er [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2001 7:00 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: The XML/EDI has no Clothes!
At 06:26 PM 1/31/2001 -0800, Ken North wrote:
Steve,
Keep the discussion going Don't know if you saw
this reply in anoth
Perhaps you should all have a read of the attached doc.
Let me know what you think.
Leon.
-- XML/edi Group Discussion List --
Homepage = http://www.XMLedi-Group.org
Unsubscribe = send email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Leave the subject and body of the message blank
In a message dated 1/31/01 10:50:43 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't think the idea is "programmer-less" eBusiness. More like using
tools
to simplify the process -- IBM's generating Java classes from trading
partner agreements, Oracle generating Java classes
In a message dated 2/1/01 10:47:31 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
There is one thing which these threads seem to miss which I believe is
indisputable - the concept of variability. That is business processes,
business models and their corresponding revenue streams
In a message dated 2/1/01 10:46:58 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
As long as we're slamming bad reporting, reporting of hype without
countering with factual content may have cause the economic "bubble"
mentioned by some of the posters. Market investors and analysts do
In a message dated 2/1/01 12:08:41 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Registry driven transformation will indeed be largely automated.
True the business analyst will have to create the Registry entries,
but once that is done, the SME will be re-use enabled, and also
Message text written by INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
BINGO!
Again.
Do people think the tags are there for them?
Silly people.
H. sounds good - but how many of you have come in at
3am to a core dump and a 40,000 line file from a trading partner
that just crashed the mapper?
I guess the
Message text written by INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Registry driven transformation will indeed be largely automated.
True the business analyst will have to create the Registry entries,
but once that is done, the SME will be re-use enabled, and also
able to plug in process based
s
involved.
THANKS!
-Karen
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2001 8:20 AM
Subject: RE: The XML/EDI has no Clothes!
Well, you all have good points,
An afterthought.
My comments are not meant to demean or belittle any of the activity
occurring in ebXML. I agree that this is important work that needs to
continue.
-Karen
-- XML/edi Group Discussion List --
Homepage = http://www.XMLedi-Group.org
Unsubscribe = send email to:
Also, authentication is a security function unrelated to XML. One
authenticates a user on a system with a user-name and password, for example.
I've not read the article yet so I can't comment on its accuracy. From your
comments, it sounds like there were major omissions and glaring errors.
Message text written by "Ken North"
I've not read the article yet so I can't comment on its accuracy. From
your
comments, it sounds like there were major omissions and glaring errors.
However, the writer might have described an authentication and
authorization
scenario, for example, to describe
As long as we're slamming bad reporting, reporting of hype without
countering with factual content may have cause the economic "bubble"
mentioned by some of the posters. Market investors and analysts do read
these publications.
FWIW,
-Karen
-- XML/edi Group Discussion List --
, February 01, 2001 8:40 AM
To: David RR Webber; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: The XML/EDI has no Clothes!
I usually follow these discussions in the background, but I'm compelled to
comment here. Although the registry is definately a part of addressing
PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: The XML/EDI has no Clothes!
At 06:26 PM 1/31/2001 -0800, Ken North wrote:
Steve,
Keep the discussion going Don't know if you saw this reply in another
thread.
-
Hi Ken! I did see it. It is well written
; that can be reused and whose semantic
is determined by the context. Context is everything!
Rachel
-Original Message-
From: Martin Bryan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2001 2:17 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Steve L. Bollinger
Subject: Re: The XML/EDI has no Clothes
]
Subject: Re: The XML/EDI has no Clothes!
I usually follow these discussions in the background, but I'm compelled to
comment here. Although the registry is definately a part of addressing the
deficiencies in understanding the semantics, the real meat of the problem is
in making the "map
: The XML/EDI has no Clothes!
Message text written by "Ken North"
I've not read the article yet so I can't comment on its accuracy. From
your
comments, it sounds like there were major omissions and glaring errors.
However, the writer might have described an authentication and
authorizatio
Title: RE: The XML/EDI has no Clothes!
