Lists Home |
Date Index |
>So, at least where I work, I get the distinct impression (hopefully false)
>that organisations are actually wanting the data interchange format to be
>what they build new back end systems over, so they don't have to do bother
>with any transformation. This seems an amazingly short-sighted, and
>dangerous thing to do. A technology touted as an aid to loosely coupling
>disparate applications, is, ironically, leading to tighter coupling than
Does this tight binding mean that the only way customers can make
XML work for them is by pushing the XML transformations into their
persistent/proprietary data-store? Is this because they think
on-the-fly XML transformation tools/products (or homegrown solutions)
are not efficient enough?
>From: "Mark Seaborne" <MSeaborne@origoservices.com>
>To: "Paul Prescod" <email@example.com>
>CC: "xml-dev" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>Subject: RE: [xml-dev] What is XML For?
>Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 08:49:13 +0100
>Received: from mail.oasis-open.org ([188.8.131.52]) by
>mc1-f4.law16.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5600); Fri, 25 Oct
>2002 00:49:04 -0700
>Received: (qmail 7082 invoked by uid 60909); 25 Oct 2002 07:58:19 -0000
>Received: (qmail 7074 invoked by uid 0); 25 Oct 2002 07:58:18 -0000
>Mailing-List: contact email@example.com; run by ezmlm
>Delivered-To: mailing list firstname.lastname@example.org
>X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.5762.3
>X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [xml-dev] What is XML
>X-OriginalArrivalTime: 25 Oct 2002 07:49:04.0670 (UTC)
>Where once we would design EDI (EDIFACT) messages, now we design XML
>messages. XML is just fine for representing the kind of hierarchical
>structures that EDI uses. I don't know that it does a better job of it than
>EDI, but it has the advantage of being ubiquitous.
>On the other hand, XML actually can have a big disadvantage over EDI, the
>same one that is its main advantage, actually. Not many people ever thought
>of using EDI everywhere, for for anything; it is okay over the wire, but it
>is normally transformed into something more malleable as quickly as
>possible, once received. In theory XML is a step up from EDI, because there
>is a whole raft of tools available to help you to transform it.
>Unfortunately, some organisations appear to be taking the position that
>because XML is now usable in every tool under the sun, that not only should
>it be used everywhere, but it can be used everywhere as is. So, at least
>where I work, I get the distinct impression (hopefully false) that
>organisations are actually wanting the data interchange format to be what
>they build new back end systems over, so they don't have to do bother with
>any transformation. This seems an amazingly short-sighted, and dangerous
>thing to do. A technology touted as an aid to loosely coupling disparate
>applications, is, ironically, leading to tighter coupling than existed
>I think this problem is exasperated by organisations such as the one I work
>for. If you sign up to use a standard within your vertical industry, and
>send people along to committees to influence message design, you get a
>false sense of being in control. This will presumably evaporate once member
>organisations begin exchanging data with organisations outwith the
>standards body, who refuse to use our standards. That'll learn 'em.
> >Paul Prescod wrote:
> >XML is weird for business data? Did you ever work with EDI?
>EDI isn't weird, it is actually very simple, it just looks terribly
>complicated. For a company wanting to sell EDI based software this is a
>godsend. The software is fairly trivial to put together, but because EDI
>looks hard to your average consumer, it is quite easy to convince them to
>part with lots of money, firstly to use the software, and secondly to have
>someone else set it up and maintain it for them. This gives the software
>vendor a nice, steady stream of recurring revenue for hardly any work.
>XML has suffered from the problem of looking too simple to the user. Whilst
>this has helped uptake, users of XML expect to get it for free, or less.
>Fortunately a lot of people are putting a lot of effort into making XML
>seem as hard as EDI, and I think their efforts are beginning to pay off.
>The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
>initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
>The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
>To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online