Mike- I think you are 150% correct when you cite politics and momentum as larger factors in the diversity of standards semantics and syntax out there.
At some level, the use of a model-based, syntax neutral, methodology is meant to address this. Thus the view that ISO20022 models retain their process integrity as future syntax is introduced. (Yes ANSI X12 and EDIFACT'S TMWG were essentially correct all those years ago.) But, the world is a practical place and operates simplistically more often than it acts based on sound theory or recognition of abstract concepts. So, most ISO20022 standards are better recognized by their XML instantiation. And, most businesses have built maps based in specific syntax and semantics rather than by embedding a model based meta language and a large dictionary of aliases. The only way to get a grasp - love the slide showing all the standards- is to understand dialect and context. Dialects exist in a series of overlapping contexts. They have fuzzy boundaries. We need to translate this into the larger tension between SDO eogotism and the drive of the user to receive messages in the dialect most appropriate to their context (which may vary for the same party in different contexts). I believe that we saw such an explosion of XML standards because businesses felt that the "large standards" (such as EDIFACT) where so genericized as to require expensive resources to translate them "back to context." Interoperability holds the practical key. The challange is understand what component calls for a single message, which call for multiple and how they all interoperate. As an example, a single payment message component (as an instruction to a bank) paired with an industry-appropriate remittance (perhaps RosettaNet 3C6, CIDX, steel XML and Papinet as examples). The payment component is common across banks but the remittance aligns against invoice and thus industry. A single processer - bank for example- might not like that at first but it alloqs decisions around support for remittance and what industries you chose to support rather than resulting un a growing series of payment order instances. I know the standards soul within us drives for a more meta, more resilient solution. A drop and drag, touch screen based, modelling tool that allows different instances of syntax and semantics to operate against an end-to-end process. But, just creating interoperability across components would be a short term boon to getting us more organized. It is so within reach technically. Think namespace in XML. Shame on us for not going there faster. Len Sent from my Motorola Smartphone on the Now Network from Sprint! -----Original message----- From: Rachel Foerster & Associates <[email protected]> To: 'Mike Rawlins' <[email protected]>, [email protected] Sent: Sun, Dec 4, 2011 18:16:54 EST Subject: RE: [EDI-L] Machine-to-Machine Communication I found slide #27 somewhat reminiscent of Ken Steel's BSI concept for semantic interoperability. . . . (before the Internet became ubiquitous). Rachel Foerster 847-872-8070 -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Mike Rawlins Sent: Sunday, December 04, 2011 3:39 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [EDI-L] Machine-to-Machine Communication I did a quick skim and found it interesting. I may be missing something from your presentation, but I think the essential obstacle to solving the "Tower of Babel" that has developed around XML is not technical, it's political and cost/benefit. Most SDO's and consortiums don't want to give up their own way of doing things, and very few can justify the cost of relating their own standards to either a master standard or any other standard. ----------------------------------------- Michael C. Rawlins, Senior Software Engineer, GXS Sent from personal account On 12/4/2011 3:17 PM, edmundwschuster wrote: > > > Dear List, > Folks might find this presentation interesting: > Semantics and syntax for XML Expression > <http://ingehygd.blogspot.com/2011/09/semantics-and-syntax-for-xml-exp > re\ > ssion.html > <http://ingehygd.blogspot.com/2011/09/semantics-and-syntax-for-xml-exp > ression.html>> > Best, > Ed > Edmund W. Schuster > Laboratory for Manufacturing and Productivity Auto-ID Lab, Field > Intelligence Lab Massachusetts Institute of Technology > 77 Massachusetts Ave., 35-135A > Cambridge, MA. 02139 > > [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 [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: [email protected] [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/
