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

[John Evdemon <jevdemon@vitria.com>]

On Friday, July 13, 2001 8:02 PM Duane Nickull  wrote:
>
> FYI - we have talked about a small subset of xCBL, not even the entire
> range of xCBL documents to begin with.  As you point out,  the work is
> fairly monumental and not to be taken lightly.
> 
This statement causes me even more concern - it sounds like you are talking
about a subset of xCBL (which already lacks the hundreds of business
documents provided by EDI).  A subset of xCBL implies that you are dealing
with less than the 41 business transactions defined by xCBL.  Am I correct
about this?   Even if we are talking about the entire xCBL "standard", it
pales in comparison to existing EDI metadata standards (note missing
quotes).

> IF the work done in the UBL group results in a way to adopt EDI to
> facilitate ebXML messaging, then the work is worth while.  The goals are
> the same,  I think it is just being said differently.
> 
If the UBL group does not provide support for EDI they will only be
partially successful.

>> XEDI supports a direct one to one mapping for any transaction, any 
>> version of X12 and EDIFACT.  There is no
>> mismatch at the document level.  There is no dilution or loss of data.
> 
> Throw in cXML and xCBl at a document level then try four way mappings.
> Gotcha!!!!
>
Then we're back to pouring 5 gallons of water into a 3 gallon container
again.  Neither of the other approaches you mentioned provides the
granularity of EDI metadata.

> Seriously,  I haven't examined the document to document mapping using
> XEDI but I understand that it has the same problems when trying to map
> outside of the edi world.  Is that true?
>
Yes - we usually need to simplify the markup since the fields and structures
we need to map in the target do not exist.   (Again, 5 gallons into 3...)

> 
> Great.  Where can one view the XEDI document and mapping sets?
> 
See www.xedi.org.  XEDI uses a data dictionary-based approach.  You can
generate DTDs, XML Schema, etc.  The data dictionary drives the
transformation process.  The data dictionaries are derived directly from the
ANSI X12 and UN EDIFACT standards.

> I favour garnering whatever epxerience we can from EDI for building
> ebXML.  I think most people will agree that we can learn from the past
> (good points as well as mistakes) so we all avoid making them in the
> future.
>
My concern (and the reason behind my ramblings) is regarding the level of
EDI experience within ebXML.  EDI has been around much longer than both XML
xCBL and has a much more mature track record.  Starting with a new set of
metadata seems illogical given the decades of work that has already been
invested into developing EDI metadata standards.    

EDI represents the largest volume of B2B transactions occurring today.
Given that fact, ebXML must support EDI - I'm trying to ensure that we do
this as painlessly as possible.

Are we forgetting that "legacy" systems imply both maturity and (in most
cases) reliability?