[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Re: What do people really expect from ebXML? - the Vision \"thing\"
Andreas, I respect your point of view, but we can't continue to live in the past forever ! Edifact and X.12 were designed in the days when all we had was 75 or 300 baud modems. Everything was crunched down so that it could be transmitted in the shortest possible time. As I remember, to transmit an EDI message of 1000 characters at 300 baud used to take (1000 / 37.5cps) = 26 2/3 seconds. Those days are long since gone, and people need better systems and better messages. The funny thing is, that whilst it may only take an led blink to transfer the same data now, you still end up with the same data. EDI now, therefore does no more than it did in the good old days of 2400 baud. Moving on, The following statement is true: > I think we have to distinguish the semantic content of EDI (especially > UN/EDIFACT) and the syntactical implementations. It seems to be true, that > the implementation of EDI is very difficult (cost intensiv and complex) for > SME\'s. But it seems to be also true, that there is yet no alternative for > exchanging mass data in an B2B environment. The fact is that in a decade or so, SMEs probably won't need an Accounting system on a PC. It will be in a PDA, a mobile phone or maybe a smartcard. Rather than transferring a Receipt on a piece of paper, to be filed in a wallet, or lost. They will be transferred directly into your PDA, simply by placing it on a transfer pad at the retail store. The receipt will go directly into the Accounting system as it exists on the PDA. In the next generation of electronic commerce, there'll be no visible wires, no modems, no integration, no cost intensiv and no complex. Need to check your account balance to see how much money you have in your account, press the button on your PDA. There's no need for business it to be more complex than this. The opportunity for developing nations having this technology is vast, just as are the rewards for those who will work hard to produce it. I'm saying that it's time to retire EDI, just as was done with Steam Engines, and re-equip with something less poluting, faster and more convenient. Whatever the ol'timers may say, ebXML needs to be a set of new transactions for a completely new world. David Lyon ----- Original Message ----- From: andreas.schultz <email@example.com> To: <firstname.lastname@example.org> Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2001 4:34 PM Subject: Re: What do people really expect from ebXML? - the Vision \"thing\" > > > It is very surprising reading all this comments on \"common\" messages coming out of ebxml. First, like Arofan reported, there was a decision that ebXML will not create messages in the sense of transactions. This was a good decision. One good thing with the \"old\" stuff coming out of X12 and especially EWG that these are organisations which are seen as official and neutral standardisation bodies. If there is a need for new \"common\" and global messages, than they should come out under the umbrella of UN/CEFACT and there under EWG. If ebXML is doing this, it is just one more not in the same way official organisation who tries to come out with transactions. But this has nothing to do with standardisation as we understood this until now. No doubt, that things could be done better, and that with one of the goals of CC, to have a set of syntax independent, cross sectorial core components and sector specific extensions following the same rules, there are good chances to do that.! > But as I said this should be done by organisations who makes sure that this is done neutral and not software or software vendor dependent. > > --- > > I\'m not sure, whether the following comment has been send out via the list serv, so I attach it to this: > > William has raised a very good question,\"why is it expected that the > standards and products built upon > > the CC specs will result in anything better than what we have today with > > EDI?\" > > I think we have to distinguish the semantic content of EDI (especially > UN/EDIFACT) and the syntactical implementations. It seems to be true, that > the implementation of EDI is very difficult (cost intensiv and complex) for > SME\'s. But it seems to be also true, that there is yet no alternative for > exchanging mass data in an B2B environment. As far as I understood, XML is > not a sufficent way to do the same. > > On the other hand, I do not believe, that we can handle all the business via > a PDA or something like that. But let\'s think there is no problem with that, > than we have one (very) little message to be exchanged. But what\'s about the > big number of parts data a supplier has to exchange with a manufacturer. > > So, where does the CC lead us to. First it\'s a new approach to come to data > descriptions which, because of it\'s syntax-neutrality, can be used as a > basis for Data Exchange on different syntaxes. Which means, from the models > populated with this data you can derive an EDIFACT Message or an XML message > it\'s the same for both. So especially big companies can deliver the data in > a format the SME\'s can process (automatically or \"by Hand\") and they can > read the incoming data. Allthough, I guess this is a step backward\'s, > because a company has to have again more than one interface to understand > the data coming in. One of the ideas of EDI was to reduce the number of > interface to minimise the cost. But maybe this will be compensated by the > benefit of having electronic data interchange with a larger number of > companies and from the automated processing of this data. > > So, the syntax neutral base is the one thing. The other is, that the CC is > really cross sectorial. The same (core) data now means the same in all > industries. And having started this within ebXML, this work will be > continued by the joint group out of ASC X12 and EWG. > > David wrote: \"it\'s just like a steam engine.... it\'s time for a change..... > \" - It is good to have a machine that works, to bear heavy loads (mass data) > but it is also good to have a smaller machine for smaller loads. So, it\'s > not the question for changing the world but for expanding to be enabled to > react on new requirements. > > > Andreas Schultz > > -- > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single word > "unsubscribe" in the body to: email@example.com >
Powered by eList eXpress LLC