So...you are saying that the importance of standards are over-emphasized. But that the reason EDI is expensive is because they are not followed? While I agree with your assertion that companies twist the standards to their own ends, costing more, that only increases the need for following standards. I remember version 2003FORD (or was it 2040FORD? I guess that drinking to forget does work...) Companies need to get on standards committees to ensure that the standards meet their needs, not the other way around. EDI is a technical representation of what is, at heart, a business conversation between two entities. For some industries, that conversation is very complex. Take healthcare for example; an 837 is about as complex as they come. Not because the 837 itself is complex. The 837 is complex because the conversation is complex. The conversation between providers and payers is very rich. And the conversation has many nuances that are used by only a subset of the entire audience. Packing all that into a standard is difficult. EDI is complicated, difficult to implement, time consuming, and expensive. The only thing that it has going for it is that it is 8 times better than the alternative. Pete
________________________________ From: [email protected] on behalf of bryce_nielsen Sent: Thu 4/28/2005 4:46 PM To: [email protected] Subject: <SALES> RE: [EDI-L] Re: Alternatives to FAX for small trading partners --- In [email protected], [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > If Quickbooks' XML interface could get them a PO on the internet by doing > nothing more than click Send rather than Print, then it would be a good > thing. Okay, add an HTTP address to the Vendor setup. Until that happens, > you won't find many "S"es using XML. They are interested in running their > businesses, not worrying about IT. That's why they purchased Quickbooks in > the first place. That is why standardization is needed. The beauty of > XML's flexibility notwithstanding, if it requires a technologist or an > XML-savvy person to make it work, it is not the answer for an SME. > Not if that business needs EDI and knows developers who can get them online using XML as the bridge between EDI and their backend systems, all around $1000. I think you're overemphasizing "standards" here. They are important, yes, but I have yet to work in *any* company that truly follows any kind of standard. Most morph what standards they find into their own business practices, which is one reason why EDI costs so much. -BKN . 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 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] . 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/
