Rachael,
The BizTalk and Java scenario certainly rings a familiar bell! I have
followed this list for quite some time, read your insights, and I do believe
we are in agreement on the core issues, as you mentioned. Sometimes you have
to take the long way home just to get there. Thanks again and I will post,
as you suggested.
Brad
-----Original Message-----
From: Rachel Foerster [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2001 9:21 AM
To: Williams, Brad
Subject: RE: Small Question
Brad,
Thanks for responding back. I especially am glad to have your perspective on
the BizTalk server and how it can/cannot reliably parse an XML document. In
theory, Biztalk should be able to parse any valid XML document, so shame on
MS! But, isn't this what they tried to do with Java as well?
So, it would seem that we are in closer agreement on the core issues than it
at first appeared.
I'll leave this up to you, but wouldn't this exchange of messages between us
be of interest/value to the XML/EDI list. If you agree, feel free to post
this message.
Rachel
-----Original Message-----
From: Williams, Brad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2001 11:38 AM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: RE: Small Question
Rachael,
Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts with me. I am not
confusing the differences between validating and non-validating parsers, the
definition of the XML version, the term standard, XSLT or the fact that XML
has a long way to go in it's development and maturation. What MISMO and
Rosetta Net have created is a standard; an industry standard. My contention
was that getting into application specific "standards", such as BizTalk is a
mistake. XML syntactic rules should be left up to a body that has an
interest in forwarding the technology(W3C), not a software provider that is
interested in increasing it's market share. EDI translators are not
application specific in the sense that not all can understand X12 or
EDIFACT. Take Mercator, Gentran or Harbinger and run an X12 document through
and the each software product will translate the input. Sure they were
created by different companies, so in that sense they are proprietary
products, but they are not application specific: They all understand X12.
However, run a BizTalk document through Xerces, or whichever parser you
like-validating or not-and it will choke, unless it is MS's BizTalk parser.
A BizTalk message looks nothing like XML Version 1.0. Whereas an X12 850 and
an 810 are clearly of the same standard. It seems that we agree on the idea
of industry specific "standards". My experience has shown me that when an
industry organization has created "standard" DTD's, the development effort
is considerably less ambiguous and more agreeable. Again, thanks for your
thoughts.
Brad
-----Original Message-----
From: Rachel Foerster [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2001 3:40 PM
To: Williams, Brad
Subject: RE: Small Question
Brad,
There appears to be some confusion....an XML-formatted document is an
XML-formatted document. The "version" is always on XML v1.0.
What you appear to be referring to are the various XML parsers, etc. And of
course, they are proprietary software solutions, just as any EDI translator
is. But, they all must be able to parse an XML document. However, not all
are validating parsers, and others have additional bells and whistles. XML
parsers are a good example of beware of what you get for free/cheap. A
non-validating parser will not validate an XML document against a DTD and
not all validating parsers can validate against both a DTD and a W3C Schema,
which by they way, is not yet an approved W3C Recommendation.
So, don't get confused between the software which can either author/parse
XML and the W3C XML V1.0 Recommendation.
Furthermore, don't also confuse an industry-specified XML DTD/Schema with a
"standard"....it all depends on what you mean by a standard. Personally, I
think that DTD/Schema should be developed with an industry and/or supply
chain or trading community, which is exactly what RosettaNet and Mismo and
all of the other 100's are. I am not in favor of UN/CEFACT and/or X12
getting into the DTD/Schema development. It will be just a re-creation of
today's transaction sets/messages all over again. If the global and/or local
commerce communities wanted a single purchase order/invoice/ASN, for
example, then they would already be using the standard 850, etc. exactly as
it is. But that's not the case, is it? Every industry and every company
develops its own implementation specification. This is exactly analgous to a
DTD/Schema. The only difference is that understanding the XML rules is a lot
simpler than X12 or EDIFACT.
And don't be fooled by the concept of a standard dictionary, either. Just a
few minutes perusing the X12 data dictionary will clearly show you that it's
not really a standard data dictionary at all, but rather a collection of
industry-specific data elements with industry-specific definitions. The data
is no where near normalized.
So.....XML will continue maturing; it's not industrial strength yet since in
order to achieve reliable, accurate data exchange automatically between
automated business systems one has to also use a whole host of XML friends
and relations, some of which are extremely complex to understand let alone
implement, such as XSLT, Schema, and so on. Don't be gulled....dig deep and
go under the hood to fully understand what must take place in a production
materiel process and then be sure that XML truly satisifies the full
business requirements.
Rachel
-----Original Message-----
From: Williams, Brad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2001 5:17 PM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: RE: Small Question
Rachael,
I misspoke about RosettaNet's DTDs. I was referring to the application
specific formats, which is what I understand is the case with BizTalk.
Industry specific DTD's are not proprietary in that sense. I ran into
resistance on a project in the retail industry when use of a particular
software vendor's "version" of XML was suggested ie.BizTalk. This was
dictated by the customer, and they were driving the development, as is
usual. I am under the impression that not all applications/parsers that
support W3C will likewise support BizTalk. Are you saying that this is
incorrect?
Brad
-----Original Message-----
From: Rachel Foerster [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2001 1:52 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Small Question
Brad,
I'm perplexed. What makes the MISMO DTD's any less proprietary than
RosettaNet's? MISMO addresses the mortgage bankers industry, RosettaNet
addresses the electronic components suppliers/mfgrs industry, etc.
Every DTD/schema for an XML-based document is proprietary to either than
company, organization, association of whatever that created it. The only
thing "standard" is the W3C XML syntax itself, i.e., the rules.
There are NO standard DTD's ... they are all proprietary.
Rachel
-----Original Message-----
From: Williams, Brad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2001 3:41 PM
To: 'McDonald, Michael'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Small Question
Michael,
Speaking from the Mortgage Banking industry's perspective, the MBA has
created MISMO(Mortgage Industry Standards Maintenance
Orginization)www.mismo.org. MISMO has created DTD's for business critical
data for the Mortgage industry. They have done this without succumbing to
the proprietary formats that are being forwarded by companies like
RosettaNet and Microsoft. The standards are a collection of W3C compliant
XML DTD's that are platform/API independent. This organization has done a
superb job and all TPs that I have worked with, on XML implementation, have
been more than willing to follow these standards. Neither X12, nor EDIFACT
was created by and for any specific application and XML should remain
equally autonomous. I look forward to the continuing work of ebXML, for
non-industry specific paradigms.
Thanks,
Brad Williams
XML Developer
First American Credco
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-----Original Message-----
From: McDonald, Michael [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2001 11:26 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Small Question
Regarding XML "standards", Karen Phelan wrote: None have been "adopted" as
THE xml standard yet but some are becoming more
prevelant in certain industries.
Which are becoming prevalent in what industries?
_______________________________
Michael McDonald
e-Business Team Coordinator/Analyst
CON-WAY Information Services (CII)
503.450.6439
------ 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
------ 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
