Richard,
What do you mean by: "or sending XML data without a framework to
> constrain it." ? Are you talking about having a pre-defined understanding
between trading partners as to what each XML tag means?
I see this as a basic requirement of ANY computer-computer interaction that
involves automated intelligent processing. This is just the same as the
X12/EDIFACT/etc transaction formatting standards, right? If I wasn't given
(or had access to in another way) the definitions by my trading partners of
what all those transactions/segments meant then I wouldn't be able to know
where it fit into my databases.... XML or X12 or EDIFACT or any other
formatting standard. So, whether it is XML or X12 doesn't make the fact
that you need to know what it all MEANS any different. I have no
extraordinary love of XML as a formatting standard but, then again, neither
do I have any more love for X12/EDIFACT/etc.
I *would* like to see my major trading partners move to an internet-based
transport mechanism and get rid of this Bisync 3780 junk they have now. My
support costs for that one piece of hardware/software outweighs all the
internet connection hardware/software costs by a factor of 4! I'd be happy
with just the plain old X12 formatting but if they'd go with XML then it
would take two translating steps out of my loop for all of my various
clients.
- A Hilton
>
> I remain unconvinced that XML or web access solve any business issues
> extant, nor has anyone ever explained how they are going to do this magic.
> I was employed at a firm once where we went through this same
> exercise with
> database products. In the IT group we called it sourly "Silver-bullet
> weenieism."
>
> The first time I read about XML I was amused. Oh boy, another framework
> that needs to have standard implemented on top of it. Deja vu all over
> again. However, the first time I read about screen scraping (or
> "electronic rip and read") I just recoiled in horror. Let's just
> bring back
> the old 3270 terminals and punch tape while we're at it!
>
> To my mind EDI is (according to one of the pithiest definitions I
> have read)
> "The direct computer to computer exchange of standard formatted business
> transactions between one or more trading partners." (Thanks to Trans-Man
> Logistics for having this on their web site.)
>
> This means that as far as I'm concerned, you can send the data via VAN,
> email, FTP, or two coffee cans and a damp piece of string. But to meet my
> litmus test for EDI, it had better be a standard formatted business
> transaction that doesn't require human intervention. Although there is
> human intervention involved in setting up an EDI transaction, I have
> production transactions (X12 and EDIFACT) that have been running for years
> with no errors. I would lay serious money against that happening with
> screen scraping a web site, or sending XML data without a framework to
> constrain it.
>
=======================================================================
To signoff the EDI-L list, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To subscribe, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To contact the list owner: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archives at http://www.mail-archive.com/edi-l%40listserv.ucop.edu/
