definition!
>
> Furthermore, the ebXML message services specification -- which will be
> approved at the Tokyo ebXML meeting the week of 11/6, offers far more
> fiunctionality and capability than SOAP....which isn't even yet a W3C
> Candidate Recommendation let alone an approved Recommendation.
>
How? Please explain.
--
Richard Druckenmiller
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
=======================================================================
To signoff the EDI-L list, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To subscribe, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To contact the list owner: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archives at http://www.mail-archive.com/edi-l%40listserv.ucop.edu/
