RE: Data Dictionary Concept

[Derek Neighbors]

> Personally, I am 100% in favor of building an open-standards platform to
> drive e-transactions. I share your frustration with the inefficiency of what
> is largely a 1,000-year-old process, not to mention that I have written
> several EDIX12 packages and would be happy if I never heard of that
> "standard" again.

Remember this stuff is GPL thats about as open as it gets.

> Two items of note:
> 1) If GNUe is ready for the standards, are the standards ready for GNUe? It
> sems like much of this work is still in process. 

Much is work in process we support many standards now.  Most of our
project is in XML.  We support nearly any SQL92 compliant database etc,
etc.

> 2) We have yet to hear from Derek or anyone else on the GNUe project about
> the data dictionary. Given that this project has a depth of history behind
> it already, key decisions may have already been made.  

I responded in another email.

> Next, I think encapsulating additional information at the types level and/or
> the metadata level could still achieve what I suggest regardless of whether
> the Oasis registry object or any other metadata controller were used. PS -
> I'm not familiar with the Oasis language so forgive me if my description is
> inaccurate.
> 
> The ebXML may offer as much time savings in providing an industry-acceptable
> format as it requires in additional ramp-up. One does wonder, though, with
> all the new acronyms these days, just how many standards one project can
> support.

I keep saying over and over and over and over.  That we will store the
data we need.  The software is GPL and certainly with Integrator and our
other tools you can get data pumped out in about any format you want to
interoperate with others.  Whether it be ebXML or EDI or you name it.

-Derek