HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.edi-l
Date:         Tue, 21 Jul 1992 08:36:40 -0700
From:         Bill Laidley <WLAIDLEY@BCSC02.BITNET>
Subject:      Frequently asked questions (FAQ)

 Recently I got copies of the log files for the EDI discussion list to use to
 put together a FAQ file. Lots of reading...

 Here is a proposed table of contents for the file. I'd like to get suggestions
 on additions/deletions.

 1. Standards contacts - DISA, EDIFACT, SWIFT - names/address/telephone/e-mail
 2. Periodicals - name/address/telephone & comment on quality of content
 3. Books - title/author/publisher & comment on quality of content
 4. Videos - title/publisher & comment on quality of content
 5. Sources for books, periodicals & videos
 6. Seminars - source & comment on quality of content
 7. User's groups - location/specialties/contacts

 I've focussed on sources of information in this list since that seems to be
 what is needed most. Other things that might be useful would be to get DISA
 to supply some summary information on standards in soft copy form so
 that it was available as well.

 Regards, Bill Laidley
 EDI Expert Team
 BC Systems Corp. Vancouver (604) 660-9705
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.edi-l
Date:         Fri, 31 Jul 1992 12:56:00 LCL
From:         Dave Kearns <DKEARNS.TCC@KLAVEN.TCI.COM>
Subject:      Re: AI & EDI
Comments: To: MSHines <EDI-L@uccvma.ucop.edu>

>Being an auditor, where do the human checks and balances exist in the
>AI systems being discussed here?  For example, what if I ask my
>AI/EDI system to procure X items, but I make a small mistake and key
>in X+1000 .. where is this caught?  I hope somewhere before the
>delivery on the loading dock!!!  There still needs to be
>authorization of transactions somewhere in the process - from an
>internal controls standpoint.  How does this work?

******************* NOTES from Dave Kearns (DKEARNS @ TCC) at 7/31/92 12:54p

The nice thing about AI/Expert Systems is that - not only can they do
range checking - but they can 'learn', and recognize that if you attempt
to order 1005 units of an item you normally order in the 3-7 unit range,
you should be flagged..........

-dave
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Mailer: Pegasus Mail v2.1c R5.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.edi-l
Date:         Fri, 31 Jul 1992 08:25:10 EST
From:         "Michael S. Hines" <MSHINES@FREH-03MS.ADPC.PURDUE.EDU>
Subject:      Re: AI & EDI
Comments: To: EDI-L@uccvma.ucop.edu

>       I'd suggest that a good place to start on negotiation systems of
>the type I previously described is to consider offering real-time
>query transactions that just return information, like price and
>availability, but don't actually commit the transaction.   Things like
>
>   "Do you have a part X for a Y?"
>   "Maybe.  Provide serial number and date of manufacture of Y."
>   "Do you have a part X for a Y serial NNN manufactured MMDDYYYY?"
>   "No, but that part has been superseded by Z, which may work."
>   "Is it an exact replacement?"
>   "No.  It is different in some way."
>   "Can you send a data sheet for a Z?"
>   "Yes.  Send it (as image)?"
>   "Yes."
>   "(sent)"
>
>There's no business risk in a negotiation like this; it's just an
>information request.  So it could be supported off a server that didn't
>have all the locking, journalling, and transaction integrity required
>for actually doing transactions.  Yet there many transactions that might
>be handled by such a system.

The step before this, and one I heard recently suggested by a EDI VAR
is to start with the catalog maintenance function - have supplier
provide item, price, discount information.  This is low impact, but
opens the door, and provides data of value to the buyer.


>
>       I'll bet we see things like this within two years.  But they'll
>be fax-based.
>

Why FAX - PC's can store images now and display them.  I would bet
rather that we see image based PC's with WORM CD-Rom attached.
Considering the capabilities of Windows for audio and video image -
there may even be audio with the catalog.  The manufacturer could
explain the key advantages to you while you look at the spec sheet on
your scrren - with part explosion and the ability to look at detail.
That goes beyond fax, yet conveys far more information.

What do you think?


