Scott,

I see XML/EDI as a step towards a better information exchange. We want to
get away from the EDI style information exchange, both in structure and
content. XML is a better structure for information exchange than EDI, but we
still have to deal with the content. The content is being developed by
groups like OAG and RosettaNet. The question I have is how to go from EDI to
OAG or RosettaNet? This is where I think XML/EDI can play a role. In my view
an XML/EDI would help me map to OAG or RosettaNet through the use of XML to
XML translations.

Thoughts?
________________________________________________________________
Kurt Kanaskie
Lucent Technologies
CIO Strategy, Planning & Architecture
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(610) 712-3096

 -----Original Message-----
From:   Scott Shulman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent:   Monday, February 21, 2000 3:15 PM
To:     Kanaskie, Kurt A (Kurt); [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc:     [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:        Re: Article: Future of XML and EDI?

As I said in pervious emails..XML/ EDI will NOT replace existing
"traditional" EDI solutions. It will enhance it.

Scott Shulman
Director, E-Commerce
818-706-5203
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Kanaskie, Kurt A (Kurt)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, February 21, 2000 7:22 AM
Subject: RE: Article: Future of XML and EDI?


> Hello,
>
> I recently joined this list and these are the first messages I have
received
> on this topic. I would like to respond to some statements and the
> questionnaire (pasted here near the top, comments are at the end of the
> questionnaire.
>
> Q1. Do you plan to replace your existing X12 tools/maps with XML
> tools/interfaces?
>
> Yes!
>
> Q2. Please list the reasons for your answer to Q1?
> Lower cost of use, via the Internet vs. VAN. Easier interpretation of the
> message. A novice can read an XML message whereas some knowledge and
effort
> is required to decipher an EDI message. This means developers are more
> likely to reuse an XML message than an EDI message. The mindset I have
> encountered is, "it's easier to create a new message than to try to reuse
an
> existing one". Finally, and I know its cliché, but extensibility. A
standard
> XML message can be extended to support "particular" partners while not
> requiring a complete new interface. This is due to the fact that all XML
> fields are tagged, unlike EDI messages where some fields are packed.
>
> Q3. For any "NEW" development, would you choose XML or traditional
> EDI
> (X12,
> EDIFACT, etc.)?
> Definitely XML!
>
> Q4. Please list the reasons for your choice in Q3. (e.g. skilled
> labor
> pool,
> sunk investments, cost savings, evolution  etc.)
> Cost of development, there are lots of web hackers out there that just
love
> XML. Faster implementation cycle due to lower learning phase. More
business
> opportunities due to open and standard XML messages.
>
> Q5. Given the choice of transports would you choose a VAN  or the
> Internet
> to transport your "EDI" (X12, XML, whatever)?
> Internet!
>
> Q6. Please list the reasons for your choice in Q5.
> It is ubiquitous infrastructure, and we are already paying for it.
>
> Personally, I believe XML has a bright future, but I'm not seeing
> the
> compelling reasons one would replace their existing
> EDI with XML.
>
> Money, money, money! Lucent spends quite a bit of money on the development
> of new EDI messages and on the transport mechanism (VAN). Secondly, Lucent
> does a lot of business with small business partners (suppliers, etc.)
where
> EDI is not a practical solution due to its cost. We do not want to impose
> EDI on all of our trading partners. So, then we have two forms of B2B, EDI
> vs. other-with-small-partners. To date the later has been done at the IT
> developers discretion (i.e. Fax, automated phone, etc.). We see XML as the
> key to bringing all of our B2B interfaces together with the obvious
> advantages. Lastly I think the nature of EDI causes more interfaces to be
> developed. Lucent has a very large number of interfaces that it uses both
> internally and externally. We are working hard to lower this number due to
> the cost of maintaining them. XML is the key in my mind.
>
> But XML is not enough. XML is just the syntax, standards are required to
> define the content. Currently there is no clear XML standard that the
> industry has adopted, rather there are a lot of XML standards, which some
> would interpret as, "therefore there are no standards". While this may be
> true now, I don't expect it to continue. Lucent is very active in the
(OAG)
> Open Applications Group, which we are using in our current
