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
LMI Logistics Management Institute
2000 Corporate Ridge, McLean, VA 22102-7805
(703) 917-7177 Fax (703) 917-7518
[log in to unmask]
"Opportunity is what you make of it"