e-Business Value Added Hub

**roger rabbit** · 31 July 2003, 15:07

I'd rather have my bilingual secretary sitting on my lap with my foreign suppliers invoice in her hand, licking the pencil as she demonstrates her expertise in French - you with me?

That's what I call Value Added.

**Simerian** · 31 July 2003, 15:14

More XXX than XML then?

**Simerian** · 6 August 2003, 09:56

Anybody else have any thoughts on e-Business that doesn't revolve around "marketing" - i.e. the real work of electronic document interchange?

**ScotsPine** · 6 August 2003, 11:30

what do you mean exactly by

"secure electronic document translation" encrypted xml?...?

**OrangeHopper** · 6 August 2003, 12:08

Re: what do you mean exactly by

Presumably you are thinking about web services that provide a secure translation of message type a (protocol a, standard b, message c) to message type d (protocol e, standard f, message g).

I have assumed there is probably a large market for this, particularly when the development of translators has traditionally been very expensive. Try buy a licence from mecator for example. However, the main issue is who needs what translated by a third party and will pay for the service.

I have not used BizTalk but have assumed it has much of what is required to start a service of this nature.

**Simerian** · 6 August 2003, 18:18

I'll answer two questions in one go...

Secure Transactions: Security has to occur at a number of levels, starting with physical access. Can't do much about this with respect to "client" sites. The next step is secure login accounts over networks. Data encryption should be applied at network and business data level.

Whether or not the application data protocol is XML is irrelevant - There should be *no* restrictions in data formats.

Hub services should be provided to allow a range of connection methods, internet & VAN interconnection.

Payments on subscription and "pay-per-use" tariffs.

The key to success is the ability to integrate to ERP systems for maximum hub participation and the "desktop" to generate spoke interaction by SMEs

**Martin Underwood** · 7 August 2003, 09:15

Sounds great. I'll take ten!

Is this vapourware or do you actually plan to build this mammoth hub?
You state there should be *no* restrictions on document formats, etc, etc, etc.

Have you looked at how complicated trading partner communications actually is? You've only to read the business document models of OAG or Rossettanet to realise it is a massive undertaking. OAG has been trying to establish a common language for EDI for many years. It is backed by many of the top application providers, yet in its seventh OAG release is still far from a real standard.

Then we look at the hubs themselves: BEA Weblogic Integration springs to mind. Have you seen how complicated the adaptors are to connect to SAP, Oracle, Peoplesoft and so on?

**OrangeHopper** · 7 August 2003, 09:37

Re: Sounds great. I'll take ten!

Still think the secret is to find the community that needs the service!

Once you have that then you have something to build. You need to know what needs translating to what. Making it secure is just another service on top.

**Simerian** · 7 August 2003, 11:16

Over 12 years worth of supporting trading standards amongst a trading base of thousands has kind of given me some insight into the problems that arise. That is why I know that a "common" trading standard can *never* be achieved.

You have to be a pragmatist - definitive document standards are counter-productive from the inceptive point of view of client take on: produce "this" or forget it? Trading standards should reflect the fact that documents, and so definitions, are only a sum of their parts and it is data components that require the most attention when translating data.

EDIFACT, TRADACOMS, X12, they all display rigid genealogical structures that cannot be remoulded when conforming to a standard. A flat structure that allows referencing between entities gives much greater flexibility - just as any relational model.

Do I intend to build this hub - it may keep me in bread and water when completed so I am actively pursuing it.

Client take on is of course the essence - "no traders" means "no sales". SMEs don't want to know about standards and message protocols - rightly so. They want easy, inexpensive, interfaces either desktop based or via the internet. Some still want Fax2EDI. Larger corps want ERP integration.

I was heavily involved in a scratch-built bespoke EDI project over a decade ago, the product of which I have not seen surpassed in its overall functionality and flexibility - or more importantly, cost!

e-Business Value Added Hub