Mark Kusiak wrote: > I agree with Brian. I also read the article. One issue mentioned was > that EDI dataCANNOT be sent across the INTERNET. WRONG, it can as long > as you don't mindeveryone else having access to and utilization of the > information. > > What happened to S/MIME and HTTP/ssl or even FTP/ssl? When companies > use the Internet as > a transport, they need to think about how secure the data needs to be > when working out the details with > partners. > > > > EDI likeXML can be routed across the internet. > > The persons who can build the mouse trap which allows for the > securing of thedata 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 displayedform and enter the > information into your application. Making it so a human doesnot have > to enter the data into the application is where the cost of > exchangingelectronic formats are highest. XML does not solve this > problem or reduce thosecosts associated with it. > > > I would argue these points. Never before have vendors pledged and > started to > deliver on having there applications produce and accept XML. I have > seen press release and > demos from folks like SAP, Peoplesoft, JD Edwards, Great Plains, > Microsoft and Oracle that all are > working on having XML as the input or output. > > Ever see Internet Explorer or Netscape Communicator 6.0 handle EDI > data??? > > I have been around EDI for about 10 years. I was supporting M2/4 at a > carrier when TDCC was still in > use and was in awe when most carriers started to use 003020. I > realize that several years may pass before > all of the wrinkles are ironed out with XML, I place hope in the ebXML > effort to standardize some of the issues. > > One will still have to write the interfaces that arethe most expensive > portion of the process with more robustness piled on to handlethe > things that XML will "pass on to the application". If "the > application" isa human being, then it becomes a training issue, if > it's a computer program, itbecomes an even more expensive proposition. > Sorry to the SME who was suppose tobenefit from the reduced costs of > XML!!! > > I don't think this is about the SME, it is about the larger company > that using the Internet can reach all of his partners > in a cheaper more effiecient way than doing tradationally more expense > VAN based EDI (some of my best friends work at VAN's). > > When viewing a web form (and not a fax), it really doesn't matter if > it started as XML or EDI, just that it is no longer a fax handled > individually by the sender and that the response from the SME is not > going to be touched by a person, but go all the way to the system of > record... > > > Scott > "all opinions are strictly my own" > > 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 > processwhich doesn't cost an arm and a leg to move data. Even a first > class mailing inUS costs $.35. My point is that it costs to move data > around and will continue tocost as time goes on..... Mark-----Original > Message-----From: Brian Lehrhoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]Sent: > Wednesday, January 31, 2001 7:54 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > Re: More Words of Current Wisdom on XML Ok, I've read the "article." > Doesn't EDI fix most of the problems that hesays are broken features > in XML? I get challenged constantly with "Thismethodology seems to > work pretty good, but, if anyone can come up with abetter 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 fixsomething 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 > ConsultanteB2B Commerce212-703-2121%%%%%%%%%%%%% cut here > %%%%%%%%%%%%%%% >=======================================================================To > contact the list owner: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] at > http://www.mail-archive.com/edi-l%40listserv.ucop.edu/
begin:vcard n:Jolly;Scott tel;cell:408-836-5095 tel;fax:208-728-4472 tel;work:804-244-2902 x-mozilla-html:TRUE org:iPlanet;ECXpert & TradingXpert adr:;;3315 Darby Road;Kewsick;VA;22947; version:2.1 email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] title:Director of Product Management x-mozilla-cpt:;22848 fn:Scott Jolly end:vcard
