Re: More Words of Current Wisdom on XML

Wed, 31 Jan 2001 10:28:31 -0800

I agree with Brian. I also read the article. One issue mentioned was that EDI data
CANNOT be sent across the INTERNET. WRONG, it can as long as you don't mind
everyone else having access to and utilization of the information. EDI like
XML can be routed across the internet.
The persons who can build the mouse trap which allows for the securing of the
data over the internet that is generic yet secure, will be in a good position.
I am looking at XML closely and it's great if you want to have get and display
(XML's version of rip and read) with very little interface with an application.
It's great if you want to have a clerk read the information off of a displayed
form and enter the information into your application. Making it so a human does
not have to enter the data into the application is where the cost of exchanging
electronic formats are highest. XML does not solve this problem or reduce those
costs associated with it. One will still have to write the interfaces that are
the most expensive portion of the process with more robustness piled on to handle
the things that XML will "pass on to the application". If "the application" is
a human being, then it becomes a training issue, if it's a computer program, it
becomes an even more expensive proposition. Sorry to the SME who was suppose to
benefit from the reduced costs of XML!!!
XML is the same buzz word that EDI was twenty years ago.
EDI needs to get to the internet so that there is a deliverable working process
which doesn't cost an arm and a leg to move data. Even a first class mailing in
US costs $.35. My point is that it costs to move data around and will continue to
cost as time goes on.....
Mark
-----Original Message-----
From: Brian Lehrhoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2001 7:54 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: More Words of Current Wisdom on XML
Ok, I've read the "article." Doesn't EDI fix most of the problems that he
says are broken features in XML? I get challenged constantly with "This
methodology seems to work pretty good, but, if anyone can come up with a
better one that works i'll gladly take a look at it."
And I'd sure like a piece of that 12 month, $1,000,000 project to fix
something that isn't broken.
"William J. Kammerer" wrote:
> Thanks to Greg Olsen, of Contivo, Inc., for discovering this gem. See
> "Technologists Debate the Best Way to Implement XML," by Peter Lucas,
> published 01/22/01 on Ecomworld.com. Anytime you let a "journalist"
> loose with a word processor, misquotes, havoc and lies invariably
> abound. Even so, the trash to text ratio in this one is so excessive
> that a mere two snippets hardly do it justice. Read for yourself at
> http://www.ecomworld.com/online/columns/read.cfm?contentid=381.
>
> "In addition, structures defining XML documents are inherently
> simpler...The structure is so simple that e-mail can qualify as an XML
> document."
>
> "...Unicode, an 18-bit coding language created by Microsoft Corp,
> Redmond, Wash,...supports 64,000 definitions per character and can
> translate documents written in almost any language."
>
> William J. Kammerer
> FORESIGHT Corp.
> 4950 Blazer Memorial Pkwy.
> Dublin, OH USA 43017-3305
> +1 614 791-1600
>
> Visit FORESIGHT Corp. at http://www.foresightcorp.com/
> "Commerce for a New World"
>
> ======================================================================= > To contact the list owner: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Archives at http://www.mail-archive.com/edi-l%40listserv.ucop.edu/
--
%%%%%%%%%%%%% cut here %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Brian Lehrhoff ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
EDI Consultant
eB2B Commerce
212-703-2121
%%%%%%%%%%%%% cut here %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
=======================================================================
To contact the list owner: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]