"XML's got the edge so long as the tags are in a language recognizable to the human user..."
You're beating a dead horse again, Bill. I think every COBOL (ADD, MOVE, DISPLAY), Java (String, Boolean, true, false, BufferedReader), Perl (open, map, use, require), XSLT (when, choose, contains, child, item), and C++ (private, class, new, delete, void, short) programmer in the world can read and write some English. And programmers are the ones who will write the code to map XML e-business messages. "...but to the average computer program it's a dead heat." Don't think in terms of the load on the poor program. Think in terms of the effort required of the poor programmer! "One of the examples I seem to recall from years gone by was DeliveryDate. Is that the exact date upon which a given thing will be delivered or is it the date by which a given thing must be delivered or the approximate date upon which the given thing was delivered?" Take a look at the UBL Office supplies Despatch Advice example instance at http://docs.oasis-open.org/ubl/cd-UBL-1.0. There's not much ambiguity in <cbc:ActualDeliveryDateTime>2003-02-14T13:30:00</cbc:ActualDeliveryDateTime> is there? This means "the date of the delivery [when it actually takes] place." If you want a different type of "DeliveryDate", browse through the Reusable BIEs spreadsheet, where you'll see "PromisedDateTime" and "RequestedDeliveryDateTime" also defined. "...we're soon going to get to the point where we need implementation guides to explain each user's perspective on how to implement the respective XML messages...isn't that one of the reason's that everyone hates EDI?" "Hate" is a bit of a strong word. But there is something better, and we can all move on. I know something about automated EDI implementation guide editors - I invented the first commercially viable one. Frankly, I don't see as much need for schema "implementation guides," as UBL messages are built up from fairly well-defined and constrained ebXML core components. Just how many DeliveryDates are applicable to a (Dispatch Advice) Delivery. Details component? The same wasn't true of EDI - X12 and especially EDIFACT. EDI standards didn't come "usable" straight out of the box. Take the EDIFACT DESADV. It's way too open-ended: how would you ever know which DTM to stick the actual delivery date? My gawd! And there're hundreds of possible qualifiers. Only with an IG would you be able to constrain the EDIFACT message enough so someone could get her arms around it! William J. Kammerer Novannet Columbus, OH 43221-3859 • USA +1 (614) 487-0320 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bill Chessman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "EDI-L Mailing List" <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, 04 February, 2005 08:10 PM Subject: RE: [EDI-L] The Ubiquity of XML - again. I knew this was all leading back to the BSR. 8-) I'm out of the loop on BSR, but seven or eight years ago it seems to me it was having a lot of trouble getting traction because the semantics were the problem. Given a list of common XML tags, we have Terminology, even a hierarchy of terminology, but not Semantics. I have plenty of terms, but what do they mean? One of the examples I seem to recall from years gone by was DeliveryDate. Is that the exact date upon which a given thing will be delivered or is it the date by which a given thing must be delivered or the approximate date upon which the given thing was delivered? As I said, I'm out of the loop on that. Would I be safe in assuming that headway has been made? If not, we're soon going to get to the point where we need implementation guides to explain each user's perspective on how to implement the respective XML messages...isn't that one of the reason's that everyone hates EDI? Please do not think that I am suggesting any advantage of EDI tags vs. XML tags. I am emphatically not. The net is XML's got the edge so long as the tags are in a language recognizable to the human user, but to the average computer program it's a dead heat. Best regards, Bill Chessman Inovis™ -----Original Message----- From: William J. Kammerer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, February 04, 2005 3:30 PM To: EDI-L Mailing List Subject: Re: [EDI-L] The Ubiquity of XML - again. Raising this issue of English language tags is itself beating a dead horse. See a brilliant exposition entitled "English Language Tags," addressed to the ebXML Core Components Team on 31 Jan 2001, at http://lists.ebxml.org/archives/ebxml-core/200101/msg00183.html. And do the EDIFACT tags, like MEA or BEG, mean anything to anyone who can't make out English? Nevertheless, I'll add this "deficiency" of XML - as applied to interoperable B2B standards - to the list. William J. Kammerer Novannet Columbus, OH 43221-3859 • USA +1 (614) 487-0320 . 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/
