Re: More Words of Current Wisdom on XML

Wed, 31 Jan 2001 21:28:24 -0800

Scott,
Secure Internet protocols such as S/MIMI, HTTP/ssl or FTP/ssl exist, and your right
to say they are there. But they are new technology. Most businesses are fickle about
placing "critical information" on the internet. Invoicing information is a case in
point. It has always been left up to the desires of the two or more involved parties as
to their abilities to compromise on the point. It definitely requires a shift in the
"existing" paradigm. My point on this statement is that EDI data can be transported
across the internet. The Paradigm here is that the internet is an unsecured media.
The afore mentioned protocols may be secure, but that has yet to be proved as the
end all solution. They need a little more burn in so to speak.
I have not seen a browser handle EDI data, but I've also never seen a browser load
anything into an application either which is exactly my point. The browser also
will not load XML data into an application.
Where are the savings of being able to move to XML so that I must hire large
work forces to handle what I currently have happening today by machine?
These are the issues being dealt with in the field. The only solution is how
long can I push this out so that I'm not forced into doing these things by the
800 Lb Gorilla......
Mark
-----Original Message-----
From: Scott Jolly [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2001 11:35 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: More Words of Current Wisdom on XML
Mark Kusiak wrote:
> I agree with Brian. I also read the article. One issue mentioned was
> that EDI dataCANNOT be sent across the INTERNET. WRONG, it can as long
> as you don't mindeveryone else having access to and utilization of the
> information.
>
> What happened to S/MIME and HTTP/ssl or even FTP/ssl? When companies
> use the Internet as
> a transport, they need to think about how secure the data needs to be
> when working out the details with
> partners.
>
>
>
> EDI likeXML can be routed across the internet.
>
> The persons who can build the mouse trap which allows for the
> securing of thedata over the internet that is generic yet secure, will
> be in a good position.I am looking at XML closely and it's great if
> you want to have get and display(XML's version of rip and read) with
> very little interface with an application.It's great if you want to
> have a clerk read the information off of a displayedform and enter the
> information into your application. Making it so a human doesnot have
> to enter the data into the application is where the cost of
> exchangingelectronic formats are highest. XML does not solve this
> problem or reduce thosecosts associated with it.
>
>
> I would argue these points. Never before have vendors pledged and
> started to
> deliver on having there applications produce and accept XML. I have
> seen press release and
> demos from folks like SAP, Peoplesoft, JD Edwards, Great Plains,
> Microsoft and Oracle that all are
> working on having XML as the input or output.
>
> Ever see Internet Explorer or Netscape Communicator 6.0 handle EDI
> data???
>
> I have been around EDI for about 10 years. I was supporting M2/4 at a
> carrier when TDCC was still in
> use and was in awe when most carriers started to use 003020. I
> realize that several years may pass before
> all of the wrinkles are ironed out with XML, I place hope in the ebXML
> effort to standardize some of the issues.
>
> One will still have to write the interfaces that arethe most expensive
> portion of the process with more robustness piled on to handlethe
> things that XML will "pass on to the application". If "the
> application" isa human being, then it becomes a training issue, if
> it's a computer program, itbecomes an even more expensive proposition.
> Sorry to the SME who was suppose tobenefit from the reduced costs of
> XML!!!
>
> I don't think this is about the SME, it is about the larger company
> that using the Internet can reach all of his partners
> in a cheaper more effiecient way than doing tradationally more expense
> VAN based EDI (some of my best friends work at VAN's).
>
> When viewing a web form (and not a fax), it really doesn't matter if
> it started as XML or EDI, just that it is no longer a fax handled
> individually by the sender and that the response from the SME is not
> going to be touched by a person, but go all the way to the system of
> record...
>
>
> Scott
> "all opinions are strictly my own"
>
> XML is the same buzz word that EDI was twenty years ago.EDI needs to
> get to the internet so that there is a deliverable working
> processwhich doesn't cost an arm and a leg to move data. Even a first
> class mailing inUS costs $.35. My point is that it costs to move data
> around and will continue tocost as time goes on..... Mark-----Original
> Message-----From: Brian Lehrhoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]Sent:
> Wednesday, January 31, 2001 7:54 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> Re: More Words of Current Wisdom on XML Ok, I've read the "article."
> Doesn't EDI fix most of the problems that hesays are broken features
> in XML? I get challenged constantly with "Thismethodology seems to
> work pretty good, but, if anyone can come up with abetter one that
> works i'll gladly take a look at it." And I'd sure like a piece of
> that 12 month, $1,000,000 project to fixsomething that isn't
> broken. "William J. Kammerer" wrote: > Thanks to Greg Olsen, of
> Contivo, Inc., for discovering this gem. See> "Technologists Debate
> the Best Way to Implement XML," by Peter Lucas,> published 01/22/01 on
> Ecomworld.com. Anytime you let a "journalist"> loose with a word
> processor, misquotes, havoc and lies invariably> abound. Even so, the
> trash to text ratio in this one is so excessive> that a mere two
> snippets hardly do it justice. Read for yourself at>
> http://www.ecomworld.com/online/columns/read.cfm?contentid=381.>> "In
> addition, structures defining XML documents are inherently>
> simpler...The structure is so simple that e-mail can qualify as an
> XML> document.">> "...Unicode, an 18-bit coding language created by
> Microsoft Corp,> Redmond, Wash,...supports 64,000 definitions per
> character and can> translate documents written in almost any
> language.">> William J. Kammerer> FORESIGHT Corp.> 4950 Blazer
> Memorial Pkwy.> Dublin, OH USA 43017-3305> +1 614 791-1600>> Visit
> FORESIGHT Corp. at http://www.foresightcorp.com/> "Commerce for a New
> World">>
> =======================================================================>
> To contact the list owner: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Archives at
> http://www.mail-archive.com/edi-l%40listserv.ucop.edu/ --%%%%%%%%%%%%%
> cut here %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%Brian Lehrhoff ([EMAIL PROTECTED])EDI
> ConsultanteB2B Commerce212-703-2121%%%%%%%%%%%%% cut here
> %%%%%%%%%%%%%%% =======================================================================Todiv> > contact the list owner: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] at