OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

ebxml-transport message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]

Subject: Re: Message Header Info

Mr. Dobbing may have been contributing ISO 9735 to ensure that ebXML's
routing mechanism takes into account all of the logical addressing
schemes, including ISO 6523, now provided by EDIFACT.  This means that
routing must accommodate all of those schemes listed at the JSWG (Joint
Syntax Working Group) at http://pc1.gefeg.com/jswg, specifically those
denoted by the codes defined for D.E. 0007, Identification code
qualifier, at http://pc1.gefeg.com/jswg/cl/s4/000/cl3.htm.

I would augment Mr. Dobbing's contribution by referring the ebXML
Transport group to an analogous list of logical addressing qualifiers
used by ANSI ASC X12 in the I05 (Interchange ID Qualifier) element in
the ISA Interchange Control Header segment.

William J. Kammerer
4950 Blazer Memorial Pkwy.
Dublin, OH USA 43017-3305
(614) 791-1600

Visit FORESIGHT Corp. at http://www.foresightcorp.com/
"Commerce for a New World"

-----Original Message-----
From: Tim McGrath <tmcgrath@tedis.com.au>
To: DDOBBING <ddobbing@attmail.com>
Cc: ebXML-Transport@lists.oasis-open.org
Date: Monday, February 14, 2000 8:53 PM
Subject: Re: Message Header Info

Dave's response raises an interesting issue about EDIFACT Headers.

He has provided Version 4. specifications.  This latest standard
provides several functional extensions such as repeating elements,
formal dependency notes and enhanced security.

However in a practical sense many existing EDIFACT users/systems/value
added networks are not in a hurry to migrate from  Syntax Version 3 (or
Version 2).   Furthermore, Version 4 is not fully upwardly compatible
with previous syntax versions potentially making such migration costly.
On this basis it appears that much of the EDIFACT community are now
stable at version 3.

My suspicion is that to provide a more appropriate bridge between
EDIFACT and  XML we must address the systems that are currently in use
(ie Version 3 Headers).

Should this be undertaken in parallel to the analysis of EDIFACT Version
4 ??

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]

Search: Match: Sort by:
Words: | Help

Powered by eList eXpress LLC