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Internet:  mshines@ia.purdue.edu      |  Michael S. Hines
Bitnet:  michaelh@purccvm             |  Internal Auditor-EDP
Purdue WIZARD Mail: MSHINES           |  Purdue University
GTE Net: (317) 494-5845               |  1065 Freehafer Hall
Compuserve: Mike Hines (73240,1631)   |  West Lafayette, IN 47907-1065
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: tand@marsh.cs.curtin.edu.au (Daniel Tan)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.edi-l
Subject: research
Date: 30 Jul 92 01:04:11 GMT
Organization: Curtin University of Technology

I am currently doing research into the cost justification of EDI and require anything that could help me predict accurately what implementing EDI will cost any organisation. I require information in the areas of change management (i.e. retraining of staff made redundant by this technology), and any other hidden factors that will affect the final cost of implementing this technology. I would greatly appreciate any information or leads that could be sent to me.
								Daniel
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.edi-l,biz.comp.services
From: william1@me.utoronto.ca (Robert Williams)
Subject: Help with development of a gateways fee scheme.
Summary: I need to know haw to charge for the use a network gateways
Keywords: gateways, network, lan, edi
Organization: UofT Mechanical Engineering
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 16:08:08 GMT



Sincerest apologies if this posting appear in inappropriate news groups.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

A friend of mine has been asked to develop a fee structure for accessors of
a companies information resources.  She writes as follows,

 I need help on the following: I need to know how certain organizations charge
 for use of their network gateways (gateways join two systems/networks
 together, usually at the midrange or mainframe level e.g. at the Front-end
 Processor). For instance, do they charge by the number of sessions a client
 signs up for, by the number of sessions the client actually used, do they have
 a one-time membership fee with a smaller monthly maintenance fee which allows
 users a large but undefined number of sessions, do they not charge at all and
 if so then what is their justification? All these questions ask: HOW is the
 gateway charged. But I also need to know, if possible, WHAT the charge is
 based on: what cost items do they include in maintenance of the gateway
 and what percentage of these cost items is used. Cost items include: human
 resources, CPU time, memory, software development, and other overhead items.

Any ideas from anyone who is familiar with this area would be appreciated.
Any information on books or papers covering this topic, or firms doing similar work, would also be appreciated.

Please send all responses to the Email address below.  If there is enough interest, I will post a summary on the net.

Thanks in advance.

Robert Williams
U of T, CIMLab
Toronto, Canada
Email : william1@drill.me.utoronto.ca
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.edi-l
From: nagle@netcom.com (John Nagle)
Subject: Re: AI & EDI
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 92 06:26:11 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

       I'd suggest that a good place to start on negotiation systems of
the type I previously described is to consider offering real-time
query transactions that just return information, like price and
availability, but don't actually commit the transaction.   Things like

	"Do you have a part X for a Y?"
	"Maybe.  Provide serial number and date of manufacture of Y."
	"Do you have a part X for a Y serial NNN manufactured MMDDYYYY?"
	"No, but that part has been superseded by Z, which may work."
	"Is it an exact replacement?"
	"No.  It is different in some way."
	"Can you send a data sheet for a Z?"
	"Yes.  Send it (as image)?"
	"Yes."
	"(sent)"

There's no business risk in a negotiation like this; it's just an
information request.  So it could be supported off a server that didn't
have all the locking, journalling, and transaction integrity required
for actually doing transactions.  Yet there many transactions that might
be handled by such a system.

       I'll bet we see things like this within two years.  But they'll
be fax-based.

					John Nagle
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Mailer: Pegasus Mail v2.1c R5.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.edi-l
Date:         Thu, 23 Jul 1992 08:41:20 EST
From:         "Michael S. Hines" <MSHINES@FREH-03MS.ADPC.PURDUE.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Frequently asked questions (FAQ)
Comments: To: EDI-L@uccvma.ucop.edu

What about criteria for purchase (with maintenance) vs. lease (do not
own) vs. in- house developed EDI translators?

In light of changing technology and standards..why not pool the
development and share that cost among several users?  In addition,
the "specialist" could maintain standards awareness, and distribute
updates to all users as a part of the maintenance/lease costs.

It seems to me that in-house development will require in house
expertise in following standards evolution and has inherint
maintenance built into the task.

