Doug,
Good perspective from a "traditional EDI VAN." However, one nit-picky point
in your #2 below: there is only one version of XML...Version 1.0. Do you
mean that Kleinschmidt is translating between two different XML-formatted
documents?
Rachel
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Doug Anderson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Saturday, July 22, 2000 5:52 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: Test vs. Production
>
>
> William
>
> You asked some interesting questions. Sorry I did not answer
> the first time
> you asked them.
>
> 1. We have a number of different customers doing different
> things with XML.
> (how is that for a non-answer, must be an election year) We,
> of course,
> still have a lot more customers using "traditional EDI". In fact, we
> continue to add new customers every day that utilize our
> traditional EDI VAN
> services. You can look at our web site to see news releases
> (www.kleinschmidt.com) related to what we are doing with two
> of our XML
> customers. For other XML customers, we have not yet released any
> information. You can also read about what we are doing with
> some of our
> "traditional" EDI customers if you have the desire.
>
> 2. Not sure exactly what you mean by XML messages. However,
> I can say that
> some have created their own messages. One is using XSL. We translate
> between X12 and XML as well as between different versions of XML for
> customers, so it really doesn't make any difference to either trading
> partner which "messages" are being used by the other trading
> partner. This
> is part of the value equation that we provide.
>
> 3. Of the two customers that we have released information
> on, one is in the
> logistics business and the other is a demand-aggregation e-marketplace
> within the industrial manufacturing industry.
>
> 4. The business reasons that these companies decided that
> XML was a better
> solution than traditional EDI is something that I would not
> share if I knew
> the answer. However, I will say that we here at Kleinschmidt
> are using XML
> internally, so I guess our technical folks see value. In
> addition, we will
> be announcing additional XML related functionality soon.
>
> 5. Well, I wouldn't touch that question with a ten-foot pole.
>
> Otherwise, your comments are right on target as usual, even
> if you do reside
> in Dublin.
>
> Doug
>
> Doug Anderson
> Assistant Vice President Sales Support
> Kleinschmidt Inc.
> 450 Lake Cook Road
> Deerfield, IL 60015
> 847-405-7457
> 847-458-5234 (home office)
> 847-945-4619 (fax)
> mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.kleinschmidt.com
>
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: William J. Kammerer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Friday, July 21, 2000 12:40 PM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: RE: Test vs. Production
> >
> >
> > Doug Anderson, of Kleinschmidt Inc., brought up the case of
> > his customer
> > using XML and wanting some means to differentiate test from
> > production.
> > After giving him an overview of what's available out there
> in some of
> > the existing XML B2B frameworks, I asked Doug: "Out of
> curiosity, just
> > what is your customer doing in XML? What XML 'messages' are
> > being used?
> > Which industry? Couldn't the customer have just used EDI?
> > Why all this
> > rush to use XML?"
> >
> > However, David Irvine, of Emco Limited, takes "exception" to these
> > questions. Unfortunately, David almost allows a non sequitur
> > to get in
> > the way of the point he is trying to make. Apparently, since my
> > signature includes "Dublin" - "Dublin, Ohio, eh? Riding Sterling's
> > coatstrings?" - I must have some nefarious connection to Sterling
> > Commerce; else I would never question the lemming-like rush
> > to use XML
> > for B2B messaging without any interoperable standards yet in place.
> > Indeed, David closes by urging me to "Keep on Sterling's payroll,
> > buddy," forever consigned to the trashheap of EDI.
> >
> > Dear David:
> >
> > Dublin, formerly a small rural village, is now a suburb of Columbus,
> > Ohio. Surely one who knows what a "Luddite" is would know
> > that Columbus
> > is not only the capital of Ohio, but a large populous city,
> > the nexus of
> > a great metropolis nestled in the great American Heartland, boasting
> > vast industrial, agricultural, educational, financial and scientific
> > wherewithal. Why, we even have butter cows at the State Fair and an
> > airport!
> >
> > It is not inconceivable that two companies, even those with
> > similar ZIP
> > codes, would have nothing much to do with each other, except that
> > Sterling - like many other world-class companies - is a FORESIGHT
> > customer and uses the EDISIM suite of EDI productivity tools.
> > I am not
> > on Sterling's payroll. Actually, Sterling Commerce is not even in
> > Dublin; rather, it is located within the city of Columbus.
