VS: Message Header Info

[Matti.Vasara@fingrid.fi]

The most comprehensive system for EDIFACT is in the EDIRA work now by Afnor
Alain Thiénot. Email i suspect is alain.thienot@email.afnor.fr.
Matti Vasara 

> -----Alkuperäinen viesti-----
> Lähettäjä:	William J. Kammerer [SMTP:wkammerer@foresightcorp.com]
> Lähetetty:	15. helmikuuta 2000 5:25
> Vastaanottaja:	ebXML Transport (E-mail)
> Aihe:	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
> FORESIGHT Corp.
> 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
> <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 ??
> 
> 
>