What is needed is a standard EDI package, and a flexible interface to
existing systems to collect the relevant data it seems to me.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Internet:  mshines@ia.purdue.edu      |  Michael S. Hines
Bitnet:  michaelh@purccvm             |  Internal Auditor-EDP
Purdue WIZARD Mail: MSHINES           |  Purdue University
GTE Net: (317) 494-5845               |  1065 Freehafer Hall
Compuserve: Mike Hines (73240,1631)   |  West Lafayette, IN 47907-1065
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.edi-l
Date:         Thu, 30 Jul 1992 09:32:27 -0700
From:         Bill Laidley <WLAIDLEY@BCSC02.BITNET>
Subject:      RE: Help with development of a gateways fee scheme

 I agree with most of what Michael Hines said, with a one addition.

 We've recently gone through a lengthy and painful experience deciding how to
 charge for usage of the EDI system. In the end we adopted a scheme similar to
 what the VANs use - costs charged are based on usage, measured as the amount
 of data sent/received. Our EDI service is MVS batch oriented, so this was the
 easiest way to measure.

 My key issue is that the cost of collecting data for charging costs not exceed
 the revenue to be generated. It seems silly, but it is easy to lose sight of
 this.

 Regards, Bill Laidley
 EDI Expert Team
 BC Systems Corp. Vancouver (604) 660-9705
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Mailer: Pegasus Mail v2.1c R5.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.edi-l
Date:         Wed, 22 Jul 1992 08:12:42 EST
From:         "Michael S. Hines" <MSHINES@FREH-03MS.ADPC.PURDUE.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Frequently asked questions (FAQ)
Comments: To: EDI-L@uccvma.ucop.edu

> Here is a proposed table of contents for the file. I'd like to get suggestions
> on additions/deletions.
>
> 1. Standards contacts - DISA, EDIFACT, SWIFT - names/address/telephone/e-mail
> 2. Periodicals - name/address/telephone & comment on quality of content
> 3. Books - title/author/publisher & comment on quality of content
> 4. Videos - title/publisher & comment on quality of content
> 5. Sources for books, periodicals & videos
> 6. Seminars - source & comment on quality of content
> 7. User's groups - location/specialties/contacts
>
In 1. I would suggest adding ANSI X12?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Internet:  mshines@ia.purdue.edu      |  Michael S. Hines
Bitnet:  michaelh@purccvm             |  Internal Auditor-EDP
Purdue WIZARD Mail: MSHINES           |  Purdue University
GTE Net: (317) 494-5845               |  1065 Freehafer Hall
Compuserve: Mike Hines (73240,1631)   |  West Lafayette, IN 47907-1065
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: EDI-L@uccvma.ucop.edu
X-VMS-To: IN%"EDI-L@uccvma.ucop.edu"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.edi-l
Date:         Tue, 21 Jul 1992 17:01:00 GMT
From:         "Donal O'Mahony, Comp Sc,
              Trinity College Dublin" <OMAHONY@CS.TCD.IE>
Subject:      Re: Frequently asked questions (FAQ)
Comments: To: EDI-L@uccvma.ucop.edu

I would add something on activity in Europe e.g. the TEDIS programme,
possibly under heading 1.

A seperate heading on Open EDI
 X.400, X.435
 brief description
 products/VANs (VARs??) that support it.

Planned and Current Practices relating to Security in EDI


Donal O'Mahony           omahony@cs.tcd.ie
Computer Science Dept
Trinity College
Dublin 2
Ireland
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Mailer: Pegasus Mail v2.1c R5.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.edi-l
Date:         Wed, 22 Jul 1992 09:26:59 EST
From:         "Michael S. Hines" <MSHINES@FREH-03MS.ADPC.PURDUE.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Frequently asked questions (FAQ)
Comments: To: EDI-L@uccvma.ucop.edu

In addition, how about a listing of EDI transport media, vendors,
etc.  (The medium used to move the messages)?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Internet:  mshines@ia.purdue.edu      |  Michael S. Hines
Bitnet:  michaelh@purccvm             |  Internal Auditor-EDP
Purdue WIZARD Mail: MSHINES           |  Purdue University
GTE Net: (317) 494-5845               |  1065 Freehafer Hall
Compuserve: Mike Hines (73240,1631)   |  West Lafayette, IN 47907-1065
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <WRIE@WRIE.LOC.GOV>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.edi-l
Date:         Fri, 31 Jul 1992 09:36:24 EST
From:         Wendy Riedel <WRIE@WRIE.LOC.GOV>
Subject:      Re: AI & EDI
Comments: To: EDI-L@uccvma.ucop.edu

>The step before this, and one I heard recently suggested by a EDI VAR
>is to start with the catalog maintenance function - have supplier
>provide item, price, discount information.  This is low impact, but
>opens the door, and provides data of value to the buyer.

