Hi Carl, Thanks for your views from Germany!! In response to your question, we are getting a certain amount of request for EDI(X12) on the internet. None of the trading partners I have spoken with yet failed to express reluctance or reservations in doing XML/EDI. Mainly due to cost and lack of standards. I noticed you mentioned the issue of language in Tags. This is an international problem. cheers, Steve At 02:24 PM 3/14/2001 +0100, you wrote: >Dear Steve, >Having lurked a little in the EDI/XML mail archive over the last few weeks I >have read with interest the discussion that you sparked off. A similar >discussion is taking place in my particular sector, where there has been >something of a religious war going on for over a year, primarily at a >national level. >Going over the various threads in the mail archive again one thing seems to >me to be missing -- the existance of already implemented "standards". By >this I mean that for certain business cases, quasi-international standards >already exist for data interchange which work (sometimes for several years) >and can be taken on board, without having to re-invent the wheel. >What rather annoys me in the debate is that many seem to want to skip >straight over the "old" and invent new standards that have little or no >connection to existing, succesful implementations. >Have you come across this situation in your work? If you have time to reply >I would be interested to hear your views. >BTW, below is a short discussion of the situation I had with a colleague >from the Netherlands, if you are interested. He agrees with the sentiments I >expressed. >Slàinte, >Carl > >------------------------------------------------------ > >Hi, Kees, >Here are my $0.02: >Yes, a heated debate -- and with all that that entails, including the >irrelevant items and assorted mud-slinging...... >What no one seems to mention in the discussion, however, is what I had >understood XML to have been designed for: data presentation, not data >transport. Just because you can use it for transport does not mean that you >have to. That is just old wine in new pipes, as they say here in Germany; >there is still no benefit over traditional EDI. >Using XML (correctly?) for data presentation also allows process >distribution (not the same as distributed processing!) to be introduced. The >difficulty, of course, with either function of XML is that there are so many >repositories, even if ebXML manages to define and even standardise the >structure of them. Someone (or something?) will have to map the different >interpretations of business data units between each other in these >repositories: there are still those who will insist on using ><DateOfDelivery> instead of <DeleiveryDate>, for example. Or even ><Lieferdatum>...... Who is going to do/pay for all that? >Joining the two "worlds" of EDIFACT/X.12 and XML has further problems of >definition, too -- such as how to define when a unit of data ist the content >of a "tag-pair", or an attribute of a tag. Simply reusing the segment tags >and positions of the relevant fields in the segment, as in MS-BizTalk or the >DIN-Normentwurf, while pragmatic and possibly quick, just postpones the/any >solution to all these problem(s). >I have found, in the meantime, that the old problems of EDI have been >continued in the Ediel guidelines -- all of the regional variations were >incorporated into one document, rather than removing the variations. What we >have done in Germany is similar to your approach in Holland: we have >separated different applications of the messages and described exactly what >is to be used in each case, in an attempt to reduce the variability. We have >not solved it completely, of course (see product/partner codes), but at >least it is half-way manageable. >This is the first step anyway in producing a delimited data >dictionary/repository but we can probably only do this on an industry sector >level -- hopefully international, however. That is likely to be our most >important task in the standardisation process this year, as the processes >are more or less defined now, if not finalised (involving all parties). >After that, it may be that everything has settled a bit and we can actually >*use* XML, even if that is only because everyone else has bought in, or >Microsoft has spread its products so widely that there is a pseudo-monopoly >anyway. >I'd appreciate your views. >Slàinte, >Carl > >-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- >Von: Kees Sparreboom >Gesendet am: Dienstag, 20. Februar 2001 13:53 >An: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Betreff: Fwd: The XML/EDI has no Clothes! > >Carl, >You and I weren't the only ones who noticed this >mail. It has started a fierce discussion in which the agreement with this >statement was overwhelming and most of the objections didn't touch the >essence >but criticised details instead. >Regards, Kees Sparreboom. >------------------------------------------------------ > >====================================================== >Carl Major >EA-IA >E.ON Energie AG >Brienner Straße 40 >D-80333 München >TE: +49 (0)89 1254-1660 >FX: +49 (0)89 1254-1653 >SMTP: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >"Is truagh nach tàinig minig nach tig >Leath cho minig 's a thàinig minig a thig" ><"It's a pity that the things which don't come often >don't come half as frequently as the things which do"> >====================================================== ------ 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