Hey
Anthony,
good
point. You're absolutely right and if the Redmond crew misses that target (say
the DOJ breaks them up as the Judge wants them to) I guess IBM can build a
mammoth mainframe for everyone in the universe to use. Maybe we can all use
Title: RE: The XML/EDI has no Clothes!
Hello everyone,
Just a quick heads up - yes, BizTalk is alive,
operational and being actively deployed... ___Mario O. PipkinDirector, Microsoft e*BISElectronic Business Integration ServicesIntranet: http://itgweb/ebisPhone: (425) 936
Title: RE: The XML/EDI has no Clothes!
I
forgot to add that the real benefit of XML is NOT extensibility,
butreengineering the communication process from a higher level, which now
includes transport.
With
X12 EDI there are alot of variations on how the files are transported, how acks
Title: RE: The XML/EDI has no Clothes!
Microsoft's next targets, via .net initiative, will
be SAP, etc -
They will copy the concept of mysap.com
where ERPs are hosted and developed as a service, then participants will all use
Biztalk and there will be no incompatability.
ERP vendors
m: "Rachel Foerster" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2001 7:10 PM
Subject: RE: The XML/EDI has no Clothes!
Robi,
I certainly don't want to kick sand in your eyes, but have you really
read/looked at the W3C Schema Candidate specification? It's inc
Hi all,
One of the complaints of EDI is cost. The way I see it, XML will not be less
costlier. The amount of initiatives moving this XML is costing money, and
they would like to make money from it.
Next time you use XML, you'll pay (probably like pay-per-view tv style). To
parse, you pay for
we give the baby a thorough cleaning.
Bernard
| -Original Message-
| From: Makni, Khaled [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
| Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2001 10:17 AM
| To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| Subject: RE: The XML/EDI has no Clothes!
|
|
| The hype of the XML "egg" has final
Message text written by "Makni, Khaled"
PS.
I thought we did away with the "Emperor" dung when we defeated the British?
As Athens found out in 300BC - defeats are only temporary set backs.
The long term prognosis is what counts ; -
Examples: Mexico now owns 35%+ of California again.
At 07:48 PM 1/31/2001 -0800, Ken North wrote:
I don't think the idea is "programmer-less" eBusiness. More like using tools
to simplify the process -- IBM's generating Java classes from trading
partner agreements, Oracle generating Java classes from DTDs, and so on.
Thanks for you input Ken.
I
At 10:10 AM 1/31/2001 -0500, Yader, Mark (GXS) wrote:
However, don't you think the platform vendors and the application vendors
will continue to support XML standards, with the eventual outcome that B2B
and A2A will be alot easier (and cheaper) ?
No I don't. XML will develop transactions
to build it. So
join us and help us build it!
cheers
- Nita
-Original Message-
From: Steve L. Bollinger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2001 7:00 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: The XML/EDI has no Clothes!
At 06:26 PM 1/31/2001 -0800, Ken North wrote:
Steve
At 10:38 AM 1/31/2001 -0500, Alan Kotok wrote:
My good friend William Kammerer of Foresight Corporation pointed out two
glaring factual errors in the story ...
I agree that there are a few errors here. My point in showing this was
that this article is the first time (that I am aware) someone
At 06:26 PM 1/31/2001 -0800, Ken North wrote:
Steve,
Keep the discussion going Don't know if you saw this reply in another
thread.
-
Hi Ken! I did see it. It is well written. I think ebXML and UDDI are
good standards and
At 09:21 AM 1/31/2001 -0500, Scott Meade wrote:
Wal-Mart will still be saying, It's our way
or the highway!.
That is exactly correct! the differences between trading
partnerships will still exist in XML the same as X12 and that is what is
so labor intensive and costly to the SMEs.
Steve
At
The XML/edi concept of XML data and rules combined that somehow auto
convert to the Partners backend without a programmer mapping and
maintaining this, I think is another great idea that will never
happen.
I don't think the idea is "programmer-less" eBusiness. More like using tools
to
Message text written by "Steve L. Bollinger"
I am no "EDI only" bigot and would LOVE to scrap EDI for the next better
model. We certainly need to move to a better model beyond EDI. I just
don't see that XML/edi supplies that model. It will still require
programmer mapping, maintenance and
34 matches
Mail list logo
