Re: What do people really expect from ebXML? - the Vision \"thing\"

[David Lyon <djlyon@one.net.au>]

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 <andreas.schultz@cityweb.de>
To: <ebxml-core@lists.ebxml.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: ebxml-core-request@lists.ebxml.org
>