You're right, Mike, "many people on this list [don't] care much about the more arcane aspects of standards." But they might very well care who *already* (e.g., OASIS UBL) has standard business documents devised which conform to other standards, like W3C XML, ISO 15000-5 and ISO 11179.
And, no, we don't expect everyone to know why adhering to ISO 15000-5 and ISO 11179 is a good thing; only standards developers have to know this stuff. But, suffice it to say, these foundational standards enforce a rational naming system and ensure a logical means of building the components that make up e-business messages. An XML e-business standard which does not fully conform to ISO 15000-5 and ISO 11179 might be deficient compared to one which does. Therefore, ISO 15000-5 and ISO 11179 conformance are "good" things and can serve as "check-boxes" when choosing the standard you'll use when moving to XML. Perhaps the "burden of the blame for whatever breach ... between ASC X12 and UN/CEFACT and OASIS lies more with the latter than the former." I wouldn't be surprised that it's due to those nefarious "Europeans [who were] mean to an X12 member," according to Mark Crawford. Maybe the mean Europeans were just turning the tables. I hear tale that at that meeting there were "mean" Austrians barraging a U.S. standards person with insults about America for her hegemony, arrogance and general lack of culture and couth. The ugly American then asked the Austrians if they knew what Americans said about Austria. "Sure," they said (note that everyone's speaking English, as Austrian is not ubiquitous). A: "Nothing." William J. Kammerer Novannet, LLC. Columbus, OH 43221-3859 . USA +1 (614) 487-0320 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mike Rawlins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, 24 January, 2005 02:45 PM Subject: RE: [EDI-L] X12 CICA: Is it the future? Does anyone really "model"? I don't think very many people on this list care much about the more arcane aspects of standards, at least XML-based standards, or even if they do care they probably don't care having them discussed on this list very much. As we all know, what counts is market acceptance. So, I'm going to respond in as brief a fashion as possible. Mark's definition of "proprietary" still seems to me to stretch the usual meaning, and even if his definition is accepted I still feel that the degree of incompatibility is overstated. I think, Mark, that you also need to review X12.7 again. Granted, it is somewhat opaque, but some of the claims you make are simply not accurate, and you don't distinguish between ASC X12 process issues and the functioning of a "black box". In closing, to have some balance let me say that there are many in the ASC X12 community who feel that the burden of the blame for whatever breach there is between ASC X12 and UN/CEFACT and OASIS lies more with the latter than the former. However, I'm not going to take sides on that. For the sake of convergence, there are more appropriate forums to discuss this issue and the nuts and bolts of achieving convergence than this list. Cheers, Mike . 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/
