[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
abcoatesecure-xmldev@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> Dear David,
>
> Hi. I think we met at XML 2005 last year. I've
> recently become a UK representative to the UN/CEFACT
> TMG that produces CCTS (http://www.untmg.org/).
>
>
Tony you are correct, we did meet at XML 2005. Small world. :)
Thanks for the information. It is pretty much the same conclusion that
I've come to myself. I agree that long term specifications that
implement the standards can get a degree of interoperability and people
are not re-inventing the same wheel. I spent 10 years dealing with EDI
and the interoperability mess.
A follow up question, have you noticed anything in the way of
performance issues in regards to implementing CCTS? Particularly with
the additional namespaces a validating parser has to be aware. I've
done my own tests, and for both Xerces2 and Microsoft's validating
parser without pre-compiling the schema or doing parser pooling, it
seems to add about 71 milliseconds to the overall validation time.
This of course is greatly dependent on the size of the schema, and any
type of system over head.
Thanks
Dave
> --- David Carver <d_a_carver@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>> 1. Why make the switch to CCTS?
>> 2. What are the short term and long term benefits.
>> 3. Are there any down sides to migrating to CCTS?
>>
>
> The long term advantage to everyone will be if we
> adopt a common methodology, so that we aren't all
> re-inventing the same wheel every time one of us
> starts a new project. That is what I am looking for
> CCTS to deliver.
>
> Pragmatically, my experience is that data and
> methodology standards often don't pay for themselves
> until there are software applications available which
> support those standards. As a really early adopter,
> you have to write as much software as you would for a
> proprietary approach, and possible more (if your
> proprietary approach is narrower in scope than the
> standards approach).
>
> I expect UBL to make CCTS use widespread, but people
> won't be using it *because* it is CCTS, they will be
> using it because that is what their trading partners
> are using. They won't realise they are using CCTS
> under the hood/bonnet. Once there is that momentum in
> the market, I think there will be a business case to
> do new work using CCTS, and possible move some
> existing work. SAP is moving to using CCTS in its
> products too, that will cause other folks to move to
> CCTS, possibly without realising it.
>
> You are going to have to make a serious decision about
> where on the adoption curve you want to be. I think
> it's fair to say that CCTS is still at the early
> adopters stage, and possibly will be for a couple more
> years.
>
> Cheers, Tony.
>
|
