On Tuesday, March 05, 2002 3:18 PM, Peter Olivola wrote:
>
> I must be really dense. What is the point of a package that can
> only do XML1 if the entire concept of XML is that you map to DTD's
> or schemas? Is there no provision for the XML2 DTD or schema to
> define a document?
Not at all.
Most vendors have defined a canonical XML representation for
transforming EDI (since there can be an infinite number of XML2
representations).
Once the data is transformed into XML1 format, user-specific
requirements for XML2 can be implemented. In other words, there
are two types of transformations that occur:
EDI --> XML1 is a syntactic transformation
XML1 --> XML2 is a semantic transformation
So why not just do EDI-->XML2? There is no universally accepted
representation of XML2 (and most likely never will be).
One of the values of EDI-->XML1 lies in not having to build custom
mappings to transform EDI into XML syntax. This enables users to
concentrate on XML1-->XML2.
Many vendors (including us) already provide XML1-->XML2 support for
many popular XML vocabularies and industries. We also ensure that
the XML1 representation reflects implementation guides for specific
industries (rather than a "generic" EDI representation). More info
at http://www.vcml.net or email me off-list.
Apologies to all if this is too much of a commercial (not my
original intention).
JohnE
------ 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
