1. XML/EDIFACT Definition
2. XML/EDIFACT Standards
3. Conclusions
4. Why XML
5. Messages in use
Agenda
• This is certainly not a plea to ‘eliminate’ or change EDIFACT-standards, change
EDIFACT-messages or the way they are used today…
nor to change all EDIFACT-formats into XML-formats
• EDIFACT-messages are very valuable and can be kept in use “as is”
• It’s not an OR story but rather an AND-AND story
So keep using edifact & develop edifact-standards !
3
First of all…
• It is merely a ‘warm call’ to install some XML-Standardization in
the maritime industry
• as an alternative for those who want to use
alternative technologies (for whatever reason)
Whauwww – There is in fact a wikipedia definition for it !
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XML/EDIFACT
XML/EDIFACT is an Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) format used in Business-to-business transactions. It allows EDIFACT message types to be used by XML systems.
EDIFACT is a formal, readable language-for-machine description of electronic business documents.
It uses a syntax close to delimiter separated files. This syntax was invented in the 1980s to keep files as small as possible. Because of the Internet boom around 2000, XML started to become the most widely supported file syntax. But for example, an invoice is still an invoice, containing information about buyer, seller, product, due amount. EDIFACT works perfectly from the content viewpoint, but many software systems struggle to handle its syntax. So combining EDIFACT vocabulary and grammar with XML syntax makes XML/EDIFACT.
The rules for XML/EDIFACT are defined by ISO TS 20625.
“XML/EDIFACT”
5
XML/EDIFACT Standards (1)
7
• XEDI
• Not really an ‘official’ standard
• The names of the XML structure are based on the EDI structure.
(loop, segment, composite, element)
Element are identified by means of attributes, derived from the EDI tags
„transactionSet“+ message type as code attribute <transactionSet code="BERMAN">
„loop“+ segment group as code attribute <loop code="NAD">
„segment“ + segment as code attribute <segment code="BGM">
„element“+ composite data element as code attribute <element code="C082">
„element“+ data element as code attribute <element code="3039">
XML/EDIFACT Standards (2)
9
• ISO 20625
• ISO/TS 20625:2002 (https://www.iso.org/standard/37020.html)“Electronic data interchange for administration, commerce and transport (EDIFACT) -- Rules for generation of XML scheme files (XSD) on the basis of EDI(FACT) implementation guidelines”
• Variant 1:The names of the XML structure will be derived from the EDI tags.They will be given a prefix depending on the structure level (segment group, segment, composite data element or data element).
„M_“+ message type + [suffix] M_ORDERS
„G_“+ segment group + [suffix] G_SG36 or G_LIN_ALC
„S_“ + segment + [suffix] S_LIN
„C_“+ composite data element + [suffix] C_C082_2
„D_“+ data element + [suffix] D_3035
(the suffix is optional and can be generated based upon various semantic understanding of EDI elements)
XML/EDIFACT Standards (2)
11
• ISO 20625
• Variant 2:
“Speaking”, more readable, tags can be used instead of the EDIFACT codes, if desired.
If using readable tags the EDI origin of the corresponding element can be documented
by an appropriate attribute value or with other means of documentation.
<MessageHeader>
<BeginningOfMessage>
<GroupDetailsOfTransport>
<DetailsOfTransport>
<ModeOfTransport>
</ModeOfTransport>
</DetailsOfTransport>
</GroupDetailsOfTransport>
Conclusions on translation standards
14
• XEDI not really /not a lot in use
• ISO 20625 is a more widespread and more used standard
– variant 1 is less readable then variant 2
– structure optimization leads to smaller, more human readable XML messages
– according to ISO this standard provides “a sound method of representing semantic
facts”
APCS and PoA choose for ISO 20625 standard, variant 2.
Why XML…
16
• XML is native supported, out of the box, by most programming languages and tools
• So no (extra) costs & investments needed in extra, often expensive, software needed
for EDIFACT-architecture
• Resources / EDIFACT-specialists are getting more scarce on global software-market
• XML is more easily readable than edifact
• Some advantages in handling XML-messages
– electronic syntax ‘description’ through the use of XSDs,
– which let you easily validate the correct syntax of an XML,
– and which allows you to force correct type-definitions during validation, before
further
coding and processing
We have chosen for XML-messaging instead of EDIFACT-messaging, but …
• with every respect for previous and precious efforts in EDIFACT-standardization
by many organisations or associations – UN/CEFACT, SMDG, PROTECT, …
• by re-using the "EDIFACT modelling language“
XML/EDIFACT reuses business content defined in UN/EDIFACT.
So it’s not only XML, but “XML/EDIFACT”
17
(in alphabetical order)
APERAK
BAPLIE
COARRI
CODECO
COPINO
CUSREP
CUSRES
IFTDGN
IFTSAI
IFTSTA
Messages in use
19
Top Related