implementations,
> and in RosettaNet. Ideally we want a single standard so we are working
with
> each of these groups to help bring them together.
>
> Interestingly, I am leading a project within the OAG that is defining an
> architecture for mapping EDI to OAG messages. The technical part is
> straightforward (XSLT on an XML/EDI representation) but the semantic part
> will be the most challenging.
>
> I look forward to further responses and discussions on this topic.
>
> BTW, is there an archive of this list somewhere. I don't want to rehash
old
> conversations.
> Cheers,
>
> ________________________________________________________________
> Kurt Kanaskie
> Lucent Technologies
> CIO Strategy, Planning & Architecture
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> (610) 712-3096
>
>  -----Original Message-----
> From: Orin Rehorst [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Sunday, February 20, 2000 6:07 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: Article: Future of XML and EDI?
>
> The answers below, "There is no XML standard," taken with "For each EDI
> Transaction set, there must be an equivalent XML set of DTD's and/or
> Schema's that are agreed upon," beg the question: "Is XML ready for
industry
> groups to build DTDs, schema, and get going with it?"
>
> Orin Rehorst
> Port of Houston Authority
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Sunday, January 09, 2000 7:04 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: Article: Future of XML and EDI?
>
>
> Q1. Do you plan to replace your existing X12 tools/maps with XML
> tools/interfaces?
>
> No, because right now, there is no XML standard.
>
> Q2. Please list the reasons for your answer to Q1?
>
> For each EDI Transaction set, there must be an equivalent XML set of
> DTD's
> and/or Schema's that are agreed upon in the industry I wish to do
> business.
> Not just on the fly made up to through the data at the trading
> partner, but
> industry-wide consensus and acceptance.
>
> Q3. For any "NEW" development, would you choose XML or traditional
> EDI
> (X12,
> EDIFACT, etc.)?
>
> No.
>
> Q4. Please list the reasons for your choice in Q3. (e.g. skilled
> labor
> pool,
> sunk investments, cost savings, evolution  etc.)
>
> For the same reasons as in Q2
>
> Q5. Given the choice of transports would you choose a VAN  or the
> Internet
> to transport your "EDI" (X12, XML, whatever)?
>
> The internet, using the internet to transport EDI, XML or whatever
> is by
> far the best method.  But, your trading partner must be able to
> receive the
> data that way.  If doing EDI via a VAN, then some investment in EDI
> over
> the internet must be made, if going to go with XML or a new
> technology,
> then your trading partner is probably capable or willing to invest
> in the
> Internet technology to make it happen.
>
> Q6. Please list the reasons for your choice in Q5.
>
> After initial investment, it is free.  The initial investment is
> well worth
> the cost because it will be the communication method of preference
> in the
> future.
>
> mtm
> _______________________________
> The EAN.UCC System
> The Global Language of Business (tm)
> Office: 609.620.4583
>
>
>
>
>                     "Leary, John R"
>
>                     <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>           To:     "'Dick
> Brooks (E)'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Roy Roebuck
>                     Sent by:
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "XML EDI Listserver (E-mail)"
>                     [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>                     zserve.com                        cc:
>
>                                                       Subject:
> RE: Article: Future of XML and EDI?
>
>
>                     01/09/00 06:31 AM
>
>                     Please respond to "Leary,
>
>                     John R"
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Gents,
> some philosophical comments of an early sunday morning:
> -- what we have here are instances of "linguae francae" (see
> Webster)
> -- what is, is in a continuum; that is, as what will be, becomes,
> what is
> changes
> -- EDI is 1050 / 5-channel papertape, is X12, is EDIFACT, is XML, is
> XEDI,
> is ebXML ...
> -- as a language, XML is a carrier, and not intrinsically content
> intensive
> -- as a lingua franca, XML is fly-paper, and picks up all sorts of
> useful
> content (see XEDI.org)
> -- as a language, EDI is rich in content, has several dialects, and
> even
> its
> own tribe of keepers
> -- as a lingua franca, EDI is like LATIN: syntax & content
> controlled by
> scribes, not by traders
> -- just as Esperanto failed, and Swahili succeeded, XML will
