I totally agree, it's a tough line to draw -- however, by your own definition, two customers coming to an agreement on a format to exchange documents via spreadsheet are "doing EDI" whatever that means. The OP's original scenario; where a clerk reformats "as needed" and kicks off a VB program; from what I hear it sounds like this has 'crossed the line.' Is it the manual check and touch that is what makes it non-EDI? Hey, I'm just being curmudgeonly. It is, after all, Friday -- even though I have to come in this weekend. (Gotta love those SAP deployments.)
-----Original Message----- From: Tor Myers [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, December 07, 2007 2:15 PM To: Hurd, Richard [SLCUS]; Bill Chessman; [email protected] Subject: RE: [EDI-L] Here we go again (Is it EDI?) Maybe I was a little short in my response and I guess the problem with the question really is, where do you draw the line? When I said "an EDI standard" I was thinking some set of rules defined by a committee. If you deviate from those rules a bit or even a lot you are still based on those rules. An Excel spreadsheet to me does not fall into this category. Given the loose definition of EDI: An inter-company, application-to-application communication of data in standard format for business transactions. Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) is a set of standards <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard> for structuring information that is to be electronically exchanged between and within businesses, organizations, government entities and other groups. The standards describe structures that emulate documents, for example purchase orders to automate purchasing. The term EDI is also used to refer to the implementation and operation of systems and processes for creating, transmitting, and receiving EDI documents. and if you accept that two partners coming to an agreement on a format as EDI, then an email, flat file, whatever format is EDI. I do believe working in an EDI capacity you do have to deal with all these formats, I have done this for years with spreadsheets, emails with and without attachments, XML, Direct IDoc to IDoc etc... I guess I just view EDI as being standards as defined by standards committees and in the original question of a spreadsheet, I don't see that as falling into that category. I guess I better go back to my vendors of "EDI Tools" and demand some new functionality. If that makes me evangelical, wow I have never even been close to referred to as that before, then so be it. _____ From: [email protected] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Hurd, Richard [SLCUS] Sent: Friday, December 07, 2007 10:53 AM To: Bill Chessman; [email protected] Subject: RE: [EDI-L] Here we go again (Is it EDI?) I kind of had the same reaction in reading Tor's comment. Not to derail this thread but it reminds me slightly of the evangelical Bible-based church member who believes in the inerrant word of the Bible - my (loaded) question to that individual would be, Which one? New International? New American? King James? Aramaic? Greek? Coptic? Douay-Rheims? The same thing can be said of EDI "standards." In case I ever get to thinking that I'm all that with EDI, I have posted on my half-cubicle wall the undying words of Greg Knowles, of this group: "EDI is the transfer of not-so-standards-based data, between entities that pretend to be cooperating. An EDI tool, like GENTRAN, is then used to convert that data (using maps, scripts, preprocessors, work-arounds, postprocessors and magic) to a poorly defined and constantly changing application or database format, which is then sometimes accepted by the application. The whole process, of course, works (or doesn't) in both directions, and in many different segments of the supply chain." -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:EDI-L%40yahoogroups.com> com [mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:EDI-L%40yahoogroups.com> com]On Behalf Of Bill Chessman Sent: Friday, December 07, 2007 1:38 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:EDI-L%40yahoogroups.com> com Subject: RE: [EDI-L] Here we go again (Is it EDI?) It strikes me these two notes bring up three significant questions. With regard to Tom Smith's (yes that's really his name, or at least so HE says!) question of what is EDI, there is a question of scope. Having only been involved in EDI since its middle ages (c. 1990), I was always of the impression that EDI was something that was used to transmit data from one application system to another application system in a format that both could agree with and that would require no human intervention in the transmission process. I don't think that the creation of the spreadsheet by a human really has anything to do with the EDI portion. On the other end, I would think with enough time, money and skills, the process of getting at the spreadsheet could be automated so that the human intervention is reduced or eliminated. (Of course, if the sender were to send the spreadsheet as a CSV file (which is possible out of Excel) then the whole thing could be done under a process like scenario A. The second question that I think is generated by Mr. Smith's note is this: How do you spell EDI? What I mean is this: did he really mean "EDI" or "edi"? Generally the former (all caps) spelling is reserved for formal, standardized, application-independent formats that are agreed to by all parties in the data exchange (N.B., that agreement could be the start of another discussion...or already is!) and is solely for the time between the applications when the data is flying through the ether. The latter spelling is a much more general description of the transfer of data from one place to another without any particular specifics. I would suggest that the transfers of which he writes should be categorized as "edi" rather than "EDI". The third question goes to Tor Myers's comment. My concern here is no so much definition as flexibility. While I agree everyone who does EDI should conform to the standards, I am constantly finding examples of people who use X12 or EDIFACT but don't conform to the standards (they change the structures, use inappropriate codes or separators, for example)...does that mean they are not doing EDI? As far as B2B is concerned, it strikes me that EDI is simply one of a series of tools that can be used to accomplish B2B (I guess that goes back to the question of scope albeit from a different angle). And, now that I think about it, that would seem to lead to another question which could send us off on yet another chase for geese: Is an XML-based standard, such as cXML, EDI? If not, why not? With respect and best regards, Bill Chessman Inovis(tm) P.S. Shout out to Tor (we used to work together). -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:EDI-L%40yahoogroups.com> com [mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:EDI-L%40yahoogroups.com> com] On Behalf Of Tor Myers Sent: Friday, December 07, 2007 10:01 AM To: Tom Smith (Yes, that's REALLY my name!); [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:EDI-L%40yahoogroups.com> com Subject: RE: [EDI-L] Here we go again (Is it EDI?) My opinion, If it does not conform to an EDI standard, it is not EDI. It is B2B. Tor ________________________________ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:EDI-L%40yahoogroups.com> com [mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:EDI-L%40yahoogroups.com> com] On Behalf Of Tom Smith (Yes, that's REALLY my name!) Sent: Friday, December 07, 2007 9:52 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:EDI-L%40yahoogroups.com> com Subject: [EDI-L] Here we go again (Is it EDI?) My boss and I get along pretty well. We just have some very different ideas about what EDI is/does. Scenario: Customer A sends us orders in a comma delimited flat file via FTP. Our EDI translator formats into a flat file that will go into the OP system. I'll call that EDI. Customer B sends us orders in an Excel spreadsheet vie e-mail. Someone here extracts the spreadsheet, checks the data & reformats as needed, and then saved into a particular directory. It is then picked up and parsed by a Visual Basic program that creates the flat file that eventually goes into the OP system. I can accept A as EDI because; the file is computer generated, is transmitted via FTP, is translated by an EDI tool, and almost never requires human intervention. Basically it goes from their computer into ours. I say that B is not EDI because; a person creates the spreadsheet, (I know this because the format is inconsistent.) sends it to person, who further manipulates the spreadsheet, (Due to the inconsistent format) and then the spreadsheet is imported via the Visual Basic program. I say that EDI is the computer to computer exchange of business documents. He says EDI is the B2B exchange of documents. Again, what say ye? [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> Job postings are welcome, but for job postings or requests for work: <JOBS> IS REQUIRED in the subject line as a prefix. Yahoo! Groups Links ... Please use the following Message Identifiers as your subject prefix: <SALES>, <JOBS>, <LIST>, <TECH>, <MISC>, <EVENT>, <OFF-TOPIC> Job postings are welcome, but for job postings or requests for work: <JOBS> IS REQUIRED in the subject line as a prefix. 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> Job postings are welcome, but for job postings or requests for work: <JOBS> IS REQUIRED in the subject line as a prefix. Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EDI-L/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EDI-L/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> 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/
