Talk:Electronic Data Interchange: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Pat Palmer (starting page) |
imported>Howard C. Berkowitz (→Issue of definition: new section) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{subpages}} | {{subpages}} | ||
== Issue of definition == | |||
Yes, some ANSI formats are obsolete. I would argue, however, that EDI still has strong presence not as a variety of standards — which were never terribly uniform — but as a viable model for transaction-oriented electronic commerce (e.g., funds transfer, airline reservations) and domain-specific information exchange (e.g., HL7 and the separately developed DICOM in medicine). [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 14:15, 16 August 2008 (CDT) | |||
Latest revision as of 13:15, 16 August 2008
|
| Metadata here |
Issue of definition
Yes, some ANSI formats are obsolete. I would argue, however, that EDI still has strong presence not as a variety of standards — which were never terribly uniform — but as a viable model for transaction-oriented electronic commerce (e.g., funds transfer, airline reservations) and domain-specific information exchange (e.g., HL7 and the separately developed DICOM in medicine). Howard C. Berkowitz 14:15, 16 August 2008 (CDT)