|
[EDI-L Mailing List Archive Home]
[Message List]
[Reply To This Message]
RE: X12 sees the writing on the wall.
Paul,
What a great example! The interesting thing is that, yes, assuming the text
is truly stored in UTF-8 (that's the default for XML) and the parser is
truly up to snuff (the one from IBM for Java for example), the parser will
handle that example just fine. (Those tags are completely valid, and
probably very meaningful for Japanese-reading people or systems.)
Now, here's the rub: The data will go into the parser and be chunked out
into tags and data values. Mr. Bosak hit's the problem square on the head:
What does it mean? Wags around the globe used to claim "XML solves the
semantic question." Um. I think I've said this in previous emails, but
seeing the tenor of the conversation over the last day or so, I feel it's
not inappropriate to say it again (albeit with different phraseology as I
can't remember how I put it last time): Replacing EDI with XML (effectively
1 for 1) gains nothing. I'll amend that. There is one advantage to XML
over EDI: Syntax has (theoretically) been taken out of the equation. That
is to say, all XML documents use the one and true XML syntax (can't say that
about X12, EDIFACT, TRADACOMS and, say, VDA, to name but four). So, we can
get a good parser (free in many cases) that can parse _any_ XML document on
the planet (assuming, of course, the XML is actually well formed).
Okay, so now we have that cheap and easy solution to the parsing (late news:
parsing is the easy part--even in EDI!). Insert XML, get tags and data back
in a nice digestible stream. But we still have to take that data and assign
meaning and associate it back to the application(s). XML has not done
anything to solve that problem. One solution is to tie one of these free
parsers to each application and voila, it's XML enabled...but for the SMOP
(small matter of programming) to do the tying in. That's a different
exercise but functionally equivalent to mapping. Oh, and there'll be a
unique SMOP for each application to which the XML enablement must be
performed. On the other hand, there's always the possibility that an
organization could scrap all their non-XML applications and upgrade to or
replace them with XML-enabled products...
Does that mean I think EDI is king and XML is completely unworthy? Not at
all. What I am saying is that XML used as EDI is the same as EDI used as
EDI. But, on the other hand, there are places where EDI doesn't make as
much sense. XSLT is a very useful tool for transforming XML into "human
understandable" formats that are _not_important_ in true automated EDI
environments. In fact, unless I'm mistaken the sample page you point us to
began life as XML in Docbook format (same XML syntax, distinct, well-defined
DTD or schema). Docbook combined with XSLT can be used to transform Mr.
Bosak's presentation into a number of useful formats including HTML (as seen
here), postscript printed matter and even RTF word processing files. That's
pretty neat. It's also useful in other situations where EDI doesn't
particularly lend itself, such as web services.
So, if you're going to be doing XML in place of EDI, you're not talking
about a technology shift, you'll need to take in the bigger picture, a (dare
I say it?) paradigm shift. Frankly the use of XML might transform processes
such as JIT (since web services could be used to do smaller, real-time, ad
hoc JIT ordering and inventory management)...by eliminating the "batch
orientation" that comes with EDI. So, when Mr. Kammerer suggests throwing
away your X12 manuals, he is, in a sense, correct. But you'll also need to
throw away the preconceptions that come with them. That's just one of the
tough parts.
Respectfully and with best regards,
Bill Chessman
Inovis(tm), Inc.
(Opinions herein are mine and not necessarily reflective of my employer)
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul McTeigue [mailto:
Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2003 7:09 PM
To: 'EDI-L Mailing List'
Subject: RE: [EDI-L] X12 sees the writing on the wall.
William:
I'l like to see one of your free parsers handle this XML:
http://www.ibiblio.org/bosak/pres/0103gdl/sld04002.htm
Paul McTeigue
www.icefan.ca
(I know, I know, you originally used that one).
-----Original Message-----
From: William J. Kammerer [mailto:
Sent: July 15, 2003 9:24 PM
To: EDI-L Mailing List
Subject: Re: [EDI-L] X12 sees the writing on the wall.
It will happen in your lifetime, Brian, for sure. EDI's like an old
friend who's kind of getting slow and tired. And the most exciting
thing to hit EDI in a good long while, HIPAA, is fast petering out.
I'm not saying EDI is dead. Even though I wouldn't write a life
insurance policy on Granny, I still wouldn't go out and shoot her. No,
EDI will stick around a good long while. But anything new will - or
should - be done in XML. The mapping and translation can all be done
with free standard software - albeit GUI-less, for now. Sure, EDI
translators now include elaborate scheduling systems and whatnot. But
remember how translators started out 15 years ago? They could do far
less than the free XML parsers and transform languages available today,
but they cost $50,000 on up with onerous annual maintenance fees!
Let's kick these bad habits. What are we waiting for?
William J. Kammerer
Novannet, LLC.
Columbus, US-OH 43221-3859
+1 (614) 487-0320
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
