UBL Discussion (was: How to Create an ebXML Order (EDI 850 transaction set))

[John Evdemon <jevdemon@vitria.com>]

On Thursday, July 19, 2001 6:59 PM Mike Rawlins wrote:
 
> Correction:  A few folks have bandied about the figure of 3,000+ standard
> EDI messages.  This is an overstatement by a factor of about 5.   There
are > only 300+ ANSI X12 transaction sets and a similar number in
UN/EDIFACT,
> yielding about 600.  
>
You are correct, but only if you count the transaction sets in a single
version (such as X12's 004030 or EDIFACT D99B).  I was including all of the
transaction sets in all of versions of both EDIFACT and X12 because these
are supported by XEDI today.  Many companies do not use a single EDI
version, but use separate versions for different trading partners. For
example, one TP might use a version 004030 Purchase Order (PO) while another
uses a version 003075 PO.  Some companies may even use different versions
for a series of transactions (such as a version 004020 Purchase Order,
version 004010 Invoice and a version 004020 Shipping Notice). 

XEDI supports all transactions (all versions) of both X12 and EDIFACT -
approximately 3,000 transactions.  We have also built out industry-specific
support (such as AIA and others).  
 
> Request:  This thread seems to me to have degenerated into a religious
war.
> If you guys insist on still debating the merits of XEDI (or some other 
> approach) over xCBL for the UBL effort, would it be too much to ask for
you > to change the subject of this thread to something that indicated that?


I apologize to you all if we have, indeed, degenerated to the point of a
"holy war".  Regardless of the debate (and the outcome), we are all pursuing
the same goal: ensuring the robustness of UBL.

BTW: I have renamed this thread and ask that all future replies to this
topic use the new (more descriptive) name.

Thanks!

John Evdemon
CTO - XML/Director of Engineering
Vitria
www.vitria.com
www.xmls.com