Re: [Fwd: Example Scenarios Used Within the Aerospace Industry]

[James Bryce Clark <jamie.clark@mmiec.com>]

At 11:17 AM 6/4/01, you wrote:

>Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2001 14:16:14 -0400
>From: Abid Farooqui <farooqui@tampabay.rr.com>
>Subject: Re: Example Scenarios Used Within the Aerospace Industry
>
>Isn't it true that ebXML messaging can be used to deliver traditional EDI
>payloads as well.

Yes indeed.

>Probably there has to be ways of delivering that payload to
>the EDI mapping engine like DI or GenTran but ebXML messaging could be used as
>the transport correct?

Once past transport, the receiver's business service interface has, broadly 
speaking, two problems.

First, it must correctly interpret the element that identifies the schema 
(such as X12) in which the payload documents are encoded, so it can send 
that data stream to something that can interpret it.  (Like your EDI engine.)

Second, it must correctly apply the ebXML business signals so that it can 
read and process the simple business-rule context of that payload -- Is 
this a response?  A request?  To what?  Is it logically dependent on or 
conditioned on another message already received, or to come?  Is this 
binding?  Does it conform to whatever rules for acknowledgement, encryption 
or signature are invoked?

>I am new to ebXML so feel free to correct me.
>I believe that changes from large EDI users to adapt ebXML will be slow 
>but they
>have to be made because there is a very good business case to do that.

The ebXML business process group spent a lot of time working closely with 
the X12, EDIFACT and RosettaNet communities precisely to preserve the 
upgrade path you describe.

Best regards

James Bryce Clark
McLure Moynihan Inc.
818 597 9475     jamie.clark@mmiec.com