Dick,
Your comments re XML and traditional EDI are right on. I only wish that the
popular press that has been hyping XML as the end-all, be-all would tell it
like it is...but that wouldn't sell magazines would it?
XML has a lot to offer for e-business over the Internet. But it will not be
an easy or cheap journey. It is one that must be made however. I still see
today's XML being very similiar to the early days of X12, with all of the
same promises and hopes. And yes, X12 did fulfill its promise. But, I
believe X12 is a mature technology that must and is giving way to the new
kids on the block, just like other new technologies eventually subsume and
eclipse their early cousins.
Thus, the ebXML Initiative is exceedingly important and critical if we are
to achieve its vision of a Single Global Electronic Market: an XML-enabled
Internet based market where all parties irrespective of size can conduct
business easily, quickly and cost-effectively.
Rachel
>
> Kurt,
>
> I suppose I'm to blame for the ad-hoc survey, which you
> recently responded
> to. I think it only fair to give you some important
> background information
> so that you will know where I'm coming from.
>
> I work with both the IETF and ebXML groups in the
> creation/selection of
> standards for transporting business documents (XML, X12,
> EDIFACT, whatever)
> reliably and securely via the Internet. I also work with two standards
> groups within the Energy Industry, the Gas Industry Standards
> Board (GISB)
> and the Utility Industry Group (UIG) (responsible for
> standards within the
> Electric Industry). Both GISB and UIG are seriously
> discussing XML and both
> are trying to figure out how XML relates to X12 and existing
> business-to-business transactions.
>
> I've heard some people argue that XML should replace X12 because:
> - translators are expensive
> - people resist EDI(X12, EDIFACT) because it's complex
> and hard to
> implement
> - The little guy doesn't have the time, resources and
> talent to implement
> X12, EDIFACT
> - XML supports both interactive and batch modes of
> interaction (the best
> argument in my opinion)
>
> For those who have NO existing investments in B2B
> infrastructure (X12, or
> other) I agree with you. Go with XML.
>
> However, what do you tell people who have an installed base of trading
> partners using X12, EDIFACt or proprietary
> formats. In order to reap the benefits of XML they must convince their
> trading partners to use XML. Changing to XML is not free
> either, even though
> XML parsers are free and XSLT can be used to "translate" XML
> into flat files
> someone still has to do the work to map the layout that drives the
> translation. Alternatively, one could rewrite their backend systems to
> accept/generate XML, but this is no small challenge for most.
> Perhaps one
> day the XML-SQL gap will close and it will be easy for companies to go
> between XML constructs and relational databases. I'm sure
> this will also
> require some "wetware"/brainpower. No matter which way you
> look at it, XML
> is not a "plug-n-play" technology, although some would like
> us to believe
> this.
>
> I don't want you to think I'm down on XML, because I'm not. I
> fully support
> XML and our products already support XML. I think XML is an important
> technology. But, I do see the daunting question facing many
> companies - Why
> should they change to XML when it performs the same function as their
> existing X12 systems. There has to be something "more" to
> convince people to
> change. Again, for those with no sunk investments in X12,
> EDIFACT, then XML
> is a no brainer - I agree.
>
> There's more to the problem than simply the "format" used to
> represent data.
> For example, if you could format your data
> into XML today, how would you handle:
>
> - Trading Partner profiles
> - Stadnard Transport mechanism
> - Privacy, authentication, integrity and non-repudiation
> - Auditability
> - Backend system integration
>
> These are all issues which XML, by itself, does not address.
> What's needed
> for a complete B2B implementation are products that implement
> functions for
> all the above and support the range of formats your trading
> partners might
> require (XML, X12, EDIFACT, et al).
>
> Speaking as one of several members of the ebXML Message Routing and
> Transport Group I can assure you that ebXML is attempting to
> solve some of
> these issues as quickly as possible. Your inputs are always welcome.
>
> Dick Brooks
> co-author of IETF EDIINT AS2
> member of ebXML Message Routing and Transport Workgroup
> http://www.8760.com/
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
> Kanaskie, Kurt
> A (Kurt)
> Sent: Monday, February 21, 2000 9:22 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> Subject: RE: Article: Future of XML and EDI?
>
>
> Hello,
>
> I recently joined this list and these are the first messages
> I have received
> on this topic. I would like to respond to some statements and the
> questionnaire (pasted here near the top, comments are at the
> end of the
> questionnaire.
>
> Q1. Do you plan to replace your existing X12 tools/maps with XML
> tools/interfaces?
>
> Yes!
>
> Q2. Please list the reasons for your answer to Q1?
> Lower cost of use, via the Internet vs. VAN. Easier
> interpretation of the
> message. A novice can read an XML message whereas some
> knowledge and effort
> is required to decipher an EDI message. This means developers are more
> likely to reuse an XML message than an EDI message. The mindset I have
> encountered is, "it's easier to create a new message than to
> try to reuse an
> existing one". Finally, and I know its clichi, but
> extensibility. A standard
> XML message can be extended to support "particular" partners while not
> requiring a complete new interface. This is due to the fact
> that all XML
> fields are tagged, unlike EDI messages where some fields are packed.
>
> Q3. For any "NEW" development, would you choose XML or
> traditional
> EDI
> (X12,
> EDIFACT, etc.)?
> Definitely XML!
>
> Q4. Please list the reasons for your choice in Q3. (e.g. skilled
> labor
> pool,
> sunk investments, cost savings, evolution etc.)
> Cost of development, there are lots of web hackers out there
> that just love
> XML. Faster implementation cycle due to lower learning phase.
> More business
> opportunities due to open and standard XML messages.
>
> Q5. Given the choice of transports would you choose a
> VAN or the
> Internet
> to transport your "EDI" (X12, XML, whatever)?
> Internet!
>
> Q6. Please list the reasons for your choice in Q5.
> It is ubiquitous infrastructure, and we are already paying for it.
>
> Personally, I believe XML has a bright future, but I'm
> not seeing
> the
> compelling reasons one would replace their existing
> EDI with XML.
>
> Money, money, money! Lucent spends quite a bit of money on
> the development
> of new EDI messages and on the transport mechanism (VAN).
> Secondly, Lucent
> does a lot of business with small business partners
> (suppliers, etc.) where
> EDI is not a practical solution due to its cost. We do not
> want to impose
> EDI on all of our trading partners. So, then we have two
> forms of B2B, EDI
> vs. other-with-small-partners. To date the later has been
> done at the IT
> developers discretion (i.e. Fax, automated phone, etc.). We
> see XML as the
> key to bringing all of our B2B interfaces together with the obvious
> advantages. Lastly I think the nature of EDI causes more
> interfaces to be
> developed. Lucent has a very large number of interfaces that
> it uses both
> internally and externally. We are working hard to lower this
> number due to
> the cost of maintaining them. XML is the key in my mind.
>
> But XML is not enough. XML is just the syntax, standards are
> required to
> define the content. Currently there is no clear XML standard that the
> industry has adopted, rather there are a lot of XML
> standards, which some
> would interpret as, "therefore there are no standards". While
> this may be
> true now, I don't expect it to continue. Lucent is very
> active in the (OAG)
> Open Applications Group, which we are using in our current
> implementations,
> and in RosettaNet. Ideally we want a single standard so we
> are working with
> each of these groups to help bring them together.
>
> Interestingly, I am leading a project within the OAG that is
> defining an
> architecture for mapping EDI to OAG messages. The technical part is
> straightforward (XSLT on an XML/EDI representation) but the
> semantic part
> will be the most challenging.
>
> I look forward to further responses and discussions on this topic.
>
> BTW, is there an archive of this list somewhere. I don't want
> to rehash old
> conversations.
> Cheers,
>
> ________________________________________________________________
> Kurt Kanaskie
> Lucent Technologies
> CIO Strategy, Planning & Architecture
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> (610) 712-3096
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Orin Rehorst [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Sunday, February 20, 2000 6:07 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: Article: Future of XML and EDI?
>
> The answers below, "There is no XML standard," taken with
> "For each EDI
> Transaction set, there must be an equivalent XML set of DTD's and/or
> Schema's that are agreed upon," beg the question: "Is XML
> ready for industry
> groups to build DTDs, schema, and get going with it?"
>
> Orin Rehorst
> Port of Houston Authority
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Sunday, January 09, 2000 7:04 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: Article: Future of XML and EDI?
>
>
> Q1. Do you plan to replace your existing X12 tools/maps with XML
> tools/interfaces?
>
> No, because right now, there is no XML standard.
>
> Q2. Please list the reasons for your answer to Q1?
>
> For each EDI Transaction set, there must be an
> equivalent XML set of
> DTD's
> and/or Schema's that are agreed upon in the industry I
> wish to do
> business.
> Not just on the fly made up to through the data at the trading
> partner, but
> industry-wide consensus and acceptance.
>
> Q3. For any "NEW" development, would you choose XML or
> traditional
> EDI
> (X12,
> EDIFACT, etc.)?
>
> No.
>
> Q4. Please list the reasons for your choice in Q3. (e.g. skilled
> labor
> pool,
> sunk investments, cost savings, evolution etc.)
>
> For the same reasons as in Q2
>
> Q5. Given the choice of transports would you choose a
> VAN or the
> Internet
> to transport your "EDI" (X12, XML, whatever)?
>
> The internet, using the internet to transport EDI, XML
> or whatever
> is by
> far the best method. But, your trading partner must be able to
> receive the
> data that way. If doing EDI via a VAN, then some
> investment in EDI
> over
> the internet must be made, if going to go with XML or a new
> technology,
> then your trading partner is probably capable or
> willing to invest
> in the
> Internet technology to make it happen.
>
> Q6. Please list the reasons for your choice in Q5.
>
> After initial investment, it is free. The initial investment is
> well worth
> the cost because it will be the communication method of
> preference
> in the
> future.
>
> mtm
> _______________________________
> The EAN.UCC System
> The Global Language of Business (tm)
> Office: 609.620.4583
>
>
>
>
> "Leary, John R"
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "'Dick
> Brooks (E)'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Roy Roebuck
> Sent by:
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "XML EDI Listserver (E-mail)"
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> zserve.com cc:
>
> Subject:
> RE: Article: Future of XML and EDI?
>
>
> 01/09/00 06:31 AM
>
> Please respond to "Leary,
>
> John R"
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Gents,
> some philosophical comments of an early sunday morning:
> -- what we have here are instances of "linguae francae" (see
> Webster)
> -- what is, is in a continuum; that is, as what will
> be, becomes,
> what is
> changes
> -- EDI is 1050 / 5-channel papertape, is X12, is
> EDIFACT, is XML, is
> XEDI,
> is ebXML ...
> -- as a language, XML is a carrier, and not
> intrinsically content
> intensive
> -- as a lingua franca, XML is fly-paper, and picks up
> all sorts of
> useful
> content (see XEDI.org)
> -- as a language, EDI is rich in content, has several
> dialects, and
> even
> its
> own tribe of keepers
> -- as a lingua franca, EDI is like LATIN: syntax & content
> controlled by
> scribes, not by traders
> -- just as Esperanto failed, and Swahili succeeded, XML will
> flourish as a
> lingua franca
> -- chose XML for interacting with (new) suppliers
> because most (new
> & old)
> only speak lingua franca
> -- an etymological pun: lets's be frank: whether a
> lingua franca is
> "language of the franks", or "language of the frank" is
> immaterial:
> it's
> trade that makes the grade.
> John Leary
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dick Brooks (E) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Saturday, January 08, 2000 2:39 PM
> To: Roy Roebuck; XML EDI Listserver (E-mail)
> Subject: RE: Article: Future of XML and EDI?
>
>
> Roy, I disagree with your statement "that traditional
> EDI folks are
> saying
> "disregard the power and economies of XML and the Internet, and
> continue to
> use the expensive and proprietary EDI mapper software
> over expensive
> and
> proprietary VAN"."
