|
[EDI-L Mailing List Archive Home]
[Message List]
[Reply To This Message]
RE: X12 CICA: Is it the future? Does anyone really "model"?
I don't think very many people on this list care much about the more arcane
aspects of standards, at least XML-based standards, or even if they do care
they probably don't care having them discussed on this list very much. As
we all know, what counts is market acceptance. So, I'm going to respond in
as brief a fashion as possible. Mark's definition of "proprietary" still
seems to me to stretch the usual meaning, and even if his definition is
accepted I still feel that the degree of incompatibility is overstated. I
think, Mark, that you also need to review X12.7 again. Granted, it is
somewhat opaque, but some of the claims you make are simply not accurate,
and you don't distinguish between ASC X12 process issues and the
functioning of a "black box".
In closing, to have some balance let me say that there are many in the ASC
X12 community who feel that the burden of the blame for whatever breach
there is between ASC X12 and UN/CEFACT and OASIS lies more with the latter
than the former. However, I'm not going to take sides on that. For the
sake of convergence, there are more appropriate forums to discuss this
issue and the nuts and bolts of achieving convergence than this list.
Cheers,
Mike
At 07:40 AM 1/24/2005 -0500, wrote:
>Mike,
>
> > CICA "proprietary"? Get real! Methinks you doth exaggerate! CICA
> > certainly isn't "proprietary" in the usual sense in which
> > that term is used in IT. ANSI ASC X12 takes great pains to
> > conform to ANSI rules for accreditation for open standards
> > development. I'll bet you a cold beer, Mark, that X12's last
> > audit by ANSI makes anything you've been through with the
> > OASIS TC look like a day at the beach. If we want to be
> > pejorative, then "parochial", "provincial", or "hick" could
> > be used in place of "national" (as opposed to
> > "international"), but "proprietary"? No way!
>
>You are confusing proprietary process with proprietary standards. I
>never claimed X12 itself was proprietary - just the X12 XML. In my book
>when you have to pay for the standard, have to pay for the resultant
>schema, can only create the schema using the DISA tool that assigns the
>numbers to the duplicate named elements, deliberately change the
>construct names from existing standards, that is proprietary. I would
>much rather take my chances on standards that have been developed based
>on existing and recognized data standards, are available free of charge,
>don't require a black box to assign parts of the element names, and have
>an openness about them that clearly is not available in what X12 will be
>producing.
>
> > So what's wrong with black boxes anyway? Yeah, DISA built
> > one for CICA. Didn't Gunther or someone in the UBL TC build
> > one for you guys? I bet I could build one from the UBL specs
> > with enough time and money. I have high regard for your
> > abilities, Mark, and I'll bet that if you read
> > X12.7 a few more times you could build your own black box for
> > CICA. So, no, CICA doesn't depend on a black box any more
> > than UBL or UN/CEFACT's XML development. Don't sue us if we
> > decide to use one rather than hand-code schemas. Aren't we
> > all supposed to be model-driven now anyway? Like, let the
> > business analysts focus on concepts, and not worry about
> > code? People keep telling me this is a good thing ;^)
>
>You clearly understand the difference between scripting mechanisms to
>create UBL schema and the X12 approach so I won't bother to explain them
>for you.
> >
> > Regardless of your intent, your comments come across as
> > brick-throwing. This elusive "convergence" that we all seem
> > to want isn't aided by exaggeration or misrepresentation.
> > Can we tone it down and just talk about what our respective
> > organizations are doing without bashing the other guys?
> > (God, I hate election years! The fallout from this one has
> > been absolutely poisonous...)
>
>Mike, I was responding to a comment. I find it interesting that in
>giving an honest response to Bills posting that my mailbox has been
>stuffed with both public and private insults from X12 leadership. X12
>has clearly taken a path to isolate themselves from UN/CEFACT and OASIS.
>That is their business. When one of the reasons for this action given
>by an X12 leadership person is that the "Europeans were mean to an X12
>member" one has to wonder just what is going on in X12.
