ubl-ndrsc message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [Elist Home]
Subject: RE: [ubl-lcsc] Re: [ubl-ndrsc] UN/CEFACT ATG "Generic Header" Project
- From: A Gregory <agregory@aeon-llc.com>
- To: ubl-lcsc@lists.oasis-open.org, ubl-ndrsc@lists.oasis-open.org
- Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 03:09:45 -0800
Folks:
I
haven't been able to send e-mail for a few days, but now that I
can...
I
guess I am very uncomfortable with the thought that we will be designing
documents that are not suitable for use on systems that have large legacy
components. Just because some older architectures were not as clean and
wonderful as the new ones we're coming up with in ebXML, etc., doesn't mean that
users will be moving to newer architectures as the standards are released. Most
companies have to deal with some kind of gateway architecture that combines the
old and the new, including EDI and possibly some of the newer stuff.
This
is why I think generic header is important - because it helps people implement a
newer architecture while still being compatible with legacy systems that are
somewhat limited.
UBL is
supposed to be immediately useable. I would guess that the number of legacy
implementations requiring (or usefully having) some type of control ("envelope")
data in the message still vastly outnumber pure ebXML-based architectures. We're
not in the business of dictating architectures to anybody, just making useful
messages that will work with different types of
architectures.
I
think this argues in favor of providing places in our documents where people can
put generic header information if they need to.
Cheers,
Arofan
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC