Here's my reply to InternetWeek regarding this editorial:
--------------------
A correction first - eBTWG is entirely a UN/CEFACT initiative. OASIS is
not a cosponsor.
Now to the substance - Anyone who thinks that eBTWG is going to choose one
or the other of xCBL or VCML is delusional. Beyond that, to even dream
that eBTWG, an international group under the UN, will choose VCML based on
the U.S. developed ANSI X12 standard, has been smoking wacky tobacky! If
UN/CEFACT believed in an interim solution it could have developed one at
least two years ago based on the UN/EDIFACT EDI standard. They instead
chose to start ebXML with OASIS, and they are continuing the work started
by that group. I think it highly unlikely that CEFACT will endorse an
interim solution, and I am so advising my clients.
In addition, with ANSI ASC X12's close links with UN/CEFACT and support of
its work programs, it is unlikely that X12 will strike out on its own with
an interim solution.
The answer to this - UBL and VCML will fight it out in the market place on
their own without any help from standards bodies.
joe mcverry wrote:
> All,
>
> Ken Vollmer wrote an editorial in a recent InternetWeek magazine that
> may be of interest to the list.
> Here's a link to his editorial
> http://www.internetweek.com/columns01/beat081601.htm
>
--
Michael C. Rawlins, Rawlins EC Consulting
www.rawlinsecconsulting.com
=======================================================================
To contact the list owner: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archives at http://www.mail-archive.com/edi-l%40listserv.ucop.edu/