The transaction set, 832, already exists for this doesn't it? The
question is when businesses will develop systems which use the data when
sent. Subscription agents in this country have been working on getting
and using this information from publishers for some time now.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: EDI-L@UCCVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: MAILER%"EDI-L@UCCVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.edi-l
Date:         Thu, 30 Jul 1992 11:41:00 EDT
From:         BAUM@HULAW1.BITNET
Subject:      question

Has anyone posted a list of software products as well as pilots or
contemplation of EDI pilots for use on the internet (sorry if this is
old information!)?
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL0]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.edi-l
Date:         Tue, 21 Jul 1992 08:08:16 PDT
From:         Terry B Lyons <terry@PRIDE386.PP.COM>
Subject:      Re: HELP
Comments: To: Mr R R Gururaj <uunet!uccvma.ucop.edu!EDI-L@uunet.UU.NET>
              15, 92 6:42 pm

As speaketh Mr R R Gururaj
>
> HELP!
>
> I have by mistake deleted files on EDI that appeared on this
> newsgroup from 1st July till 10th.
>
> Can anyone help me in this regard. This is very badly
> needed.
>
> Thanks
>
> RGR
>
do you still need these???
terry

--
**************************************************************************
*  UUNET ...!uunet!pride386!terry or ...!zardoz!pride386!terry           *
*  FAX  714 739 2203  *  WANTED: 1 fire-lizard, brown preferred          *
**************************************************************************
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.edi-l
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.edi-l
Date:         Thu, 23 Jul 1992 08:57:35 -0700
From:         Mark Grand <mark@ENLIL.PREMENOS.SF.CA.US>
Subject:      Frequently asked questions (FAQ)
Comments: To: EDI-L@uccvma.ucop.edu
              23 Jul 1992 08:41:20 EST
              <9207231348.AA16591@enlil.premenos.sf.ca.us>

>>>>> On Thu, 23 Jul 1992 08:41:20 EST, "Michael S. Hines"
 <MSHINES@FREH-03MS.ADPC.PURDUE.EDU> said:
MSHINES> Comments: To: EDI-L@uccvma.ucop.edu

MSHINES> What about criteria for purchase (with maintenance) vs. lease (do not
MSHINES> own) vs. in- house developed EDI translators?

MSHINES> In light of changing technology and standards..why not pool the
MSHINES> development and share that cost among several users?  In addition,
MSHINES> the "specialist" could maintain standards awareness, and distribute
MSHINES> updates to all users as a part of the maintenance/lease costs.

MSHINES> It seems to me that in-house development will require in house
MSHINES> expertise in following standards evolution and has inherint
MSHINES> maintenance built into the task.

MSHINES> What is needed is a standard EDI package, and a flexible interface to
MSHINES> existing systems to collect the relevant data it seems to me.

I would imagine that creating a co-op to produce an EDI translator for
its members would not provide substantially greater economy than
buying an available commercial product (I say this speaking as the
developer of one).  The company I work for has thousands of customers
and probably is able to supply greater experience as part of its
support than a co-op of just a few companies would be able to.  Part
of that support is to supply our customers with standards updates.

While the build vs. buy issues vary, there is generally a break even
point.  With the product that I am responsible for, my unscientific
estimate is that on average, if a company is doing more than one
document the saving in programming time will justify the cost of our
product.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.edi-l
From: eastick@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca (Doug Eastick)
Subject: FTP archive? other refs?
Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, Laurentian University, Sudbury, ON
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 03:16:56 GMT

Being a recent subscriber to this group/list, I was wondering if there are
any ftp sites with EDI-related documents, sources, etc.  ANSI-X12 is of
most interest to me, but I'l take what I can get.

