We'll have to agree to disagree then. I happen to agree on the definition of
EDI you mentioned though. I just don't see how the actual format used for
the data makes the exchange an EDI exchange or not. Can I also call it EDI
when I change the channels of my TV with the remote control? I know, it's
sloppy logic but it works (and fits). <g>
Would it not be more appropriate to not have "Trad-EDI" but, instead, to
have ANSI X12 EDI, EDIFACT EDI, etc. ? Since the format of the data is "the
pillar" of EDI, we need to be accurate then, right? And, how far back are
we wanting to go with this "Trad" thing? I'm not an EDI expert (by any
means) but I believe there were other data formatting 'standards' in use
before X12 and EDIFACT ?
- AHilton
> I would like to differ on your description of EDI being a
> *process* and not
> a data format structure. Everywhere you look EDI is defined as the
> "Computer to Computer exchange of data in a Standardized Format".
>
> You need the data formats supported within a particular EDI standard to
> carry out the *process* of EDI that you are referring to. The
> data formats
> are the pillars of EDI.
>
> My two cents...
>
> Mohan Wanchoo
> Tel: 516-621-5200 X 20
> Fax: 516-621-5785
> Web:www.intelsysinc.com
=======================================================================
To contact the list owner: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archives at http://www.mail-archive.com/edi-l%40listserv.ucop.edu/
