Re: XML Gave A War, But Nobody Came

[Jon Bosak <bosak@boethius.eng.sun.com>]

[wkammerer@foresightcorp.com:]

| 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.

Yes, I think that this is the right approach.

[rachelf@ix.netcom.com:]

| 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.

While I agree that it's not possible in most cases to define a
single *simple* standard PO (or whatever) that will suit all
purposes, I believe that it is possible (a) to define a horribly
complex standard PO that will suit just about all purposes, and
more interestingly (b) to define a reasonably small number of
standard POs that will serve just about all purposes.

But only time will tell whether the second hunch is right.

And it is not our current purpose in ebXML to be attempting either
one.

So at the end of the day I agree with Rachel:

| 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.

Jon