>
>I think that the death of convergence is the victim of X12's actions -
>not mine. Take a look at what is happening in the ebXML arena. Not
>only are UN/CEFACT and OASIS cooperating, but OAGIS is as well. For my
>money - and for the well being of my clients - I choose to support those
>arena's and recommend them over X12. Others have chosen to follow the
>X12 approach. So be it and I wish them well. That is what is so great
>about free markets But my guess is that in the long run organizations
>such as the US Government are going to look and choose standards that
>are free, open, are themselves based on standards, are clearly
>coordinated amongst a wide range of international standards bodies, and
>used internationally. The days of being able to develop regional
>standards such as X12 will slowly pass into the history books. And that
>is why X12 is slowly loosing the north american companies that are
>involved in international trade.
>
>Mark
>Mark R. Crawford
>Senior Research Fellow - LMI XML Lead
>W3C Advisory Committee, OASIS, RosettaNet Representative
>Vice Chair - OASIS UBL TC
>Chair - UN/CEFACT XML Syntax Working Group
>Editor - UN/CEFACT Core Components
>
>
>LMI Government Consulting
>2000 Corporate Ridge
>McLean, VA 22102-7805
>703.917.7177 Phone
>703.655.4810 Wireless
>The opportunity to make a difference has never been greater.
>
>www.lmi.org
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Mike
> >
> > At 02:37 PM 1/21/2005 -0500, wrote:
> >
> > >William,
> > >
> > >Even more important than the UBL schema themselves is their
> > reliance on
> > >open standards and their underlying standards based library of ISO
> > >15000-5 Business Information Entities. Also supporting the UBL BIEs
> > >and ready for prime time consumption is the UN/CEFACT library of
> > >context neutral core components and soon to be released expanded
> > >library of business information entities. UBL's XML Schema
> > Naming and
> > >Design Rules fully support ISO 15000-5/11179. The main difference
> > >between the UBL and UN/CEFACT approaches and CICA is that whereas on
> > >the one hand CICA is proprietary, UBL and UN/CEFACT are using open
> > >standards to develop their process models, libraries, and
> > XML schema.
> > >Whereas CICA requires the use of the X12 Black Box, UBL and
> > UN/CEFACT
> > >schemas can be created by anyone using any tool. Whereas CICA is
> > >targeting North America, UBL and UN/CEFACT are targeting the rest of
> > >the world and are already experiencing adoption by public
> > and private sector interests.
> > >
> > >Mark
> > >Mark R. Crawford
> > >Senior Research Fellow - LMI XML Lead
> > >W3C Advisory Committee, OASIS, RosettaNet Representative
> > Vice Chair -
> > >OASIS UBL TC Chair - UN/CEFACT XML Syntax Working Group Editor -
> > >UN/CEFACT Core Components
> > >
> > >
> > >LMI Government Consulting
> > >2000 Corporate Ridge
> > >McLean, VA 22102-7805
> > >703.917.7177 Phone
> > >703.655.4810 Wireless
> > >The opportunity to make a difference has never been greater.
> > >
> > >www.lmi.org
> > >
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: William J. Kammerer [mailto:
> > > > Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2005 7:21 PM
> > > > To: EDI-L Mailing List
> > > > Subject: Re: [EDI-L] X12 CICA: Is it the future? Does
> > anyone really
> > > > "mod el"?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Thanks. I'm not gonna live forever. So I guess you're
> > saying that
> > > > if a trading partner and I are willing to play around
> > with XML now,
> > > > that I have nowhere to go for a usable PO other than UBL.
> > There's
> > > > the notion of "time to market,"
> > > > pal. Is the XML e-business standards ship done sailed as
> > far as X12
> > > > is concerned?
> > > >
> > > > I learned EDI by reading a couple PIDX and VICS books and
> > looking at
> > > > their examples. I vaguely knew enough about the structure of X12
> > > > long before I ever had to tackle X12.5 and
> > > > X12.6 which described the syntax using BNF. So I guess I don't
> > > > want to have to read X12.7 and "imagine"
> > > > what a PO would look like. I want an XML schema or example now.
> > > > Where are some examples - even if incomplete - of XML
> > messages based
> > > > on CICA?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks in Advance.
> > > >
> > > > William J. Kammerer
> > > > Novannet, LLC.
> > > > Columbus, OH 43221-3859 . USA
> > > > +1 (614) 487-0320
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "Mike Rawlins" <
> > > > To: "EDI-L Mailing List" <
> > > > Sent: Thursday, 20 January, 2005 06:33 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: [EDI-L] X12 CICA: Is it the future? Does
> > anyone really
> > > > "mod el"?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > At 05:42 PM 1/20/2005 -0500, William J. Kammerer wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >But are the "more definitive descriptions of CICA" available
> > > > for free?
> > > >
> > > > As noted, the reference model may be freely downloaded.
> > > >
> > > > >What am I to look for in the catalog at DISA? How much
> > does it cost?
> > > > >Is this some not-ready-for-prime-time report that's
> > being sold for
> > > > >an arm-and-a-leg?
> > > >
> > > > The approved X12.7 standard appears currently to only be
> > available
> > > > as part of 005020. I believe it may also be avaliable
> > through other
> > > > channels. I'll post the details if I find out.
> > > >
> > > > >The UBL stuff (documentation and schemas) is available
> > for *free*
> > > > >at the OASIS site. If I wanted to "do" a purchase order
> > - today -
> > > > >in XML, assured that the model and schemas conform to ebXML CCTS
> > > > >[ISO 15000(-5)] and ISO 11179 , would I have any choice
> > but to use
> > > > >OASIS' UBL?
> > > >
> > > > Sure you would have choices! You could create your own
> > XML PO that
> > > > complied with those specs. But if you don't want to do that, I'm
> > > > not aware at this point of any choices other than UBL. I'm sure
> > > > UN/CEFACT, X12, and perhaps other bodies will be able to
> > present you
> > > > with other choices eventually.
> > > >
> > > > Cheers,
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > Michael C. Rawlins, Rawlins EC Consulting
> > > > www.rawlinsecconsulting.com Using XML with Legacy Business
> > > > Applications (Addison-Wesley, 2003)
> > > > www.awprofessional.com/titles/0321154940
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > .
> > > > Please use the following Message Identifiers as your subject
> > > > prefix: <SALES>, <JOBS>, <LIST>, <TECH>, <MISC>, <EVENT>,
> > > > <OFF-TOPIC> Access the list online at:
> > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EDI-L
> > > >
> > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >.
> > >Please use the following Message Identifiers as your subject prefix:
> > ><SALES>, <JOBS>, <LIST>, <TECH>, <MISC>, <EVENT>, <OFF-TOPIC> Access
> > >the list online at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EDI-L
> > >
> > >Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------
> > Michael C. Rawlins, Rawlins EC Consulting
> > www.rawlinsecconsulting.com Using XML with Legacy Business
> > Applications (Addison-Wesley, 2003)
> > www.awprofessional.com/titles/0321154940
> >
> >
> >
> > .
> > Please use the following Message Identifiers as your subject
> > prefix: <SALES>, <JOBS>, <LIST>, <TECH>, <MISC>, <EVENT>,
> > <OFF-TOPIC> Access the list online at:
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EDI-L
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>.
>Please use the following Message Identifiers as your subject prefix:
><SALES>, <JOBS>, <LIST>, <TECH>, <MISC>, <EVENT>, <OFF-TOPIC>
>Access the list online at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EDI-L
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michael C. Rawlins, Rawlins EC Consulting
www.rawlinsecconsulting.com
Using XML with Legacy Business Applications (Addison-Wesley, 2003)
www.awprofessional.com/titles/0321154940
|
 |
Subscribe in XML format
| RSS 2.0 |
|
| Atom 0.3 |
|
|
Cart
