David RR Webber chided Rachel Foerster: "I believe what James [Anderson]
was trying to tell you was that the W3C Schema has this all solved
already with their datatyping and structure methods based on an OO
approach. All we have to do is get everyone using this consistently and
the parsers upgraded and it should just all work."
Rachel retorted "...you know as well I as that the W3C has not yet
approved an XML Schema Recommendation."
Dear David:
Nobody is arguing that XML isn't an "enabling architecture," to use
James' words. I assume, as Rachel may have, that with whatever XML
schema is eventually birthed by the W3C we'll pretty much be able to
describe and constrain the syntax of any XML document. And with XSLT, we
can pretty much transform anything that looks like XML into something
else that looks like XML. I guess that's what James meant by "enabling
architecture." But, so what? COBOL and flat files can do all that
stuff already; so can EDI and translators (or COBOL programs).
In any case, "it should just all work" simply ignores the effort that
goes into getting two or more organizations interested in a message
domain to agree on the formats, tags, structure, etc. to convey
agreed-upon business semantics. Rachel pointed out ebXML, but the same
give and take (and politics) goes on in the vertical groups like OTA,
RosettaNet, etc. etc. Once you have two or more organizations that need
to talk, some necessary sclerosis sets in and you can no longer move at
"Internet speed."
Speaking of "Internet speed": how many years has it taken to come up
with XML Schema? Or the XML recommendation itself? At least we should
give the people who have to come up with interoperable business
standards building on the XML "enabling architecture" the same amount of
time to solve a much more intractable problem.
XML/EDI is a business problem, best solved by the industry groups who
actually give a rat's ass about the problem domain at hand. And the
ebXML initiative will help immensely here - it can give the verticals a
common messaging framework so the disparate groups don't have to worry
about the technical mumbo jumbo of security, routing, transport,
acknowledgement and packaging. Additionally, ebXML can give them a
common set of core components and a means of devising new ones, or ways
to discover services, or means to specify trading partner agreements.
David, I suggest that whenever you have a random urge to find out who's
working on XML DTDs, say "for tracking student registration at college,"
that you simply go and find the groups who "actually give a rat's ass
about the problem domain at hand." XML dilettantes, gadflies and
windbags, of which I'm sure you can find plenty on your XML EDI group
mailing list, can pontificate all day on the superiority of XML over
EDI. But the only people who really care about "student registration at
college" would be - surprise - found at colleges! So I suggest you go to
the Postsecondary Electronic Standards Council, at
http://www.standardscouncil.org/, and see what's come of their XML
Forum; at the very least, you can find names and addresses of people who
are expert in the problem domain.
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
