LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 15.5

Help for XML-L Archives


XML-L Archives

XML-L Archives


View:

Next Message | Previous Message
Next in Topic | Previous in Topic
Next by Same Author | Previous by Same Author
Chronologically | Most Recent First
Proportional Font | Monospaced Font

Options:

Join or Leave XML-L
Reply | Post New Message
Search Archives


Subject: Re: Is it as bad as this? Comments please.
From: Frank Boumphrey <[log in to unmask]>
Reply-To:General discussion of Extensible Markup Language <[log in to unmask]>
Date:Wed, 13 Sep 2000 11:28:51 -0400
Content-Type:text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
Parts/Attachments

text/plain (77 lines)


Interesting.

We are in fact developing XML wrappers for ASC x12n strings as required by
hipaa. However we are just doing this to allow us manage our internal
storage of data. The electronic data is not sent as XML but as an ASC x12
deliniated character stream. The responses come back to us in the same form
and are then rewrapped in XML.

As the writter pointed out though the important thing is for everyone to
speak the same language whether it be a dialect of XML or an ASCII stream.

Frank
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Crawford" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2000 9:24 AM
Subject: Re: Is it as bad as this? Comments please.


> John E. Simpson wrote -
>
> >Vocabulary inconsistencies don't strike me as a killer, either. >BizTalk
> vs.Rosettanet vs. xCBL etc.: bleeagh. That's what XSLT is >for.
>
> If you are interested in using XML as a single consistent data markup
method for
> eBusiness, then vocabulary inconsistencies should scare you right down to
your
> core.  XSLT can only transform what is there, it can't manufacture
critical
> information that one or another XML Business Standard does not support.
And oh
> by the way, just how many transformations can you support.  My client has
over 1
> million trading partners in just about every vertical business in
existence.
> Any idea on how to: 1) handle that many transformations; 2) develop
applications
> with sufficient flexibility to support the possible combinations and
> permutations of mandatory/optional data that is sure to arise; and 3)
support
> the various syntax extensions that are part of the competing standards you
> mention.  And oh by the way, just what does inconsistent vocabulary do to
the
> promise of XML enabled searching/shopping?
>
>
> the boon of XML is its extensibility.  The bane of XML is its
extensibility.  I
> don't care one bit what your vocabulary is if you are using XML in human
to
> computer, or if you are only using it within your firewall, but if you are
using
> it in eBusiness computer to computer then the only way XML will ever
succeed is
> if cross-industry business standards are developed.  Rosettanet, OASIS,
ebXML,
> ANSI ASC X12, and UN/EDIFACT are working this angle.  If and when any of
them
> succeed, and XML really delivers on its promise for eBusiness, has yet to
be
> determined.  I for one sincerely hope they do, because I see XML as the
way to
> use a single consistent technology to create both internal and external
> interoperability.
>
>     Mark
> Mark Crawford
> Research Fellow
> E-business Strategies
> ______
> LMI Logistics Management Institute
> 2000 Corporate Ridge, McLean, VA 22102-7805
> (703) 917-7177   Fax (703) 917-7518
> [log in to unmask]
> http://www.lmi.org
> "Opportunity is what you make of it"

Back to: Top of Message | Previous Page | Main XML-L Page

Permalink



LISTSERV.HEANET.IE

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager