Dear all,
I fully agree with Scott.
In a perfect world, there should be one business standard, and maybe several syntactical implementations.
And that is exactly the risk one might take by doing solely a syntactical mapping, without an underlying business model: you have a
fairly large chance of also mapping EDI-specific fields/structures. What I mean by specific is that they have nothing to do with the
underlying business, but are only a consequence of how the EDI syntax is used.
That is why the TMWG (and SWIFT, and probably other standardisation bodies) is supporting the use of business modelling: because
that is the best way to separate syntax related issues from the business. This will then result in quote 'XML standards in Travel
will have no EDI "dependency" unquote.
So ideally, one should reverse engineer the syntax dependent messages into a model, thus filtering out any syntax residues, and from
that model then define the rules to convert e.g. into XML. Experience has learnt us that in that way, there will also be a reduction
in conversion rules since all syntax-specific elements have been removed. I would call this the long but correct way, instead of a
quick and dirty.
Any comments / suggestions??
Brs
Kris
[email protected] wrote:
> I'm not sure how to read this, but I believe that what
> Duane is saying is that companies wanting to use the
> ebXML standards should not have to 'depend' on any
> EDI standards. - Not that shouldn't be a mapping/linkage
> between the technologies.
> -Duane, don't let me mis interpret you.
>
> I will add to this to say that from working with the Travel
> industry folks regularly with emerging Travel XML standards,
> that clearly this is the common scenario. Not that EDI-savvy
> folks are not present, and of course bring their experience forward,
> but the current emerging XML standards in Travel will have
> no EDI "dependency".............
>
> Scott R. Hinkelman
> IBM Austin
> Architecture and Development, Industry XML/Java Standards
> Office: 512-823-8097 TL793-8097
> Home: 512-930-5675
> Cell: 512-940-0519
> [email protected]
> Fax: 512-838-1074
>
> David RR Webber <[email protected]> on 01/05/2000 06:13:31 PM
>
> To: Duane Nickull <[email protected]>
> cc: "[unknown]" <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: ebXML adoption?
>
> Message text written by Duane Nickull
> >Again, this will make it possible to participate solely within the
> confines of ebXML for those wishing to abandon their EDI.
> <<<<<<<<<<<<<
>
> Woooow! Careful here! Abandoning EDI is not in many peoples
> plans here!!!
>
> Let's talk leveraging their investment in EDI, while accommodating
> the newer opportuinites that ebXML affords. Remember EDI today
> runs massive amount of B2B - about $700 billion annual from latest
> figures I've seen....
>
> DW.
begin:vcard
n:Ketels;Kris
tel;fax:+32.2.655.45.52
tel;work:+32.2.655.44.85
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
org:S.W.I.F.T. sc;Standards
adr:;;;;;;
version:2.1
email;internet:[email protected]
title:Product Manager Standards
x-mozilla-cpt:;1
fn:Kris Ketels
end:vcard
