Yes, but for a lot of non "standard" cases, you end up using a programming language to get the data into the back end. IMHO, it's a *lot* easier to work with an XML document than an EDI document programmatically.
As you said before, the trickiest part of EDI and particularly of emerging dialects is know which data goes where. In X12, in addition to simply understanding how the document is arranged, you have another level of difficulty in the mapping of the document. In XML, that difficulty still exists, but it's much more portable (you can use XSL skills in a lot of other situations. X12-mapping skills are very specialized and not very portable). Bryce K. Nielsen SysOnyx, Inc. (www.sysonyx.com) Latest xmlLinguist tutorial: http://www.sysonyx.com/xml-to-edi-850 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bill Chessman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Bryce K. Nielsen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2005 10:37 AM Subject: RE: [EDI-L] Need Help in Obtaining Mapping Skills Yes, I imagine XML-to-XML mapping is easier than EDI-to-XML, but don't forget there remain many applications out there that don't use XML internally. Those need "mapping" regardless of whether the information is XML or EDI and the mechanics of such an operation is likely to be similar in magnitude. (Perhaps that's partly bias on my part, but I'm working more with the medium enterprises--UNIX, AS/400, etc.--rather than the small businesses.) Best regards, Bill Chessman Inovis(tm) -----Original Message----- From: Bryce K. Nielsen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, February 07, 2005 10:08 PM To: EDI-L Mailing List Subject: Re: [EDI-L] Need Help in Obtaining Mapping Skills > Clearly, despite the discussion of the last week or so, we're more on > the same page than not. I thoroughly agree with you that XML, in and of > itself, does not solve the mapping question. Intelligent design of XML > messages will answer some of the problem but the proliferation of XML > vocabularies and "standards" will keep "mappers" in business for a long > time. > IMHO, "mapping" is the biggest strength that XML has over X12 in the EDI world. It's much easier to create an XML-to-XML map with a Stylesheet than it is to generate an X12 map with the many different, proprietary mapping tools on the market. Part of the disadvantage of the "arcane" X12 dialect will also be _finding_ mappers. XSLT Mappers are very easy to come across. Mercator mappers aren't. Not to say XML is better than X12, since as has been noted the biggest disadvantage to XML is size. If you don't know what you're doing, then you'll quickly find a cap to the size of document you can handle (roughly 20mb XML file size, as MS Biztalk "officially" supports). Not saying you can't work with 100mb+ XML documents, it's just you really need to know what you're doing. Both dialects have their strengths and weaknesses. I tend to recommend XML to the smaller businesses, since A) they will have smaller data to deal with and B) won't have the budget to hire an employee who does nothing but mapping. Bryce K. Nielsen SysOnyx, Inc. (www.sysonyx.com) Makers of xmlLinguist, the EDI-to-XML Translator http://www.sysonyx.com/products/xmllinguist . 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/