> flourish as a
> lingua franca
> -- chose XML for interacting with (new) suppliers because most (new
> & old)
> only speak lingua franca
> -- an etymological pun:  lets's be frank: whether a lingua franca is
> "language of the franks", or "language of the frank" is immaterial:
> it's
> trade that makes the grade.
> John Leary
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dick Brooks (E) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Saturday, January 08, 2000 2:39 PM
> To: Roy Roebuck; XML EDI Listserver (E-mail)
> Subject: RE: Article: Future of XML and EDI?
>
>
> Roy, I disagree with your statement "that traditional EDI folks are
> saying
> "disregard the power and economies of XML and the Internet, and
> continue to
> use the expensive and proprietary EDI mapper software over expensive
> and
> proprietary VAN"."
>
> In fact, over the past three years a significant number of companies
> and
> entire industries have migrated away from the VAN and onto the
> Internet
> because of the associated cost savings. The Gas industry began the
> migration
> to the Internet in 1996 and the Electric industry began the process
> in
> 1998.
> Organizations in these industries are transporting traditional EDI
> over
> the
> Internet with great success, and I see no end in site to this
> migration.
>
> The resistance appears to be aimed at XML and not the Internet.
> Companies
> that have invested in X12 software and labor to create transaction
> maps are
> asking the question "Why throw everything away and replace it with
> XML?".
> This is a good question, IMHO.  What does XML offer those who have
> already
> made the investment in traditional EDI technologies?
> There's no question that a new implementor, with no history or sunk
> investment, would find XML attractive (XML parsers are free, X12
> translators
> are not). But current implementors of X12 are having a hard time
> seeing the
> benefits of a replacement strategy, again IMHO.
>
> It would be interesting to hear from list members who have
> investments/implemented X12 with regard to
> the following questions:
>
> Q1. Do you plan to replace your existing X12 tools/maps with XML
> tools/interfaces?
>
> Q2. Please list the reasons for your answer to Q1?
>
> Q3. For any "NEW" development, would you choose XML or traditional
> EDI
> (X12,
> EDIFACT, etc.)?
>
> Q4. Please list the reasons for your choice in Q3. (e.g. skilled
> labor
> pool,
> sunk investments, cost savings, evolution  etc.)
>
> Q5. Given the choice of transports would you choose a VAN  or the
> Internet
> to transport your "EDI" (X12, XML, whatever)?
>
> Q6. Please list the reasons for your choice in Q5.
>
> Personally, I believe XML has a bright future, but I'm not seeing
> the
> compelling reasons one would replace their existing
> EDI with XML.
>
> Dick Brooks
> www.8760.com
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Roy
> Roebuck
> Sent: Saturday, January 08, 2000 11:09 AM
> To: XML EDI Listserver (E-mail)
> Subject: RE: Article: Future of XML and EDI?
>
>
> Why do we continue to discuss XML versus EDI as though this were an
> either/or issue?  Isn't the whole issue of EDI versus XML versus
> XML/EDI
> resolving down to the application of syntax, semantics, and
> messaging
> medium
> in the synchronous and asynchronous interchange of information?  It
> has
> been
> stated from the beginning of this group that we're seeking EDI in
> combination XML.  (In some reports to my clients, I've described
> interchange
> medium as "Carrier", interchange syntax as "Container", and
> interchange
> semantics (metadata) and information/data as "Content".)
>
> For years, traditional EDI has invested much useful effort in
> building up
> an
> organized and standardized body of interchange semantics (business
> rules,
> vocabularies/data-dictionaries, grammar, etc.) using the content
> translation
> syntax of various information/data mapping tools/methods to work
> over a VAN
> medium.  XML has come out since 1996 providing a more powerful
> content
> mapping and translation syntax over the TCP/IP medium of the
> Internet,
> while
> being semantically neutral.  EDI via XML, in its many open and
> proprietary
> forms, seems to be seeking to move the rich semantic knowledge of
> traditional EDI onto the syntax of XML over the Internet medium.
>
> It seems to me that traditional EDI folks are saying "disregard the
> power
> and economies of XML and the Internet, and continue to use the
> expensive
> and
> proprietary EDI mapper software over expensive and proprietary VAN".
> This
> hope that XML and the Internet will not globally usurp Traditional
> EDI
> syntax and medium is not realistic or rational.
>
> Modern EDI: Semantics = Traditional Standard EDI Messages =
