William, Move the dead horse aside. I'm now being misattributed and I'm very disappointed. No, I never claimed that XML was unsuitable. What I said, and clearly I'm happy to say it again, is the simple one-for-one substitution of XML for EDI (which amounts to nothing more than a syntax "regime change") does not derive any value. Sure you can *parse* XML using SAX or DOM. What you get is the XML data broken up into more digestible chunks, but there is no more meaning to the data than there is with the comparable EDI data. I've always been surprised that nobody's written a comparable EDI parser...that *parses* the EDI data. Then you'd get the EDI data stream in more digestible chunks, too. The fact that an industry does or does not use EDI or XML, frankly, has nothing to do with what I'm saying. My above statements are purely technical issues. Summary: one-to-one substitution of XML for EDI = no value add.
Does this mean that new people in the arena shouldn't adopt XML? No...they'll probably get lots of great *new* uses out of it, just like you're trying to tell me. But if a shop is going to swap out EDI and replace it with XML to do *exactly*the*same*thing*, I return to my original query: what's the point? With respect to "readability", yes, even I can agree that "StreetName" is meaningful when it's within "Address" within "Party" within "BuyerParty" but those phrases are meaningful to me because I speak "English" (or at least the derivative known as "American"). Frankly, your example also disappoints me and leads me to two important points: 1) Programming languages don't understand English any better than they understand Portuguese, Russian, Greek or Mandarin Chinese. 2) I also agree (as I'm sure everyone else on this list does that "NomaDaRua" is meaningful when it's within "EndereÃo" within "Partido" within "PartidoDoComprador". Same would be true for "ÎÎÎÎÎÎÎÏÎ" within "ÎÎÎÏÎÏÎÏÎ" within "ÎÏÎÎÎÎÎÏÎÎÎÎÎÎÏÎÏ" within "ÎÏÎÎÎÎÎÏÎÎÎÎÎÎÏÎÏÎÎÎÏÎÏÏÏÎ". But at least I'll be able to get those values through my SAX parser. Am I saying "XML bad, EDI good?" Not on your tintype. Respectfully, Bill Chessman Inovisâ P.S., Much as I respect your ability to do COBOL...Dude, it's the 21st century. 8-) -----Original Message----- From: William J. Kammerer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, February 04, 2005 7:53 AM To: EDI-L Mailing List Subject: Re: [EDI-L] The Ubiquity of XML - again. Bill, you might get me to admit that XSLT is an inappropriate means to transform XML to a printed report or flat file. Howard or I would probably use COBOL for the final report generation. But at the risk of beating dead horses, pray tell when is XML ever inappropriate for outward-facing B2B interoperability? Let's be even-handed about this: I can't even think of that many applications for which X12 or UN/EDIFACT syntax would be inappropriate, except perhaps for "real" binary data like JPEGs or PDFs. Excluding those BLOB - Binary Large Objects - cases (for which the X12 BDS or BIN, or better yet, the 102 - Associated Data Transaction Set, were designed), X12 syntax (or, for that matter, UN/EDIFACT) is perfectly competent at carrying anything from POs and Dispatch Advices all the way to oil drilling geologic data and toxicological reports. And anything X12 syntax can do, XML can do equally well - or better. The unsuitability of XML has been repeated so often and loudly (most recently by you and Andres of England), without rationale. If people believe what's repeated, I'm afraid that efforts like UBL and CICA will be ignored. We don't want that to happen. Do we? After all, even you would agree that - syntax aside - it's easier to understand what the XML element "StreetName" means when it's ensconced within "Address" within "Party" within "BuyerParty", even if you didn't have the schema. Try doing the same with the N3 segment without the standard or IG readily available. William J. Kammerer Novannet Columbus, OH 43221-3859 . USA +1 (614) 487-0320 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bill Chessman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, 02 February, 2005 05:23 PM Subject: RE: [EDI-L] The Ubiquity of XML - again. Sounds like an XML *parsing* issue to me. 8-) Another example of when XML may be inappropriately used. Best regards, Bill Chessman Inovis(tm) P.S. WRT dead horses and beatings thereof, with this note, I put away my own bludgeon...though it's never out of reach. 8-) -----Original Message----- From: Parks, Howard (E) Ext. 6150 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2005 2:15 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: [EDI-L] The Ubiquity of XML - again. Isn't the whole point of putting it in XML so that nobody has to know Gentran to figure this out? The problem he is having is padding the product description so it looks nice. He has to fool XSL in order to do this. Very amusing. Maybe if he wrote the report in COBOL ... Howard Parks 1 Peter 4:10 -----Original Message----- From: William J. Kammerer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2005 2:57 PM To: EDI-L Mailing List Subject: [EDI-L] The Ubiquity of XML - again. See below. People actually do use XML for "incoming customer Purchase Orders." This was seen on the xsl-list. I have no idea whether the XML PO was based on an open standard like UBL, but that's not the important point I wish to make. Everyone reading the note on xsl-list is probably familiar with XML syntax and XSLT stylesheets - whether they are mathematicians, teachers, agronomists, chemists, petroleum engineers, programmers, web designers, or whatever. There's safety in numbers. Wouldn't that be a hoot if a particle physicist helped this guy out? That wouldn't be such a stretch to imagine. But how many particle physicists know Gentran? . 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 . 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/
