Re: XML Gave A War, But Nobody Came

["Kurt Cagle" <cagle@olywa.net>]

I sometimes worry that in the course of attempting to unify on common object
standards we are not all missing the fact that codifying a new PO or Invoice
object is very much secondary to coding a common set of grammars (the XML
technology set). There won't be a common invoice or PO, and anyone who
thinks there will be will be seriously disappointed; people have too many
varying requirements to work a one-size fits all document. Instead, we
should be concentrating on second order commonalities -- how can we make
sure that a given invoice can be transformed into another invoice with as
little overhead as possible. Ironically, I think that this will cause best
fit niches to emerge for certain types of invoices, purchase orders,
employee definitions, and so forth. If you and I agree to use a given
paradigm for development of our POs (I choose paradigm A and use choose
paradigm B) and an XSLT mapping from paradigm A to paradigm B exists (and
vice versa), then the programming that you and I will need to do involves
handling those divergences from the established paradigms. As extra
programming increases costs, this will push more and more people to move to
stable paradigms (nee schemas) over time, as the weight to examine the
perturbations on the schema contend against budgetary pressures.

-- Kurt Cagle (Another Kurt)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rachel Foerster" <rachelf@ix.netcom.com>
To: "'Kanaskie, Kurt A (Kurt)'" <kkanaskie@lucent.com>; "'William J.
Kammerer'" <wkammerer@foresightcorp.com>; "'ebXML List'"
<ebXML@lists.oasis-open.org>
Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2000 10:31 AM
Subject: RE: XML Gave A War, But Nobody Came


> Kurt,
>
> 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.
>
> The mere fact that there are company-specific variants of both the
> UN/EDIFACT messages and the X12 transaction sets PLUS all of the
proprietary
> forms lead me to believe that having one common single format for any
given
> business document is a pipe dream at best....my bet is that each of us
will
> be able to fly to the moon in our individual space crafts before achieving
> that holy grail.
>
> Therefore, why not spend our collective efforts on developing a common
> framework/infrastructure that will support interoperability of any and all
> variants? That's much more achievable than developing a single common
> document format and then getting the world to adopt it.
>
> My two cents worth.....
>
> Rachel
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Kanaskie, Kurt A (Kurt) [mailto:kkanaskie@lucent.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2000 11:48 AM
> > To: 'rachelf@ix.netcom.com'; 'William J. Kammerer'; 'ebXML List'
> > Subject: RE: XML Gave A War, But Nobody Came
> >
> >
> > Rachel, William and others,
> >
> > I don't get it. I think the article was biased towards the "Internet
> > exchanges and e-businesses" perspective. It's like asking middleware
> > companies if there should be a single API for all ERP
> > systems. Of course
> > they will say no, because it is their business to connect
> > them all together.
> > Internet exchanges that can support more standards will have
> > a greater value
> > add, I guess. I also think it is a bit short sited of the
> > execs to not see
> > the light and work toward a common global standard. What
> > advantage is there
> > in multiple implementations of the same thing?
> >
> > I do understand the role of ebXML to provide a common
> > "infrastructure" for
> > all XML messages. But why stop there. I would much rather see a single
> > common PO rather that 5 or 6 different versions of the same
> > thing. That
> > starts to smell like the (dare I say) old EDI.
> >
> > I work in Lucent's CIO Strategy, Planning and Architecture
> > group where we
> > now have to deal with a PO from OAG and RN. Sure, the
> > immediate reaction is
> > to choose one as the Lucent standard and translate all others
> > to it, but I
> > don't want that architecture to persist or to proliferate. It
> > just adds
> > extra work.
> >
> > IMHO, of course,
> >
> > ________________________________________________________________
> > Kurt Kanaskie
> > Lucent Technologies
> > kkanaskie@lucent.com
> > (610) 712-3096
> >
> >  -----Original Message-----
> > From: Rachel Foerster [mailto:rachelf@ix.netcom.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2000 11:57 AM
> > To: 'William J. Kammerer'; 'ebXML List'
> > Subject: RE: XML Gave A War, But Nobody Came
> >
> > William,
> >
> > I think you've got it....let's hope others get it too!
> >
> > Rachel
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-ebxml@lists.oasis-open.org
> > > [mailto:owner-ebxml@lists.oasis-open.org]On Behalf Of William J.
> > > Kammerer
> > > Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2000 10:01 AM
> > > To: ebXML List
> > > Subject: Re: XML Gave A War, But Nobody Came
> > >
> > >
> > > I was asked privately to expand on the snippet from "XML Gave
> > > A War, But
> > > Nobody Came", (May 29, 2000), at
> > > http://www.techweb.com/se/directlink.cgi?INW20000529S0046;
> > i.e., "what
> > > is the [effect] of set standards for structure vs. [a]
> > common, global
> > > standard for the language for XML/EDI?"
> > >
> > >    Asked if they cared about which XML version will win, [nine
> > >    e-commerce executives at top Internet exchanges and e-businesses]
> > >    all shook their heads. They will fight to set standards for the
> > >    structure of XML documents in their respective industries, they
> > >    said, but not about setting a common, global standard for the
> > >    language.
> > >
> > > On  first blush it would seem that setting a common, global
> > > standard for
> > > the [XML] language is what we're trying to do in ebXML.   But we're
> > > really building a universal framework for XML business to business
> > > messaging.   In other words, ebXML recognizes the world
> > > doesn't need yet
> > > another purchase order and we're not going to try to build one.
> > >
> > > Instead, all the existing POs (and other messages) defined by the
> > > various industry initiatives can be transported, routed and
> > > packaged by
> > > ebXML's TR&P, and reposed and registered by ebXML's RegRep.
> >  And that
> > > includes "legacy" X12 and EDIFACT messages!
> > >
> > > New messages can be built from ebXML's Core Components and
> > arranged by
> > > ebXML's Business Processes.  With all this rich
> > > infrastructure provided
> > > by the ebXML framework, even RosettaNet, xCBL and eCO can
> > be subsumed
> > > into the Greater ebXML - the Grand Unified Framework.
> > >
> > > Or something like that.  Don't ask me what I mean.
> > >
> > > 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"
> > >
> > >
>