EDIFACT Message Fragment
Copyright 2006 Robert J. Glushko
Finish business process patterns from 8 February
"Document Automation" or STP Pattern
Modes of Exchange
Information pattern resources for scavenger hunt
Vertical vs Horizontal Vocabularies
EDI {and,or,vs} XML
Many business processes can be described as "moving information around"
At each step information might be added to the input document or a new document might be created that contains most of the input document's content
Clerical functions can usually be totally automated
Create documents with templates or via guided assembly (aka "wizards")
Minimize manual intervention via rule-based routing, access control, exception handling
Concurrent process re-engineering
Documents are regenerated when source information changes
End-to-end perspective to maximize content reuse
Standard content components and processes
EDI's roots in the 1960s with freight industry standard electronic formats for bills and other documents
By 1970s banking and grocery / retail industries had standard messages and private networks for exchanging them
In 1979 ANSI initiates US national EDI standards called ASC X12
1987 - EDIFACT standards body organized in UN to consolidate national EDI standards
late 1990s EDIFACT proposes collaboration with XML community to develop syntax-neutral libraries: ebXML
EDI is widely used to automate routine transactions between established trading partners
Reduce costs of interconnecting business systems because connection is via document exchange instead of via direct integration
EDI reference models for business processes and standard documents provide starting points for relationships between trading partners
ISA*00* *00* *08*JCPenny111 *ZZ*test22222 *971107*1220*U*00302*112240001*1*P*@ GS*PO*test111111*test22222*19971107*1220*123456789*X*003042 ST*850*4567 BEG*00*NE*10117564**19990105 REF*ZI*11 REF*1V*97-0049393 PER*OD*Chris Smith*EM*csmith@supplyworks.com PER*RE*Tom Gerry*TE*617-861-7900x1567 DTM*074*19990120*1806 N1*BE*SupplyWorks*91*FFF N1*BY*SupplyWorks*91*ABC1235 N1*EY*Chris Smith*92*csmith1 N2*Room 208C*SupplyWorks Corporate N3*57 Bedford Street*Building 2 N4*Lexington*MA*02173 N1*ST*SupplyWorks*ZZ*SW1 N1*SE*EC Office Supplies*1*98629321 N2*Purchase Department N3*123 Main Street N4*NY*NY*03417 PO1*1*24*EA*1.86**UI*999999922234 TXI*TX*9.41 PO1*2*12*CA*25.67**UI*999999955567 TXI*TX*4.51 CTT*2*42 SE*24*4567 GE*1*123456789 IEA*1*112240001
EDI's syntax has serious problems
EDI's ways of encoding semantics have serious problems
But reports of EDI's death have been greatly exaggerated
"Internet EDI" (use HTTP) and "Web EDI" (use Web forms) are attempts to preserve EDI's viability and to allow small suppliers for whom EDI isn't affordable to send and receive EDI messages from their customers
The Mode of Exchange is "the set of standard procedures, common practices, communication patterns, and norms governing routine behavior in the value chain relationship between a supplier and its customer"
This is a much broader definition of what's exchanged that simply "exchange of money" which is what many economists focus on.
The mode of exchange also governs the extent of exchange of information and know-how, the development or non-development of trust, and norms of reciprocity or fairness in the relationship
In the exit mode, problems with suppliers result in a change of suppliers
Auctions are the big "weapon" against suppliers in exit mode
The US auto industry has generally worked in exit mode, especially in lower tiers
In the voice mode, problems are resolved by collaboration, which creates opportunities to improve processes and designs
Collaborative design and inventory planning software are key technologies for voice mode relationships
The Japanese auto industry has generally worked in voice mode
Can our systems talk to each other?
Can they exchange electronic documents?
Do we have common logical models for the information we are trying to exchange?
Can our people talk to each other?
Do we have a common vocabulary or reference model (like SCOR or RosettaNet) so we can understand each other's roles in the patterns we are trying to follow?
Do we have executive sponsorship that encourages us to talk with each other about how to be more efficient and effective in our supply chain?
Do we trust each other?
Any large enterprise has already automated its supply chain to some extent or it couldn't compete
Consider how an enterprise might further evolve its supply chain and demand chain
Web-based indirect procurement is easiest automation opportunity
Firms may outsource indirect procurement by joining a "horizontal" marketplace
Setting up information (catalog, inventory, orders) exchange with a distributor
Assembly outsourcing can speed manufacturing cycles
Joining an online "vertical" marketplace to improve access to its business customers
When every enterprise takes these steps the supply chain qualitatively changes into a supply network with much less control by "chain masters"
The most accessible information pattern resources are XML vocabularies (or "schemas" or "tag sets")
A vocabulary is a set of elements and attributes and the rules by which they combine
Linguists shudder at this definition because it conflates the vocabulary and the grammar
XML purists call these "applications" of XML but this conflicts with the more common usage of that word to mean "software application"
The words people use to describe things or concepts are "embodied" in their context and experiences... so they are often different or even "bad" with respect to the words used by others
Typical results (from "The Vocabulary Problem in Human-Computer Interaction" (Furnas, Landauer, Gomez, and Dumais – CACM 11/87):
Probability of two people applying the same term to an object (.07-.18)
Probability of someone using the most popular term for an object (.15-.36)
Probability of two people using the same term intending the same object (.15-.73)
There is no one good access term or name for most objects. The idea of an "obvious, "self-evident," or "natural" term is a myth
What would "good" words be like?
Where would they come from?
How do you get people to use them?
Vocabularies must exist because:
There is no predefined set of tags
And since there is no predefined tag set, there can't be any predefined semantics
Semantics are defined in the schema and its documentation about what the elements and attributes mean
So using XML without a (documented) schema makes little sense
Vocabularies are desirable because people want to have a set of tags that is customized to their problem or industry so that they can take full advantage of XML
A good vocabulary represents a significant investment in defining a domain, identifying its key semantic components, and specifying the constraints and rules governing the combination and reuse of those components
A good vocabulary is a reference model for the domain that facilitates communication between enterprises operating within it
Is the ease with which you can create a new vocabulary
The key word here is "you"
When XML emerged as a W3C Candidate Recommendation (12/97):
HTML was being corrupted by proprietary vendor extensions in the "browser wars"
EDI standards processes were viewed as intolerably slow and nondeterministic
Is the same as the best thing: the ease with which you can create a new vocabulary
There are often multiple vocabularies for the same or related domains and especially for the common information models that are used in more than one domain
That two concepts use the same XML tag names doesn't prove anything; the same content will inevitably be described using different names, and different content will be given the same names
Vertical:
Particular industry or vertical market
Detailed product semantics
Specialized process semantics
Sometimes called "domain-specific" languages
Horizontal
Concepts that are common to all (or a large number of) vocabularies
Turn proprietary APIs into XML vocabularies by wrapping "<" and ">" around the names of methods that set and return values
Turn proprietary database schemas into XML vocabularies by wrapping "<" and ">" around the names that define the structure of a record or object
Turn existing EDI messages into XML by automated conversion, using the delimiters for segments, composites, and elements as "handles" for content
Turn existing EDI messages into XML
Analyze EDI messages to identify the "syntax-neutral" conceptual models they contain
Encode these conceptual models in XML
If no vocabulary exists:
Identify current and potential uses of the vocabulary
Analyze existing documents and information sources (with EDI, identify "syntax-neutral" models of message content)
Design conceptual models that satisfy the requirements in a feasible way
Encode the models in XML schemas
The value of a language depends on how many people (or computers) understand it
How do you encourage and enable others to understand your language?
Standardization Approach 1: "Understand my language or I won't do business with you"
Standardization Approach 2: "Excuse me, here's my language, would you like to do business with me?"
Chapter 6 of Document Engineering
Microformats [Online]
Universal Business Language 1.0 (Sections 1-6.4)