>
> In fact, over the past three years a significant number
> of companies
> and
> entire industries have migrated away from the VAN and onto the
> Internet
> because of the associated cost savings. The Gas
> industry began the
> migration
> to the Internet in 1996 and the Electric industry began
> the process
> in
> 1998.
> Organizations in these industries are transporting
> traditional EDI
> over
> the
> Internet with great success, and I see no end in site to this
> migration.
>
> The resistance appears to be aimed at XML and not the Internet.
> Companies
> that have invested in X12 software and labor to create
> transaction
> maps are
> asking the question "Why throw everything away and
> replace it with
> XML?".
> This is a good question, IMHO. What does XML offer
> those who have
> already
> made the investment in traditional EDI technologies?
> There's no question that a new implementor, with no
> history or sunk
> investment, would find XML attractive (XML parsers are free, X12
> translators
> are not). But current implementors of X12 are having a hard time
> seeing the
> benefits of a replacement strategy, again IMHO.
>
> It would be interesting to hear from list members who have
> investments/implemented X12 with regard to
> the following questions:
>
> Q1. Do you plan to replace your existing X12 tools/maps with XML
> tools/interfaces?
>
> Q2. Please list the reasons for your answer to Q1?
>
> Q3. For any "NEW" development, would you choose XML or
> traditional
> EDI
> (X12,
> EDIFACT, etc.)?
>
> Q4. Please list the reasons for your choice in Q3. (e.g. skilled
> labor
> pool,
> sunk investments, cost savings, evolution etc.)
>
> Q5. Given the choice of transports would you choose a
> VAN or the
> Internet
> to transport your "EDI" (X12, XML, whatever)?
>
> Q6. Please list the reasons for your choice in Q5.
>
> Personally, I believe XML has a bright future, but I'm
> not seeing
> the
> compelling reasons one would replace their existing
> EDI with XML.
>
> Dick Brooks
> www.8760.com
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Roy
> Roebuck
> Sent: Saturday, January 08, 2000 11:09 AM
> To: XML EDI Listserver (E-mail)
> Subject: RE: Article: Future of XML and EDI?
>
>
> Why do we continue to discuss XML versus EDI as though
> this were an
> either/or issue? Isn't the whole issue of EDI versus XML versus
> XML/EDI
> resolving down to the application of syntax, semantics, and
> messaging
> medium
> in the synchronous and asynchronous interchange of
> information? It
> has
> been
> stated from the beginning of this group that we're
> seeking EDI in
> combination XML. (In some reports to my clients, I've described
> interchange
> medium as "Carrier", interchange syntax as "Container", and
> interchange
> semantics (metadata) and information/data as "Content".)
>
> For years, traditional EDI has invested much useful effort in
> building up
> an
> organized and standardized body of interchange
> semantics (business
> rules,
> vocabularies/data-dictionaries, grammar, etc.) using the content
> translation
> syntax of various information/data mapping tools/methods to work
> over a VAN
> medium. XML has come out since 1996 providing a more powerful
> content
> mapping and translation syntax over the TCP/IP medium of the
> Internet,
> while
> being semantically neutral. EDI via XML, in its many open and
> proprietary
> forms, seems to be seeking to move the rich semantic
> knowledge of
> traditional EDI onto the syntax of XML over the Internet medium.
>
> It seems to me that traditional EDI folks are saying
> "disregard the
> power
> and economies of XML and the Internet, and continue to use the
> expensive
> and
> proprietary EDI mapper software over expensive and
> proprietary VAN".
> This
> hope that XML and the Internet will not globally usurp
> Traditional
> EDI
> syntax and medium is not realistic or rational.
