Re: ebXML adoption?

[Duane Nickull <duane@xmlglobal.com>]

David:

Yes - I see this need.

> Duane,
> 
> ... The clear need is to extend the old EDI
> transaction model to allow more flexibility based on process needs.

I think that where some potential confusion lies is that some see this
as an attempt to utilize EDI for the future.  We need to really clarify
that we are extending the *transaction model* of EDI only and it will be
clearly expressed in XML syntax.  The key word has to be extensible.

> This then steps forward to the Repository needs - to be able to track
> and re-use existing processes defined as DTD sets (again where
> Bizcodes provide the underpinning) becuase now - instead of the old
> EDI model of (relatively) limited fixed transactions sets - we have a
> much more flexible mechanism so we have to provide users the
> ability to easily locate process sets based on business function - and
> maintain and version them transparently.
> 
> Not all easy - but this is where the B2C needs across the internet,
> coupled to the backend B2B needs is taking us.
> 
> DW.

Again, this will make it possible to participate solely within the
confines of ebXML for those wishing to abandon their EDI.

How would you suggest building a working model for the next meeting in
ORlando?

Duane Nickull


-- 
/**************************************************\
| http://www.xmlglobal.com  /* Corporate site */    |
| http://www.goxml.com     /* XML Search engine */  |
| http://www.cartnetwork.com /* XML E-commerce */   |
|   "Really Cool XML Solutions - available today!"  |
\**************************************************/