| About InfoWorld : Advertise : Subscribe : Contact Us : Awards : Events : Store |
 |
||||
|
||||
 |
||||
 |
|
|||
 |
||||
|
|
|
||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 COLUMN
Conflicting standards hold back EDI from playing a larger role in today's e-commerce IN SPITE OF the recent boom in coverage, e-commerce is not new. For more than 30 years, EDI (electronic data interchange) has been one of the most important innovations to enterprise commerce for trading and tracking business-to-business transactions.
But as the new e-commerce grows, EDI is losing ground. According to Yankee Group, the one-to-one model of EDI is expected to see a per-dollar transaction increase of only 36 percent during the next four years. Compared to a projected 168 percent increase foreseen in the many-to-many model of b-to-b exchanges in the same period, many old-school players are left with concerns of how to remain competitive. So, what's holding back EDI? It's mostly the interoperability among the various transport models, which demand agreed-upon guidelines from all participants. In recent years, we've seen companies such as bTrade, in Irving, Texas, emerge to help businesses bridge the communication gap between older EDI supply-chain applications and newer e-commerce models. But the schism that remains in EDI architecture still precludes the easy migration of these legacy systems to interoperate widely via the Internet. Yes, I know that well-respected groups such as RosettaNet with its Implementation Framework are delivering generic XML-based application standards for secure transaction messaging using S/HTTP (Secure HTTP) over the Internet. Even the Accredited Standards Committee X12 has a standard for packaging X12 messages with secure key exchange. Unfortunately, each carries with it a specification and syntax that excludes other standards. EDI remains an inflexible, tightly coupled architecture that demands a high degree of technical expertise for deployment, thus limiting its potential for development among all but the largest companies. But wait. Don't give up hope just yet. If you're looking to secure the longevity of your EDI investment, you'll be pleased to know that there are two specifications working their way through the standards process of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). These are Applicability Statement 1 (AS1) and Applicability Statement 2 (AS2). The IETF and others have pushed for convergence of the various Internet EDI standards. The resulting IETF EDIINT AS2 draft specification, in particular, holds promise for ensuring the security and interoperability of solutions aimed at the e-business market. The developing EDIINT AS2 defines an HTTP-based mechanism to securely transmit EDI-structured business data over the Internet. AS2 encapsulates all of the positive aspects of its predecessors -- authentication, confidentiality, non-repudiation for transactions, data integrity, and error handling -- but it also builds in support for digital signing via SMIME (Secure MIME) and OpenPGP (Open Specification for Pretty Good Privacy) and includes HTTP as well. I see AS2 poised to succeed in accommodating X12-, XML-, and EDIFACT (EDI For Administration, Commerce, and Transport)-based transactions in a single specification, greatly reducing the amount of preconfiguration handshaking required of EDI. AS2 is still in draft form and has been several years in the making. Dale Moberg, one of the trio now responsible for drafting AS2, told me they are moving ever closer to completing a new specification for publishing. His associates in this effort are Dick Brooks and Rik Drummond of the Drummond Group, in Fort Worth, Texas. What will help this specification, and EDI, to succeed is the help and support of the industry itself. And that is happening as well. CommerceNet and the Uniform Code Council have developed testing profiles that put vendors implementations of new standards to the test. To certify the interoperability of solutions for secure Internet EDI, as well as to encourage and promote cooperation among vendors, each group offers platforms that put applications through the rigors of testing. Features such as transport-level interoperability, encryption, digital signature, and receipt handling are all scrutinized to the standard, enabling vendors to debug their software systems and ensure compliance. Conflicting standards are bound to complicate EDI's progress for some time to come. But if we encourage vendors to support common standards such as EDIINT AS2, we may not have to retire the EDI workhorse just yet. How does your company view the future of EDI? Let me know at james_borck@infoworld.com. James R. Borck is managing analyst in the InfoWorld Test Center.  RELATED SUBJECTS  E-CommerceMORE > SPONSORED WHITE PAPERS 
SPONSORED LINKS
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
