Re: xCBL and openness

[Philip Goatly <philip.goatly@bolero.net>]

Hi Gregory,

    Thanks for that I am reassured by what you say and clearly we seem to be
singing from the same 'song sheet'

     However who will actually take a decision as to how far EDIFACT is
followed or not ?

     Who are the approvers of any decision in ebXML because there do appear
to be a number of differing opinions on a number of subjects.


Cheers, Phil.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gregory, Arofan" <arofan.gregory@commerceone.com>
To: "'Philip Goatly'" <philip.goatly@bolero.net>;
<stuart.campbell@tieglobal.com>; "'ebXML Core'" <ebxml-core@lists.ebxml.org>
Sent: Monday, April 02, 2001 6:51 PM
Subject: RE: xCBL and openness


> Phil:
>
> Who is talking about "throwing away" EDIFACT?
>
> The point is, that the *syntax* used by EDIFACT is being replaced in many
> techonology circles by XML. xCBL and other XML vocabularies have - if
> well-done - based their semantics on EDIFACT. But the influence of a
syntax
> on the structures in many cases is one that conflicts with modelling the
> same semantics in XML.
>
> This doesn't count as "throwing away" - I think what is happening in ebXML
> is a harmonization and distillation of what is best in EDIFACT and X12
> (semantics), so that we can build a good solid XML standard *syntax*
> expression maintained through an open process.
>
> xCBL as it exists today is a very large vocabulary, because it lacks the
> concepts of context that ebXML is exploring, and because most XML systems
> don't support the use of XML namespaces very well (although this is
rapidly
> changing). the next iteration of xCBL - whether done through and open
> process or not - will leverage both the ebXML context concept and the use
of
> namespaces to modularize in such a way that it becomes both smaller and
more
> manageable. Further, it will make greater use of run-time extension
> processing, something that is not available in older technologies (such as
> traditional EDI syntaxes and DTD-based XML).
>
> In no way is EDIFACT's work being "thrown" away. I guess if I believed
that
> this was the case, I wouldn't even be a part of ebXML, and the same holds
> for the work done in X12. They represent the work that we are starting
with
> - the semantic basis of all of ebXML Core Component work.
>
> As for the capabilities of EDIU syntax, that is a different story: as
> technologies, XML and EDI are very unlike, and I would argue that XML
> represents the future. Hence, "ebXML," rather than "ebEDI".
>
> There is also agreement that ebXML-compliant systems will need to support
> legacy EDI syntaxes, which is very much a reality, and a requirement that
> has been taken to heart by the CC team.
>
> So, I repeat: "Who is talking about 'throwing away' EDIFACT?"
>
> Cheers,
>
> Arofan Gregory
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Philip Goatly [mailto:philip.goatly@bolero.net]
> Sent: Monday, April 02, 2001 1:03 AM
> To: stuart.campbell@tieglobal.com; 'ebXML Core'
> Subject: Re: xCBL and openness
>
>
> Hi Stuart,
>
>      If EDIFACT is 'thrown away' then one loses many man years of work and
> expertise.
>
>      One may argue about the way EDIFACT did some things, but many of the
> principles are excellent.
>
>       I feel that many people are reluctant to start with EDIFACT because
> they are unfamiliar with EDIFACT - new kids on the block syndrome ;-) and
> they would have to do a lot of homework.
>
>       If one starts from scratch one will have to go through all the same
> thinking that EDIFACT required, and any new technology may ease the pain
of
> implementation etc. but the business specification process may not be any
> less painful.
>
>      Cheers, Phil
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Stuart Campbell" <stuart.campbell@tieglobal.com>
> To: "'ebXML Core'" <ebxml-core@lists.ebxml.org>
> Sent: Friday, March 30, 2001 6:43 PM
> Subject: xCBL and openness
>
>
> > (Response to Sue probert)
> >
> > Hi Sue
> >
> > I wonder if your xCBL comments are made about version 2.0 or version
3.0?
> > ***Its true, really version 2.  Whilst is great there are more involved
> and
> > its on a non C1 specific website the bottom lines are:
> > 'who makes the final decision on the changes to xCBL"
> > If the answer is'C1/SAP' then this is a long way from being open
> >
> > and
> > 'Is it reasonably (openly) possible for external companies to be part of
> the
> > team that decides the changes'.
> > If the answer is no, then this is a long way from being open
> >
> > I think these points are the ones i would like answers to and would
invite
> > to be put on the exploder
> >
> > "offered this work to the ebXML follow-on group as a starting
> > point if it proves to be of interest. Of course, this technical
> information
> > is already available openly but what both companies have also offered is
> > some commitment to play a part in supporting the work i.e. to provide
> links
> > to the joint development team itself."
> >
> > xCBL should IMHO under no way be a 'starting point' - this should be
> EDIFACT
> > or start from zero.  XCBL, like other inputs, should be welcomed to
> > influence the starting point; so if this is what C1 is saying then thats
> > great as well
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > STUART
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single word
> > "unsubscribe" in the body to: ebxml-core-request@lists.ebxml.org
> >
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single word
> "unsubscribe" in the body to: ebxml-core-request@lists.ebxml.org
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single word
> "unsubscribe" in the body to: ebxml-core-request@lists.ebxml.org
>