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

[John Evdemon <jevdemon@vitria.com>]

On Monday, July 16, 2001 7:21 PM Duane Nickull  wrote:
> 
> XEDI??? If XEDI has already solved the problems that ebXML is setting
> about to work,  then lets' see this data.  
>
I never claimed that XEDI solved the problems that ebXML is setting out to
correct - XEDI is, like xCBL, just a markup language.  XEDI does, however,
provide the most robust support for existing e-business metadata standards.
I am concerned that the planned "UBL" work is going to use xCBL as a
starting point (since it does fully support EDI metadata standards).  There
seems to be a consensus to use xCBL without analyzing if anything better
was/is already available.

> All I could see on the XEDI
> site was one rendition of an 850 PO in XML.  I have asked you to show us
> the rest of your data.  Where is the rest of the data????  IF you are
> suggesting we use that as a starting point,  donate the IP now and it
> willbe considered.  
>
Will do - but can I expect it to be used?  I will make sure I include Jon
Bosak on the response since he is heading up the UBL work.

> If you are not willing to give up the IP or even
> show us the wonderful XEDI,  then please do not criticise us for using
> what is available.
>
I never said I was unwilling to give up the IP.  There would be no reason to
consider using it otherwise.  

> Reliability????   But what about low cost for SME's, simplicity, an open
> infrastructure that is free to use, scalability,  extensibility etc
> etc.  These are mandates of ebXML.  Legacy fails to make the grade on
> all of these points.

You are confusing EDI's syntax and implementation with its metadata.
Anyone (even SMEs) can benefit from using the associated metadata.

Scalability is certainly not an issue with EDI - neither is extensibility.
Further, there are no requirements to use VANs - EDI documents can be
exchanged over secure Internet connections.

> We are not going to ignore EDI.  We will use the wealth of information
> that is the culmination of years of experience by a lot of very
> knowledgable people.  No one is advocating throwing it out.
> 
We agree.  I hope the UBL WG will realize the benefits of using EDI metadata
standards over a far more limited subset.