Hi Guys,
I must have missed a point somewhere, because I only do XML when I can use
the 'EDI Repositories' to support it. The "richness" of EDI standards is 30
years' collected BPR and electronic commerce knowledge, spiced with specific
industry norms. If anyone doubts me, whenever you see some obscure business
object request on this listserv, doesn't W. Kamerer or R. Foerster (sp?)
answer it with a standard, a website for the IMG, and two paragraphs of
colorful anecdotes? What more could you want?
Any XML schema or DTD created without a solid business scenario drawn
directly from the respective EDI standard is--useless. (Sorry, RosettaNet.)
Why is anyone considering anything else?
A little confused,
Nora
<< The EDI "standards" are simply a "repository" to describe the semantics
and the Message Implementation Guidelines are an industry agreed
equivalent of a DTD. All the XML people are doing is repeating what the
EDI people have been doing for the last 30 years and building the
transaction file using one of the XML syntaxes instead of using an EDI
syntax.
The EDI "repositories" (the richness of EDI "standards" is that there
are so many of them to choose from) are all, of course, fully workable.
Maybe in 30 year's time there might be an equivalent for XML? Firstly,
however, it will be necessary to narrow down the hundreds of ways of
representing semantics in XML to just one way (something all EDI
"standards" have already achieved) or there never will be a workable XML
"respository".
>>
=======================================================================
To contact the list owner: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archives at http://www.mail-archive.com/edi-l%40listserv.ucop.edu/
