James, the "merge" X12 and UN/EDIFACT is not an accurate statement. Rather, there was a commitment to harmonize the two standards in terms of functionality. This was accomplished by the various X12 lettered subcommittees, e.g., transportation, finance, materials management, etc. The goal was to ensure that the scope of functionality in the two standards was harmonized so that an enterprise could more easily use both without loss of business function.
There was never an effort to merge X12 into UN/EDIFACT which would result in the sunsetting of X12. Then - and today - there are many businesses that conduct business solely in the U.S. with trading partners that do likewise; thus, there is no business need for them to implement a global standard. Subsequent to the harmonization effort XML burst upon the electronic messaging scene, resulting in the ebXML initiative and its family of specifications now developed and maintained by OASIS and UN/CEFACT. X12 also developed its XML-based set of rules which are currently set forth in X12.7 and CICA. However, there are literally hundreds of XML-based specifications developed and maintained by myriad organizations which focus either on specific business functions, i.e., human resources, or industries - finance, travel/leisure. No technology or technical specification will live in perpetuity....each/all will have a life cycle which will be determined by the marketplace and the needs of the various enterprises exploiting information technology to conduct business. It is for this reason that I personally believe the ever on-going debate of EDI (X12/UN-EDIFACT) versus XML is just so much gum beating....each specification served(s) a need. When it no longer continues to serve the need businesses will seek out other solutions that will. I mean, after all - we don't use buggy whips on our 2004 model year autos do we? Rachel Rachel Foerster Chief Executive Officer Rachel Foerster & Associates, Ltd. Voice: 847-872-8070 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -----Original Message----- From: James Hatcher [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2005 7:00 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'EDI-L Mailing List' Subject: RE: [EDI-L] EDI Standard Table Data Hi Rachel, Just curious, as you noted; "If ASC X12 ceases to exist, then DISA will have lost its major (only??) customer. DISA would then have to find other paying customers or also go out of business." A few years back there was an agreement / initiative to move X12 toward the EDIFACT standard. As noted it is UN/EDIFACT, USA is the primary UN funding country and of course we don't use the UN EDI standard. The "merge" of X12 & EDIFACT (apologies if that is the wrong term) seemed so logical. Consider USA following a global standard that we substantially funded the development of, intelligent use of our tax dollars, amazing thought. Unfortunately that initiative seems to have died. - Is is correct that way back UN/EDIFACT was proposed & approved and then USA developed X12 as our own standard or was it the other way round X12 came first & EDIFACT followed? - Any idea what happened with the initiative? Did the death of the "merge" initiative have anything to do the fact that DISA would be out of business as you noted above or was it more because companies like Sterling are very strong with X12 mappings and not as competent as the European vendors with EDIFACT and would have lost some competitive advantage in the US market? There is also the whole X12 consulting industry which would have to retool to learn the new merged standard. Thanks & Regards, James Hatcher At 10:47 AM 1/19/2005 -0600, Rachel Foerster wrote: >James, just one more comment to your points about DISA and its >relationship to ANSI. DISA, as you correctly point out, is the >secretariat of the ASC X12 Committee. As such, its relationship is with >X12 -- not ANSI. DISA is a >501(3)(c) not for profit organization, originally established to serve >as the secretariat for ASC X12 when TDCC no longer could satisfy X12's needs. > >If ASC X12 ceases to exist, then DISA will have lost its major (only??) >customer. DISA would then have to find other paying customers or also >go out of business. > >Rachel > > > > >Rachel Foerster & Associates, Ltd. > >39432 North Avenue > >Beach Park, IL 60099 > >Voice: 847-872-8070 > >Fax: 847-589-8081 > . Please use the following Message Identifiers as your subject prefix: <SALES>, <JOBS>, <LIST>, <TECH>, <MISC>, <EVENT>, <OFF-TOPIC> Access the list online at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EDI-L Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EDI-L/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