>
> Modern EDI: Semantics = Traditional Standard EDI Messages =
> Information
> Content
> Syntax = XML = Information Container
> Medium = Internet+Intranet+Extranet+VPN+VAN =
> Information
> Carrier
>
>
>
> Roy
>
>
>
> ==========================================
> XML/EDI Group members-only discussion list
> Homepage = http://www.xmledi.com
>
> Brought to you by: Online Technologies Corporation
> Home of BizServe - www.bizserve.com
>
> TO UNSUBSCRIBE: Send email to
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Leave the subject blank, and
> In the body of the message, enter ONLY:
> unsubscribe
>
> Questions/requests should be sent to:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To join the XML/EDI Group complete the form located at:
> http://www.geocities.com/WallStreet/Floor/5815/mail1.htm
>
>
>
> ==========================================
> XML/EDI Group members-only discussion list
> Homepage = http://www.xmledi.com
>
> Brought to you by: Online Technologies Corporation
> Home of BizServe - www.bizserve.com
>
> TO UNSUBSCRIBE: Send email to
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Leave the subject blank, and
> In the body of the message, enter ONLY:
> unsubscribe
>
> Questions/requests should be sent to:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To join the XML/EDI Group complete the form located at:
> http://www.geocities.com/WallStreet/Floor/5815/mail1.htm
>
>
> ==========================================
> XML/EDI Group members-only discussion list
> Homepage = http://www.xmledi.com
>
> Brought to you by: Online Technologies Corporation
> Home of BizServe - www.bizserve.com
>
> TO UNSUBSCRIBE: Send email to
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Leave the subject blank, and
> In the body of the message, enter ONLY:
> unsubscribe
>
> Questions/requests should be sent to:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To join the XML/EDI Group complete the form located at:
> http://www.geocities.com/WallStreet/Floor/5815/mail1.htm
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ==========================================
> XML/EDI Group members-only discussion list
> Homepage = http://www.xmledi.com
>
> Brought to you by: Online Technologies Corporation
> Home of BizServe - www.bizserve.com
>
> TO UNSUBSCRIBE: Send email to
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Leave the subject blank, and
> In the body of the message, enter ONLY:
> unsubscribe
>
> Questions/requests should be sent to:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To join the XML/EDI Group complete the form located at:
> http://www.geocities.com/WallStreet/Floor/5815/mail1.htm
>
>
> ==========================================
> XML/EDI Group members-only discussion list
> Homepage = http://www.xmledi.com
>
> Brought to you by: Online Technologies Corporation
> Home of BizServe - www.bizserve.com
>
> TO UNSUBSCRIBE: Send email to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Leave the subject blank, and
> In the body of the message, enter ONLY: unsubscribe
>
> Questions/requests should be sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To join the XML/EDI Group complete the form located at:
> http://www.geocities.com/WallStreet/Floor/5815/mail1.htm
>
>
> ==========================================
> XML/EDI Group members-only discussion list
> Homepage = http://www.xmledi.com
>
> Brought to you by: Online Technologies Corporation
> Home of BizServe - www.bizserve.com
>
> TO UNSUBSCRIBE: Send email to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Leave the subject blank, and
> In the body of the message, enter ONLY: unsubscribe
>
> Questions/requests should be sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To join the XML/EDI Group complete the form located at:
> http://www.geocities.com/WallStreet/Floor/5815/mail1.htm
>
>
>
> ==========================================
> XML/EDI Group members-only discussion list
> Homepage = http://www.xmledi.com
>
> Brought to you by: Online Technologies Corporation
> Home of BizServe - www.bizserve.com
>
> TO UNSUBSCRIBE: Send email to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Leave the subject blank, and
> In the body of the message, enter ONLY: unsubscribe
>
> Questions/requests should be sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To join the XML/EDI Group complete the form located at:
> http://www.geocities.com/WallStreet/Floor/5815/mail1.htm
>
>
==========================================
XML/EDI Group members-only discussion list
Homepage = http://www.xmledi.com
Brought to you by: Online Technologies Corporation
Home of BizServe - www.bizserve.com
TO UNSUBSCRIBE: Send email to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Leave the subject blank, and
In the body of the message, enter ONLY: unsubscribe
Questions/requests should be sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To join the XML/EDI Group complete the form located at:
http://www.geocities.com/WallStreet/Floor/5815/mail1.htm