> >
> > Now that we have that out of the way, let's examine the gist of your
> > letter:
> >
> > Why go away from traditional EDI? You haven't been paying
> > attention, have you. First, traditional EDI is the domain
> > of the VANs, who charge by the kilocharacter. The web is
> > free - for companies doing real EDI, this is a significant
> > savings. Further, isn't the point of this forum to
> > recommend, refine, and encourage the use of XML. If we
> > want to make a paradigm shift in B-2-B communication, and
> > I, for one, do, then we have to support, help standardize,
> > and use, new key technologies.
> >
> > The web, or more correctly - the Internet, is not free.
> But access to
> > the ubiquitous Internet does appear to be free simply because
> > the costs
> > are amortized among other business functions like e-mail and
> > the company
> > Web site, and porn and Yahoo Sports access for the employees. The
> > marginal costs of *transporting* volumes of EDI or XML B2B business
> > messages may indeed be very low, leading to the impression
> of "free."
> >
> > One may use FTP, EDIINT AS1 S/MIME or AS2 HTTP to move EDI
> > messages over
> > the Internet. But the effort to setup each of your trading partners
> > within Internet EDI needs to be considered and factored in:
> exchanging
> > public keys, e-mail IDs, FTP directories and addresses, URLs,
> > negotiating security methods and protocols etc. etc. for
> each trading
> > partner will be expensive maintenance. Some people will
> prefer to buy
> > an Internet EDI package like FORESIGHT's TradeSite/SDX or Cyclone
> > Interchange for handling their largest trading partners,
> > where they may
> > quickly recoup half or more of their VAN charges, and let the
> > traditional VAN handle the remainder of the traffic.
> Remember: with a
> > VAN, you don't have to worry about the details of getting an
> > interchange
> > addressed by a particular DUNS number to the appropriate
> party safely
> > and securely.
> >
> > Often people assume that EDI (X12 or EDIFACT) requires a VAN,
> > which has
> > obviously never been true; it's just that until the advent of the
> > ubiquitous Internet, the VAN provided protocol and time
> > synchronization
> > (e.g., I'm using ZModem on a dial-up and my TP uses 3780
> > bisync, or I'm
> > a late riser and my TP is an early-bird). Now that, for
> all practical
> > purposes, everyone has 24 X 7 TCP/IP connectivity, the
> VAN's transport
> > function is relatively less valuable; but their directory services
> > (again, I don't have to fuss with URLs, e-Mail address, key
> exchange,
> > etc.) are still a compelling "value-add."
> >
> > Is your argument rather for replacing EDI by XML, because
> EDI requires
> > VANs but XML is free over the Internet? If so, we've already
> > dealt with
> > the erroneous notion that EDI can't be transported over the
> Internet.
> > And even XML messages would require the same services
> > provided by either
> > a VAN or one of the Internet EDI packages, because of the
> security and
> > signature requirements and routing considerations. If you
> demur, and
> > say XML doesn't require all this baggage and insist that
> it's *REALLY*
> > free over the Internet, the same would necessarily be true of EDI:
> > just wrap the EDI interchange up in BASE64 encoding and slap
> > the result
> > in-between an XML begin and end tag.
> >
> > William J. Kammerer
> > FORESIGHT Corp.
> > 4950 Blazer Memorial Pkwy.
> > Dublin, OH USA 43017-3305
> > +1 614 791-1600
> >
> > Visit FORESIGHT Corp. at http://www.foresightcorp.com/
> > "Commerce for a New World"
> >
> >
>
>
> ------ XML/edi Group Discussion List ------
> Homepage = http://www.XMLedi-Group.org
>
> Unsubscribe = send email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Leave the subject and body of the message blank
>
> Questions/requests: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> To receive only one message per day (digest format)
> send the following message to [EMAIL PROTECTED],
> (leave the subject line blank)
>
> digest xmledi-group your-email-address
>
> To join the XML/edi Group complete the form located at:
> http://www.xmledi-group.org/xmledigroup/mail1.htm
>
>
------ XML/edi Group Discussion List ------
Homepage = http://www.XMLedi-Group.org
Unsubscribe = send email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Leave the subject and body of the message blank
Questions/requests: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To receive only one message per day (digest format)
send the following message to [EMAIL PROTECTED],
(leave the subject line blank)
digest xmledi-group your-email-address
To join the XML/edi Group complete the form located at:
http://www.xmledi-group.org/xmledigroup/mail1.htm