> Information
> Content
>           Syntax = XML = Information Container
>           Medium = Internet+Intranet+Extranet+VPN+VAN = Information
> Carrier
>
>
>
> Roy
>
>
>
> ==========================================
> XML/EDI Group members-only discussion list
> Homepage =  http://www.xmledi.com
>
> Brought to you by: Online Technologies Corporation
>                   Home of BizServe - www.bizserve.com
>
> TO UNSUBSCRIBE: Send email to
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>                Leave the subject blank, and
>                In the body of the message, enter ONLY: unsubscribe
>
> Questions/requests should be sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To join the XML/EDI Group complete the form located at:
> http://www.geocities.com/WallStreet/Floor/5815/mail1.htm
>
>
>
> ==========================================
> XML/EDI Group members-only discussion list
> Homepage =  http://www.xmledi.com
>
> Brought to you by: Online Technologies Corporation
>                   Home of BizServe - www.bizserve.com
>
> TO UNSUBSCRIBE: Send email to
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>                Leave the subject blank, and
>                In the body of the message, enter ONLY: unsubscribe
>
> Questions/requests should be sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To join the XML/EDI Group complete the form located at:
> http://www.geocities.com/WallStreet/Floor/5815/mail1.htm
>
>
> ==========================================
> XML/EDI Group members-only discussion list
> Homepage =  http://www.xmledi.com
>
> Brought to you by: Online Technologies Corporation
>                   Home of BizServe - www.bizserve.com
>
> TO UNSUBSCRIBE: Send email to
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>                Leave the subject blank, and
>                In the body of the message, enter ONLY: unsubscribe
>
> Questions/requests should be sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To join the XML/EDI Group complete the form located at:
> http://www.geocities.com/WallStreet/Floor/5815/mail1.htm
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ==========================================
> XML/EDI Group members-only discussion list
> Homepage =  http://www.xmledi.com
>
> Brought to you by: Online Technologies Corporation
>                   Home of BizServe - www.bizserve.com
>
> TO UNSUBSCRIBE: Send email to
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>                Leave the subject blank, and
>                In the body of the message, enter ONLY: unsubscribe
>
> Questions/requests should be sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To join the XML/EDI Group complete the form located at:
> http://www.geocities.com/WallStreet/Floor/5815/mail1.htm
>
>
> ==========================================
> XML/EDI Group members-only discussion list
> Homepage =  http://www.xmledi.com
>
> Brought to you by: Online Technologies Corporation
>                   Home of BizServe - www.bizserve.com
>
> TO UNSUBSCRIBE: Send email to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>                Leave the subject blank, and
>                In the body of the message, enter ONLY: unsubscribe
>
> Questions/requests should be sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To join the XML/EDI Group complete the form located at:
> http://www.geocities.com/WallStreet/Floor/5815/mail1.htm
>
>
> ==========================================
> XML/EDI Group members-only discussion list
> Homepage =  http://www.xmledi.com
>
> Brought to you by: Online Technologies Corporation
>                   Home of BizServe - www.bizserve.com
>
> TO UNSUBSCRIBE: Send email to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>                Leave the subject blank, and
>                In the body of the message, enter ONLY: unsubscribe
>
> Questions/requests should be sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To join the XML/EDI Group complete the form located at:
> http://www.geocities.com/WallStreet/Floor/5815/mail1.htm
>
>
>

==========================================
XML/EDI Group members-only discussion list
Homepage =  http://www.xmledi.com

Brought to you by: Online Technologies Corporation
                  Home of BizServe - www.bizserve.com

TO UNSUBSCRIBE: Send email to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
               Leave the subject blank, and
               In the body of the message, enter ONLY: unsubscribe

Questions/requests should be sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To join the XML/EDI Group complete the form located at:
http://www.geocities.com/WallStreet/Floor/5815/mail1.htm

Reply via email to