|
[EDI-L Mailing List Archive Home]
[Message List]
[Reply To This Message]
FW: EDI Standard Table Data
James, the "merge" X12 and UN/EDIFACT is not an accurate statement. Rather,
there was a commitment to harmonize the two standards in terms of
functionality. This was accomplished by the various X12 lettered
subcommittees, e.g., transportation, finance, materials management, etc. The
goal was to ensure that the scope of functionality in the two standards was
harmonized so that an enterprise could more easily use both without loss of
business function.
There was never an effort to merge X12 into UN/EDIFACT which would result in
the sunsetting of X12. Then - and today - there are many businesses that
conduct business solely in the U.S. with trading partners that do likewise;
thus, there is no business need for them to implement a global standard.
Subsequent to the harmonization effort XML burst upon the electronic
messaging scene, resulting in the ebXML initiative and its family of
specifications now developed and maintained by OASIS and UN/CEFACT. X12 also
developed its XML-based set of rules which are currently set forth in X12.7
and CICA.
However, there are literally hundreds of XML-based specifications developed
and maintained by myriad organizations which focus either on specific
business functions, i.e., human resources, or industries - finance,
travel/leisure.
No technology or technical specification will live in perpetuity....each/all
will have a life cycle which will be determined by the marketplace and the
needs of the various enterprises exploiting information technology to
conduct business. It is for this reason that I personally believe the ever
on-going debate of EDI (X12/UN-EDIFACT) versus XML is just so much gum
beating....each specification served(s) a need. When it no longer continues
to serve the need businesses will seek out other solutions that will. I
mean, after all - we don't use buggy whips on our 2004 model year autos do
we?
Rachel
Rachel Foerster
Chief Executive Officer
Rachel Foerster & Associates, Ltd.
Voice: 847-872-8070
-----Original Message-----
From: James Hatcher [mailto:
Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2005 7:00 PM
To: 'EDI-L Mailing List'
Subject: RE: [EDI-L] EDI Standard Table Data
Hi Rachel,
Just curious, as you noted;
"If ASC X12 ceases to exist, then DISA will have lost its major (only??)
customer. DISA would then have to find other paying customers or also go out
of business."
A few years back there was an agreement / initiative to move X12 toward the
EDIFACT standard. As noted it is UN/EDIFACT, USA is the primary UN funding
country and of course we don't use the UN EDI standard. The "merge" of X12 &
EDIFACT (apologies if that is the wrong term) seemed so logical.
Consider USA following a global standard that we substantially funded the
development of, intelligent use of our tax dollars, amazing thought.
Unfortunately that initiative seems to have died.
- Is is correct that way back UN/EDIFACT was proposed & approved and then
USA developed X12 as our own standard or was it the other way round X12 came
first & EDIFACT followed?
- Any idea what happened with the initiative? Did the death of the "merge"
initiative have anything to do the fact that DISA would be out of business
as you noted above or was it more because companies like Sterling are very
strong with X12 mappings and not as competent as the European vendors with
EDIFACT and would have lost some competitive advantage in the US market?
There is also the whole X12 consulting industry which would have to retool
to learn the new merged standard.
Thanks & Regards,
James Hatcher
At 10:47 AM 1/19/2005 -0600, Rachel Foerster wrote:
>James, just one more comment to your points about DISA and its
>relationship to ANSI. DISA, as you correctly point out, is the
>secretariat of the ASC X12 Committee. As such, its relationship is with
>X12 -- not ANSI. DISA is a
>501(3)(c) not for profit organization, originally established to serve
>as the secretariat for ASC X12 when TDCC no longer could satisfy X12's
needs.
>
>If ASC X12 ceases to exist, then DISA will have lost its major (only??)
>customer. DISA would then have to find other paying customers or also
>go out of business.
>
>Rachel
>
>
>
>
>Rachel Foerster & Associates, Ltd.
>
>39432 North Avenue
>
>Beach Park, IL 60099
>
>Voice: 847-872-8070
>
>Fax: 847-589-8081
>
|
 |
Subscribe in XML format
| RSS 2.0 |
|
| Atom 0.3 |
|
|
Cart
