RE: [ebxml-dev] ebXML implementations/experience

["Crawford, Mark" <mark.crawford@sap.com>]

I think it is important to note that "traditional EDI" still makes up a significant majority of today's B2B exchanges.  

To Claus' point regarding ebXML providing an XML-based infrastructure, I would like to point out that although ebXML CCTS continues to grow in adoption by various standards organization for defining their B2B messaging - UN/CEFACT, UBL, OAGI, HR-XML, and many others - and by governments and solution providers for defining their data models - e.g. SAP, it is important to note that CCTS is not based on, nor does it require XML. Rather it can be bound to an XML syntax expression via a specific profile of XSD. The latest examples of that are the UN/CEFACT CCTS 3.0, UN/CEFACT NDR 3.0, and UN/CEFACT Data Type Catalogue 3.1 available at the UN/CEFACT website.

Kind Regards,
Mark

-----Original Message-----
From: Klaus-Dieter Naujok [mailto:news4me@mail-etc.net] 
Sent: Friday, October 28, 2011 10:56 AM
To: ebxml-dev@lists.ebxml.org
Subject: Re: [ebxml-dev] ebXML implementations/experience


On Oct 28, 2011, at 6:06 AM, Jon Bosak wrote:

> ebXML provides an XML-based infrastructure that can replace traditional EDI.

Jon,

I respectfully disagree with your statement. It is true that ebXML provides an XML-based infrastructure, but that infrastructure does not replace EDI, Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) is the exchange of business data in standard formats. In other words, EDI is at the same level as UBL Schemas as illustrated in the diagram you provided.

EDI standards don't define any transport mechanism, EDI standardizes the syntax for business messages and its envelops that can be used with ebXML MS, WS*, VAN or email, or whatever you've got for exchanging documents.

As to the reference to "Traditional EDI (Stack)", it is rather misleading as it implies the use of CASE Tools and VAN services as the only options. In the beginning much EDI was exchange directly without the use of VANs. VAN services became popular in the 90' and are still ion use today, but never were the only option as the diagram indicates. Today much of EDI is exchange via the internet using EDIINT (AS2, AS3 & AS4). As to the use of CASE tools, that option was hardly ever in use, that is not to say that there were no efforts to standardize such use.

Klaus