|
[EDI-L Mailing List Archive Home]
[Message List]
[Reply To This Message]
RE: X12 vs: XML File Sizes
Focusing for a moment on the size issue (having strayed into more
philosophical territory on my last note), the answer to the ratio is simple:
It depends. Here are a few of the dependencies:
1. Character encoding (are you using single-byte ASCII or EBCDIC or are you
going to use UTF-8 or UTF-16 or Big5 or ...?).
2. Tag sizes. For example:
<val curr="USD">25</val>
takes a lot less space than
<totalValuePerUnitOrdered>
<monetaryAmount>25</monetaryAmount>
<currency>
<currencyUnit>Dollars</currencyUnit>
<currencyCountry>United States</currencyCountry>
</currency>
</totalValuePerUnitOrdered>
Both probably take more than comparable EDI. (This also points up that so
called human readability issue, but I digress.)
3. DTD vs. Schema (Schemas may take up more space than DTDs because they can
tell you more about your document).
4. DTD in-line vs. external reference (it is possible to include the
complete DTD within the bounds of the document in the DOCTYPE declaration).
5. Mapping between EDI and XML...are we doing a one-for-one mapping or are
we massaging the data in certain ways that could reduce the number of data
items needed within the XML context? (This could be document consolidation
or it could just be data element consolidation...or not.)
All of these things (and others) will have an influence on the ultimate size
of the resulting document. In every example I've seen the XML was
considerably larger, but I guarantee your mileage will vary. If all 1174
subscribers to this list (as of this writing) tried it, we'd get 1174
answers.
Now I promise to stop. It's about time to go on vacation. 8-)
Best regards,
Bill Chessman
Inovis(tm), Inc. (formerly Harbinger and Extricity)
(My opinions are my own blah blah blah...)
-----Original Message-----
From: OLIVOLA Peter [mailto:
Sent: Friday, December 20, 2002 2:50 PM
To:
Subject: RE: [EDI-L] X12 vs: XML File Sizes
As applications adopt XML exchange formats it will become easier to exchange
data in that format. You seem to be assuming a rather linear situation. My
experience suggests there are many more models of data exchange. Some inter
organization some intra organization. As has always been the case with EDI,
the application process supporting the business doesn't necessarily directly
support the EDI transactions. That's when data must be accumulated from
multiple sources and that, too will add to the use of XML in creating X12
HIPAA transactions.
Peter G. Olivola
Effective Data, Inc.
1515 E. Woodfield Rd.
Suite 770
Schaumburg IL 60173
847 969 9300
708 829 3185 (cell)
847 969 9350 (fax)
-----Original Message-----
From: Rachel Foerster [mailto:
Sent: Friday, December 20, 2002 4:29 PM
To: 'OLIVOLA Peter';
Subject: RE: [EDI-L] X12 vs: XML File Sizes
HIPAA addresses the financial information exchanges between health care
providers and payers. Goods are typically supply chain.
Having said that, if an organization is required to comply with the HIPAA
transaction set requirements, I have a hard time trying to find the business
value of first taking data from an X12 format, reformatting it into XML and
then populating a database with that data, or vice versa...the business
value of taking data from a database, formatting it into an XML document and
then once again reformatting it into a HIPAA compliant X12-based transaction
set.
Quite frankly, there's no dollar benefit to be gained in this reformatting
upon reformatting.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Message Identifiers: <SALES>, <JOBS>, <LIST>, <TECH>, <MISC>, <EVENT>,
<OFF-TOPIC>
Access the list online at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EDI-L
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
 |
Subscribe in XML format
| RSS 2.0 |
|
| Atom 0.3 |
|
|
Cart