Thanks.
-- 
Doug Eastick -- Sudbury, Ontario
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.edi-l
Date:         Thu, 30 Jul 1992 14:00:22 -0700
From:         Bill Laidley <WLAIDLEY@BCSC02.BITNET>
Subject:      AI & EDI: Round 3? 4?

 From Oiva's note...

 "I join Randall Smith, then, in wondering when this all will happen. Obviously
 a lot of research needs to be done in the meantime."

 Yes, it will take a while for EDI products to be available which have an AI
 component. There are various reasons- lack of interest in the developer
 community is one. AI enhanced EDI translation packages will also be resource
 intensive, something not likely to endear them to the hearts of mainframe or
 mini shops. The most market potential is for the PC environment, which is
 where most of the users are, but they may also have resource problems (witness
 what happens when you try to run Windows...).

 Another reason for delay is that the developers may not have the experience in
 AI. My experience with expert systems started on PC's, then moved to IBM
 mainframes. Expert system developers with a PC background tend to think of the
 systems they develop as existing largely in isolation- they don't use the
 available resources in the environment, so the expert system tools aren't
 developed to use those resources. Mainframe expert systems can use the
 available resources extensively (which does not mean that the developers will
 use the resources- that requires a change in approach that few make). What I
 learned developing expert systems on a mainframe is that the developer must be
 able to work in two worlds: traditional information systems, and also AI. They
 have different languages, different jargon, and different interests- so it
 isn't always easy. If the gap between the worlds is bridged there is a lot to
 learn from each other, and a lot of potential benefit for both sides. EDI and
 AI (sigh) are just another example of this.

 Developers (of all sorts) tend to wear blinders- the 'everything looks like a
 nail when you have a hammer' syndrome. I'm trying to incite a revolution -
 let's all rip off the blinders! I read an paper a couple of years ago on
 'Multi-paradigm System development'. The authors suggested that programming
 languages have strengths and weaknesses. If possible, they recommend using
 multiple languages- each one working to it's strengths. They built a prototype
 system on a Unix system that used one language as 'glue' to connect the
 components, and four other languages (including, I believe, a 4GL) to build
 the other pieces. Most EDI translators today are COBOL or C based table
 processors. Why can't we take a fresh look?

 Again from Oiva...

 "As for the rest, I don't think Object Oriented Analysis/Design/Programming
 are really AI..."

 I agree, they aren't AI per se. They are children of AI (I had to use the term
 'progeny' - I have a love of high-falutin' words...).

 Regards, Bill Laidley
 EDI Expert Team
 BC Systems Corp. Vancouver (604) 660-9705
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Mailer: Pegasus Mail v2.1c R5.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.edi-l
Date:         Fri, 31 Jul 1992 09:49:38 EST
From:         "Michael S. Hines" <MSHINES@FREH-03MS.ADPC.PURDUE.EDU>
Subject:      Re: AI & EDI
Comments: To: EDI-L@uccvma.ucop.edu

>>The step before this, and one I heard recently suggested by a EDI VAR
>>is to start with the catalog maintenance function - have supplier
>>provide item, price, discount information.  This is low impact, but
>>opens the door, and provides data of value to the buyer.
>
>The transaction set, 832, already exists for this doesn't it? The
>question is when businesses will develop systems which use the data when
>sent. Subscription agents in this country have been working on getting
>and using this information from publishers for some time now.
>

Sure does, that's what makes it low impact.

The extensions I mentioned - image and sound transmission as part of
the catalog exchange I think are still "blue sky" concepts.

Being an auditor, where do the human checks and balances exist in the
AI systems being discussed here?  For example, what if I ask my
AI/EDI system to procure X items, but I make a small mistake and key
in X+1000 .. where is this caught?  I hope somewhere before the
delivery on the loading dock!!!  There still needs to be
authorization of transactions somewhere in the process - from an
internal controls standpoint.  How does this work?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Internet:  mshines@ia.purdue.edu      |  Michael S. Hines
Bitnet:  michaelh@purccvm             |  Internal Auditor-EDP
Purdue WIZARD Mail: MSHINES           |  Purdue University
GTE Net: (317) 494-5845               |  1065 Freehafer Hall
Compuserve: Mike Hines (73240,1631)   |  West Lafayette, IN 47907-1065
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU