[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: ERP standards
RE: ERP standards
Sun, 24 Feb 2002 10:30:15 -0800
Neil, Derek, can we have a couple more rounds of argument
here on your list? I will be happy to take it elsewhere if you
My next post will be nothing but a list of approximately ten
technical and adoption issues why the individual
and small business should reject the XBRL GL.
The #1 issue is why anybody needing a GL interface to their
Peachhree or Quickbooks or AccPac should adopt XML Schema,
XLink, XML namespaces, XBRL 2.0 Framework, and then finally,
point all of this apparatus at the XBRL taxonomy plug-in for GL.
I generally don't like doing this because it's a one-way giveaway
of technical services for which they do not reciprocate. The
group is a bit xenophobic, and gets freaked out by people who
don't care about authority or group loyalty.
Since Robert Lemense and the D14 of UN CEFACT haven't
published any semantic models, I can't comment on theirs
other than to warn you that their intention is to become the official
Registration Authority for GL interface semantics for
UN/CEFACT, in other words, to define the elements and document
structures at the border between the internal systems of a
company, and their external B2B transactions. Just remember,
there WILL be a standards registry, and there WILL be a
registration authority... now, do you understand why it is
important to participate in the process?
No doubt Robert will post soon with a lot of political and
positioning stuff like Zack's and similarly, not addressing a
single fundamental issue. Like, how to support business
processes and single entry business events in a double-entry GL
http://www.arapxml.net/NDEAdef.htm or why double-entry
is necessary, etc.etc.
In closing, I have the highest respect for all the D14 and XBRL,
as human beings and find them all delightful, as people. But
this is politics, and the architecture decisions built into their
standards constitute a transfer of economic wealth from ME to
THEM. There is no reason in the world to accept that,
without an argument of those issues,
- Re: ERP standards, (continued)