|
[EDI-L Mailing List Archive Home]
[Message List]
[Reply To This Message]
Re: X12 CICA: Is it the future? Does anyone really "model"?
You're right, Mike, "many people on this list [don't] care much about
the more arcane aspects of standards." But they might very well care who
*already* (e.g., OASIS UBL) has standard business documents devised
which conform to other standards, like W3C XML, ISO 15000-5 and ISO
11179.
And, no, we don't expect everyone to know why adhering to ISO 15000-5
and ISO 11179 is a good thing; only standards developers have to know
this stuff. But, suffice it to say, these foundational standards enforce
a rational naming system and ensure a logical means of building the
components that make up e-business messages. An XML e-business standard
which does not fully conform to ISO 15000-5 and ISO 11179 might be
deficient compared to one which does. Therefore, ISO 15000-5 and ISO
11179 conformance are "good" things and can serve as "check-boxes" when
choosing the standard you'll use when moving to XML.
Perhaps the "burden of the blame for whatever breach ... between ASC X12
and UN/CEFACT and OASIS lies more with the latter than the former." I
wouldn't be surprised that it's due to those nefarious "Europeans [who
were] mean to an X12 member," according to Mark Crawford. Maybe the
mean Europeans were just turning the tables. I hear tale that at that
meeting there were "mean" Austrians barraging a U.S. standards person
with insults about America for her hegemony, arrogance and general lack
of culture and couth. The ugly American then asked the Austrians if they
knew what Americans said about Austria. "Sure," they said (note that
everyone's speaking English, as Austrian is not ubiquitous). A:
"Nothing."
William J. Kammerer
Novannet, LLC.
Columbus, OH 43221-3859 . USA
+1 (614) 487-0320
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Rawlins" <
To: <
Sent: Monday, 24 January, 2005 02:45 PM
Subject: RE: [EDI-L] 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
|
|
Subscribe in XML format
| RSS 2.0 |
|
| Atom 0.3 |
|
|
Cart
