DRAF RE: How to Create an ebXML Order (EDI 850 transaction set)

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

What a remarkable exchange.

>I think that the X12 and EDIFACT metadata provides an obvious starting 
>point - if only because of its breadth, maturity and world-wide acceptance 
>when compared to XCBL.  * * *  the metadata associated with EDI is quite 
>capable of describing most (if not all) transactions used by most 
>businesses.  I'm not sure if I could say the same about XCBL. * * *
>
>The information models used by XCBL were first introduced in 1997.  * * 
>*  EDI has been evolving under the watchful gaze of global standards 
>bodies since 1948 (the infamous Berlin Airlift) * * *

There are reasons why ebXML did not just adopt X12, EDIFACT or XEDI.   The 
existence of 3100+ X12 documents is not something to brag 
about.   Unfortunately, they represent far fewer than 3100 distinct types 
of transaction.   Since 1948, it appears that no-one has said, "No, candy 
cane industry, you should not create a new doc type, you should adapt this 
one from the lollipop industry that does the same darn thing."

A useful taxonomy should recognize and leverage similarities in economic 
structures across industry boundaries.  It is essential to reuse, to EAI 
integration, and to widespread networked resource discovery.  But 
rationalization of that kind has been resolutely avoided by 
vertically-siloed EDI standards traditions.

I can't say whether xCBL is an appropriate starting point.  A better 
approach would have been to set neutral requirements first.  It seems an 
internally consistent or adequately designed starting point.  But I am glad 
someone is trying.