|
[EDI-L Mailing List Archive Home]
[Message List]
[Reply To This Message]
Re: The Ubiquity of XML - again.
Raising this issue of English language tags is itself beating a dead
horse. See a brilliant exposition entitled "English Language Tags,"
addressed to the ebXML Core Components Team on 31 Jan 2001, at
http://lists.ebxml.org/archives/ebxml-core/200101/msg00183.html.
And do the EDIFACT tags, like MEA or BEG, mean anything to anyone who
can't make out English?
Nevertheless, I'll add this "deficiency" of XML - as applied to
interoperable B2B standards - to the list.
William J. Kammerer
Novannet
Columbus, OH 43221-3859 ⢠USA
+1 (614) 487-0320
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Chessman" <
To: "EDI-L Mailing List" <
Sent: Friday, 04 February, 2005 12:34 PM
Subject: RE: [EDI-L] The Ubiquity of XML - again.
William,
Move the dead horse aside. I'm now being misattributed and I'm very
disappointed. No, I never claimed that XML was unsuitable. What I
said, and clearly I'm happy to say it again, is the simple one-for-one
substitution of XML for EDI (which amounts to nothing more than a syntax
"regime change") does not derive any value. Sure you can *parse* XML
using SAX or DOM. What you get is the XML data broken up into more
digestible chunks, but there is no more meaning to the data than there
is with the comparable EDI data. I've always been surprised that
nobody's written a comparable EDI parser...that *parses* the EDI data.
Then you'd get the EDI data stream in more digestible chunks, too. The
fact that an industry does or does not use EDI or XML, frankly, has
nothing to do with what I'm saying. My above statements are purely
technical issues. Summary: one-to-one substitution of XML for EDI = no
value add.
Does this mean that new people in the arena shouldn't adopt XML?
No...they'll probably get lots of great *new* uses out of it, just like
you're trying to tell me. But if a shop is going to swap out EDI and
replace it with XML to do *exactly*the*same*thing*, I return to my
original query: what's the point?
With respect to "readability", yes, even I can agree that "StreetName"
is meaningful when it's within "Address" within "Party" within
"BuyerParty" but those phrases are meaningful to me because I speak
"English" (or at least the derivative known as "American"). Frankly,
your example also disappoints me and leads me to two important points:
1) Programming languages don't understand English any better than they
understand Portuguese, Russian, Greek or Mandarin Chinese. 2) I also
agree (as I'm sure everyone else on this list does that "NomaDaRua" is
meaningful when it's within "Endereço" within "Partido" within
"PartidoDoComprador". Same would be true for "ÎνομαοδÏν" within
"ÎιεÏθÏ
νÏη" within "ΣÏ
μβαλλÏμενομÎÏοÏ" within
"ΣÏ
μβαλλÏμενομÎÏοÏαγοÏαÏÏÏν". But at least I'll be
able to get those
values through my SAX parser.
Am I saying "XML bad, EDI good?" Not on your tintype.
Respectfully,
Bill Chessman
Inovisâ¢
P.S., Much as I respect your ability to do COBOL...Dude, it's the 21st
century. 8-)
|
 |
Subscribe in XML format
| RSS 2.0 |
|
| Atom 0.3 |
|
|
Cart
