At 04:35 PM 8/25/2000 -0500, Kaura, Vikram wrote:
>ICan someone ref me to a balanced book/article/archive on the subject which
>I could read over the weekend.
I don't know why our archive is so dang hard to find a link to, but here it is:
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
Also: Thanks to all the off-line positive responses I received. I
appreciate the comments. Here are a few that are just too good to not
share with the group:
Bill Meadows wrote: Steve, Right On! That ought to stir up the hornets
nest. Why can't these people see the reality of the situation?
Dick Brooks wrote: Steve, It's not nice to tell the emperor he has no
clothes! This isn't the party line....
Antony Beecher wrote:
> With all due respect Martin, I would like to point out that
> because of
> those investments and because you are CEO of such a company,
> you have a
> large vested interest to maintain your point of view.
Good Point
> THAT is not the problem! The real problems with EDI do not
> lie with the
> EDIFACT or X12 formats. They lie with the differing formats
> between and
> especially within supply chains. The XML format for business
> documents not
> only does nothing to solve this, it actually exacerbates the
> problem. Where maps differ in X12 only some few fields are
> different and
> need conditional mapping. Where maps differ in XML ALL the
> fields are
> different and need conversion (= more work and maintenance).
> So another
> problem is that using the XML format is truly a step BACKWARD
> not a step
> forward where XML/EDI is concerned!
Exactly - why abandon standards now?
> >We are in a new economy. It's wasteful to use traditional EDI.
Utter BS... More accurate: "it's wasteful to use the VAN."
> It is less cost effective! Some XML vs. X12 fallacies:
perhaps, "phallus-cies" is more fitting of the XML attempt to screwup the
EDI world with misinformation.
> 1. It is more readable that X12: False. Try reading a RosettaNet
> document. It is so verbose you really strain to find the
> data. The term
> Info-glut comes to mind = so much info it is hard to find what you
> want. X12 is far simpler to read to a trained eye and that
> is all that
> occasionally sees them in that format.
Exactly...
> 2. verbosity doesn't matter: False. RosettaNet XML
> messages are 30 to 50
> times the size of their X12 counterparts. We do over 2 million EDI
> transaction a month. Are you really going to tell me 30 to
> 50 times the
> size is not going to matter?
Another mistake is that many of these new breed products execute the
transformation processes in Java!! Even worse!!
> 3. XML is a single standard: At the language level yes. At
> the tag level
> NO!. It is (and will be) more diversified than X12 or EDIFACT.
To tempting for everyone to "roll their own" standard. Now each field of
each document of each relation ship has to be scrutinized.
> 4. XML is cheaper because of new and often free tools:
> Doubtful. The real
> expense is in the labor to set these things up and to maintain
> them. Currently this is more labor intensive than X12.
You get what you pay for... most of the tools are fragments of functionality.
> When little guys fail to show up at this party the
> house of
> cards could fold.
There is a need for a cheap or free "killer app" and as of yet, BizTalk is
not it...
Good Arguements.
Anthony
------ 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
