I think if somebody did a study of various membership based e-commerce standards organizations you would find X12 to be one of the most reasonable. Arguably, there are so many flavors of standards bodies it is a little difficult to compare them. Some vertical standards groups like chemical (CIDX) you have to be a manufacture in that vertical to participate and it is very (Exxon) expensive to join. Rosettanet came out of the electronics industry and while they publish their 'PIPs' publicly it is very difficult to use there standards without being a member. If you want to see what a bargain X12 is take a look at membership for Rosettanet. Some organizations like ATIS (telecom) in the past have allowed their vertical standards to be free to the public but after much dissent from members they became accessible only to the handful of members. Maybe the federal government through HHS/CMS, DOD and DHS should take a more financial role in supporting X12 since numerous programs from the government rely on enhancements to X12 standards for US security and healthcare (2 burning issues in the current presidential election). Maybe somebody should post a question on utube for the next debate regarding this issue. Happy Holidays! David Frenkel
----- Original Message ---- From: Mike Rawlins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [email protected] Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 1:53:31 PM Subject: Re: [EDI-L] EDI documentation / spec software Earl makes a point, but the point he is making is that he thinks he is getting something for nothing in all of these cases. Developing and maintaining standards costs money. The only real question is who pays. Most companies and individuals didn't paid directly for any of the things mentioned. SMTP and TCP/IP were paid for in part by US tax dollars through DARPA. You paid indirectly for W3C Recommendations or IETF standards by buying products or services from IBM, AT&T, Cisco, or other big players. It is the same down the line for all other standards that are freely distributed. You paid for them one way or another. It just wasn't very visible. Is it reasonable to criticize X12 and similar organizations just because they currently have a more direct and visible model for covering their costs? Do you pay directly for the X12 standards or SCAC codes by buying them from their respective secretariats? If not, why not? Would you buy them if the prices were lower? If X12 were to enable on-line donations to support its work (similar to how voluntary contributions support open source projects at SourceForge) , would you donate what you thought was fair? Or, do you think that the organizations already paying dues and contributing time to X12 should pay even more through higher dues or meeting fees? (Like Doug, I'm speaking for myself only!) Mike ------------ --------- --------- --------- -- Michael C. Rawlins, Rawlins EC Consulting www.rawlinsecconsul ting.com Earl Wertheimer wrote: > Michael > > I would object. > > I write software that sends emails. I don't have to have it certified. > I write programs that generate web pages. I don't have to pay a fee. > I convert documents to proprietary .PDF format. I don't need a license > (although Adobe offers a royalty-free license). > > I write translators that read/write X12 EDI documents. I should not have to > join an association or pay a license fee. > > These standards and their wide acceptance is due to the low cost of > implementation. > > Let's keep it that way. > > > > To: "EDI-L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] com> > From: "Michael Mattias/LS" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] s.com> > Date sent: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 10:40:51 -0600 > Subject: Re: [EDI-L] EDI documentation / spec software > > >>> Going after the implementers in >>> forcing them to join X12, purchase the overpriced table data, or >>> paying a license fee will only result in reduction of product >>> offerings and/or increase of product pricing. >>> >> As one of those implementors I would not mind paying a reasonable license >> fee and justifying price increases to my customers. >> >> I've just never seen a license fee which *is* reasonable; probably because >> of the quasi-monopoly which exists. >> >> Michael C. Mattias >> Tal Systems Inc. >> Racine WI >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] .com >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ... >> 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 >> >> >> >> > > Earl Wertheimer > [EMAIL PROTECTED] com > http://www.spe- edi.com > > > > ... > 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/
