RE: XML Gave A War, But Nobody Came

[Christian Huemer <ch@ifs.univie.ac.at>]

> I don't have all the answers to the questions you posed below. However, my
> perspective re trying to achieve a single, common global standard PO or any
> other document is that it's just not achievable. If it were, everyone would
> already be using one common PO, either the UN/EDIFACT one of the X12 850 or
> some single common variant.
> 

right there is no single PO. this was the UN/EDIFACT and the X12 approach.
but each standard message included a lot of optionality without explaining
when to use which option. it ended up with multiple different interpretations 
or message implementation guidelines of the same 'standard' message.
unfortunately, it was possible to use different UN/EDIFACT constructs for
the same business semantic. in XML the situation is even worse, because
everyone can define its own XML constructs.

so the goal for ebXML is not to define a single PO. but the goal must be
to have one single XML construct for a certain semantic. business
people don't care whether you use an XML-based language, UN/EDIFACT, X12 
or whatever. they know what the data they exchange is all about. but it
is a pity when the construct looks different in various XML-based languages,
or in different message implementation guidelines of the same EDI standard.
this is inefficent and requires a lot of mapping between formats.

accordingly, we need standardized business objects, which define the
semantics in a syntax-neutral way and for which there exists a uniform
mapping to a certain xml construct.

so orders from different sectors  or even at organization level will
include different xml constructs, because they express different
business semantics. but business semantics which are common will look
the same (as XML constract) in each of them.

christian