In retrospect my choice of words here wasn't very clear. I should have said
Personally, I don't see a strong value for either approach over the other. Rachel Foerster 847-872-8070 From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Rachel Foerster Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2013 3:27 PM To: 'Skip'; [email protected] Subject: RE: [EDI-L] X12 migration to EDIFACT? Short answer to will UN/EDIFACT takeover (subsume) X12 as a result of no fee for UN/EDIFACT: nope - this won't happen As Leah has said, for the most part industries in various geographical markets have already made their sunk cost investment into either one or both, depending on where their markets are. I would be hard pressed to see any organization making a major business decision to throw away its investment in the X12 infrastructure simply because X12 charges for its standards. The cost to change far exceeds the cost of the standards and would deliver no measurable business benefit. Both standards are what I characterize as tagged, delimited structure using a dictionary/directory of data elements and segments with rules for tagging, delimiting, organizing it all into a business message or transaction. Both standards have a specific defined data elements with a specified semantic and more generic defined data elements with which a qualifier must be used in order to convey a specific unambiguous semantic. Personally, I don't see a strong value for either approach. Implementers of both standards typically (hopefully J) will work from companion guides for their key trading partners so both parties can more easily realize semantic interoperability (or for all parties in an industry- the dream/vision from some industries). When pigs fly and cows jump over the moon would I predict that the electronic exchange of data will become truly standardized. And if we think about that, it's a good thing for us, isn't it? Rachel Foerster 847-872-8070 From: [email protected] <mailto:EDI-L%40yahoogroups.com> [mailto:[email protected] <mailto:EDI-L%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of Skip Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2013 8:51 AM To: [email protected] <mailto:EDI-L%40yahoogroups.com> Subject: [EDI-L] X12 migration to EDIFACT? I am not too active here but do follow discussions. Recently there has been a hub-bub (technical term) about the pricing and related issues with X12. When I first really got into EDI, it was a long time ago but the first standard I really got into was for a pharmaceutical company using JD Edwards. Due to the EU business focus and other foreign activities we selected UN EDIFACT as the EDI basis for all external and internal date transmissions. As many orders were placed intra-company and then forwarded to other 'foreign' companies this seemed like a good basis. I really loved this standard as it seemed so much more 'organized' and specific than the nebulous formation of so many X12 segments. The more 'structured feel' was nice and specific. Now with the discussions, do you believe than there could be a future migration and adoption of UN EDIFACT standards as they are 'free' and supported world-wide? Just a random thought this morning. Cheers all, Skip Stein The EDI Guy http://www.ediguy.net [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [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/
