|
[EDI-L Mailing List Archive Home]
[Message List]
[Reply To This Message]
Re: TDCC and EDI X12
George wrote:
> Now we are doing ebXML research work for the further EDI
> development. Meanwhile, I am also keeping an eye on other
> specific industry specifications as mentioned. Since ebXML's
> objective is to build up a single global electronic trading market,
> is ebXML the strongest and most promising standard in the
> future? If it will be replacing the predominating standards, the
> other specs will be merged into them. Based on the history of
> EDI, the merge will take long time, right?
The first thing we need to get over here, George, is thinking of the work
product of ebXML as a standard in the sense we see the standards we call X12 or
UN/EDIFACT. The ebXML group developed a framework on which to base any
standards to be developed by the existing standards bodies. The ebXML group no
longer exists, having finished its work. Any continuing maintenance or
development on that has been passed to groups like CEFACT (the developing body
for UN/EDIFACT) and others. The ebXML framework will not "replace the
predominating standards," but rather serve as the base framework for the
creation of XML-based business messaging.
As for merging XML business messaging into EDI, that will indeed take quite a
while, and voicing my personal opinion, may never become complete anyway. If
we look at history in general, we find most technologies only get developed to
about eighty percent (80%) of their full potential before someone comes up with
a new idea, and the world runs to the "latest and greatest." This is what is
probably happening with EDI now. The second part of that is the old technology
never seems to completely go away. We will see the number of XML-based systems
growing, but with the investment in the EDI infrastructure already made by most
companies, any truly significant changes will take a long time.
> Another confusion is about XML. To my experience, XML is
> not that good as most of people think. Everybody is talking
> about portability virtue of XML, but is EDI (X12 or EDIFACT)
> format not portable? Some guys argued that XML schema makes
> XML portable, but X12 standard is right SCHEMA for X12 EDI
> data. XML also needs parsers to translate the XML data. That is
> my thought.
That is indeed part of the overall issue. The use of XML for business
messaging is the current HOT topic, but there are parts of it appearing to some
people as if we are contemplating a change merely for the sake of change.
Personally, I feel there is indeed value in XML-based business messaging
systems in that, rather than portability, they allow for better
interoperability between systems. Traditional EDI tends to be linear, and
whilst it very good at passing information down a line of trading partners from
mine to market, that is not true interoperability. Mind you, not all trading
partner relationships will require the sort of interoperability we get from
XML, and will do very well with EDI, but it is nice to have the tool of
interoperability available when we need it.
Best Regards,
Bob
R.T.Crowley - Senior Vice President
Research Triangle Software, Inc.
Suite 200
1135 Kildaire Farm Road
Cary, NC 27511
Tel: +1-919-657-0505
Cell: +1-919-349-3557
Fax: +1-919-657-0589
Web: www.rtseducation.com
www.ediassistant.com
www.cryptobuddy.com
www.rtsz.com
-- KBO --
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
|
|
Subscribe in XML format
| RSS 2.0 |
|
| Atom 0.3 |
|
|
Cart
