Re: Why not object oriented?

[Mike Rawlins <mike@rawlinsecconsulting.com>]

I think you need to do a bit more reading and homework.  Most of what you
propose is exactly the direction in which ebXML intended to go, and is the
direction in which UN/CEFACT is continuing the work.  More comments below.

Ed Ouellette wrote:

> I've been reading up (mostly white papers located on this site) about the
> current state of the ebXML standard. Something struck me as strange, one of
> the many goals of the standard is reusability / extendibility. We have
> available to us a technical way to meet these goals and many more, as you
> should have guessed from my header I'm referring to object oriented design.
> >From what I can currently tell (I am a bit new to the ebXML world) one of
> the main challenges to this suggested (OOD) approach would be finding
> patterns already existing in the current business transaction formats (X12 /
> EDIFACT). Creating an inheritance tree from the thousands of predefined
> documents would be a nightmare.

You are correct that a lot of the core component analysis is using current
EDIFACT and X12 documents as sources, but it is not in any way trying to create
an inheritance tree from these predefined documents.


> A simpler method would be to just have a
> document based objects, built with the core component (objects).

That is exactly the approach that ebXML has proposed.
--
Michael C. Rawlins, Rawlins EC Consulting
www.rawlinsecconsulting.com