Hi John:
One of the biggest problems right now with XML/EDI is
everyone trying to write 'THE' standard. Large companies don't
know who is going to win. This is why you see most large
companies sitting on everyone of these consortiums.
Large companies can afford the luxury of having
representation on every committee. The SME can't afford
this luxury. They are sitting back and are trying to
decide which way to go.
My advice at the moment is for them to go ahead
and do XML. Create their DTD to match their business rules,
not an arbitrary standard. This will allow them the most
flexibilty.
If you look at the catalog initiatives where they are
developing electronic catalogs. These initiatives don't
take any notice of the paper catalog. I read that 25%
of all IT budgets is used on creating catalogs. Paper
catalogs are not going away. The beauty of XML is that
you can accommodate all of the necessary products with
one DTD. However, if a company creates a DTD that matches
the way the author, maintain and process their catalog,
transforming that catalog data to the required standard
is a piece of cake. You can't take something like cXML and do
anything really useful with it IMHO.
There isn't really a standard that 'fits all sizes'.
Every industry organization, TCIF, ATA, RIF, etc. have taken
X12 in and created their own standards for their industries.
I believe this is where EDI/XML standards should reside.
If an organization writes a DTD to match their business,
then 'Father can't get thrown up the stairs with his hat on',
that is, unless Father has come home with too much to drink,
the 'Mother can throw Father up the stairs with his hat on' |-).
Remember XML is hierarchical so you have the opportunity before
Father goes up the stairs to (1) smell his breath; or (2) check
his pockets for money, etc.
Really what I was trying to say in the slide about taking
advantage of EDI, is that there has been a lot of work put into
EDI. EDI messages are different than XML messages, yes. The same
intellectual analysis goes into doing EDI transactions than XML
transactions. The syntax is different and the logical structure
is different. However, the thought processes are the same.
There are some factions who would like to just negate all
the work that has been done with EDI. This rationale is just
plain stupid IMHO. If we take advantage of what has already been
done and model the data appropriately, the XML curve is relatively
painless. I don't care how elegant your XML is, if it doesn't
match an organizations business process or is incomprehensible
to the average user, it isn't worth the digital signature on
the check.
Betty
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Betty Harvey | Phone: 301-540-8251 FAX: 4268
Electronic Commerce Connection, Inc. |
13017 Wisteria Drive, P.O. Box 333 |
Germantown, Md. 20874 |
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | Washington,DC SGML/XML Users Grp
URL: http://www.eccnet.com | http://www.eccnet.com/xmlug/
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\\/\/
>
> I wish could have heard the accompanying words. In reading the latter ones
> (eg: create a DTD for your business), I had the sense that you would allow
> that the XEDI approach to translating XML to EDI is more "transliteration"
> than translation. (That is, it can result in messages like "Throw father up
> the stairs
> his hat.") Is this true? If not, what do you see as the rationale for
> proceeding to take EDI <--> XML piecewise with a variety of tailored DTDs,
> rather than using the underlying, EDI-complete dictionary that (I understand
> that)
> the XEDI approach, or a similar approach using XSLT, does.
>
> Appreciate your insight into the full scope of the EDI - XML opportunity.
>
> Thanks
>
> John Leary
>
> PS: How is it that your note came thru as "untranslatable"
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Betty L. Harvey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2000 1:47 AM
> To: Scott Shulman
> Cc: Kanaskie, Kurt A (Kurt); [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Article: Future of XML and EDI?
>
>
> This message uses a character set that is not supported by the Internet
> Service. To view the original message content, open the attached message.
> If the text doesn't display correctly, save the attachment to disk, and then
> open it using a viewer that can display the original character set.
>
> ==== copied out of NOTEPAD from the above message ====
>
> XML will not replace traditional EDI, at least not in the near future.
> The good news is that XML and can enhance traditional EDI. It can
> be the glue between the non-EDI enabled trading partners and the
> EDI training partners.
>
> I gave a presentation at XML99 that covered some of the issues
> of XML and EDI that I thought were important. If interested,
> it is available at http://207.168.47.3/papers/xml99/.
>
> I think it is important to use common sense when looking at
> the XML/EDI issue. As my Grandmother used to say 'Don't throw
> the baby out with the bath water!'.
>
> Betty
>
> /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
> Betty Harvey | Phone: 301-540-8251 FAX: 4268
> Electronic Commerce Connection, Inc. |=20
> 13017 Wisteria Drive, P.O. Box 333 |=20
> Germantown, Md. 20874 |
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Washington,DC SGML/XML Users Grp
> URL: http://www.eccnet.com | http://www.eccnet.com/xmlug/
> /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\\/\/ =20
>
==========================================
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
