Talk:Electronic data interchange

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Computing / Networking (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Networking task force (marked as Mid-importance).
 

Added Link[edit]

I have added a link to WalMart's page where the EDI/AS2 requirement is mentioned. Okay thanks Jlynch824 (talk) 16:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Added External Reference[edit]

to National Institute of Standards and Technology and link to original article under definition== National Institute of Standards and Technolo Jlynch824 (talk) 16:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

940[edit]

I'm assuming that a "940" is an EDI 940 ship-from-warehouse order. -- 213.253.40.239 13:28, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Details[edit]

I can provide details to describe the Tradacoms edi format (I believe owned by GXS (GE Exchange Services)). Is this a desirable addition? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.177.215 (talkcontribs) 11:45, 11 April 2004 (UTC)

Yes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.28.52.204 (talkcontribs) 14:32, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Note: The Tradacoms standard was originally under the aegis of the UK Article Numbering Association, which has become GS1 UK. It is the Tradanet network, which was originally started to transport Tradacoms messages for UK Retail, which is owned by GXS.Chrisj1948 14:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I have created an article on Tradacoms, since the link to one here pointed to nothingChrisj1948 17:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Why capitals[edit]

Why the insistence on capital "D" and capital "I" in "data" and "interchange"? Michael Hardy 22:23, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Why the insistence on the capital "B" and capital "I" in "bureau" and "investigation" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.88.99.189 (talk) 15:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Added link[edit]

I have added a link to the Skylark EDIs component for the MamboCMS as I could not find any other free implementation so far. - Roy B 00:32, 2 Sep 2005 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.28.52.204 (talkcontribs) 14:32, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Headers[edit]

I added a couple of headers to aid readability. Enjoyed the article. - Just zis Guy, you know? 13:53, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

To-do items from article[edit]

This text, apparently a to-do list, was stuck onto the end of the article. I've moved it here for rework.

  • EDI Data structure - Transaction sets, segments, data elements, composite data elements, and sub-elements.
  • EDI Translation software.
  • The store and forward of data transmission.
  • The difference between X12 and EDIFACT.
  • New-edi - a method developed by the Standards Council of Australia.
  • XML/EDI - OASIS, Rosettanet, etc.
  • EDI vs edi - "EDI" being the global international standard and all it entails. "edi" being the non standard and proprietary implementations used by individual organisations.
  • TRADACOMS - an example of retail industry-specific EDII
  • History of EDI.
  • Politics of EDI. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IMeowbot (talkcontribs) 06:18, 16 March 2005 (UTC)

[linking of last 2 items changed]:

  • History of EDI.
  • Politics of EDI. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.45.203.179 (talkcontribs) 14:15, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
  • How to purchase the EDI specification (or rather, that it is not an open standard and must be "purchased" in order to be implemented". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anca (talkcontribs) 19:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.128.203.222 (talkcontribs) 23:23, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Links to specific providers?[edit]

I removed the links to EDI "Solutions Providers". I don't think the Wikipedia is an appropriate place to advertise such things. Ancawonka 17:43, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Useful External Links for EDI?[edit]

I removed this link:

I went to their site and was unable to find any mention of EDI. Anca 18:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Did you even read their site? "ASC X12 is the U.S. standards body for the cross-industry development, maintenance, and publication of electronic data exchange standards, based on, but not limited to X12 EDI, XML, and UN/EDIFACT formats." Or at the very least, read the article that you're editing? "ANSI ASC X12 (X12) and the Uniform Communication Standard (UCS) are popular in North America and are very similar to each other." Furrfu. Link restored. 208.180.124.100 06:40, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, thanks for pointing that out. I was a little frustrated coming to this article, and searching specifically for the list of transactions and what they meant. When I went to the X12 site, it was extremely unclear (and still is) where they actually publish the standard (Doing a search for "EDI Transaction", for example, does not return any pages on their site). I learned a lot about how to become a member, when their meetings are, how to fill out forms for their workgroups, but the actual useful information was not readily available. Thanks for linking to the new proposed standards, that was useful. Information about the X12 group itself can be found on the Wikipedia entry for X12. Anca 18:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone else think that this site has an objectionable amount of ads?

  • edi-guide.com "EDI Guide for Beginner"

Ideoplex 18:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Reverted a link to a commercial EDI software supplier which did not give any added value in terms of explaining EDI. Chrisj1948 (talk) 10:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I note that Nadraabsihalabi has re-inserted the external link to the Elife site. I do not wish to get into a reversion war, but repeat that I do not think this link has any value in explaining EDI and has no place in the article. Perhaps others can make an assessment? Chrisj1948 (talk) 10:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the elife link is inappropriate. I also removed the link that you refer to below. From WP:EL: one should avoid: Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article. Which I believe applies here. Ideoplex (talk) 19:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
No problem. Perhaps I might get around to a Wiki article on the EDIFACT syntax some day :-) Chrisj1948 (talk) 22:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Added a link to a document which gives an introduction to EDI. This is about ten years old now, and is a direct link to a page which normally would be displayed within the frameset of a minor EDI software supplier (for whom I work!). I did some soul searching before adding this, but felt that the information content was useful and the probability of it being of any commercial advantage to us was vanishingly small. It is still valid, although the final section about EDI and the Internet needs updating to reflect developments such as AS2, and at the time of writing XML was not a significant factor (in my opinion it still is not!) Chrisj1948 (talk) 11:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Not too sure about the external lnks that Aerobe has added recently. They are to a commercial site and give some push for their services.Chrisj1948 (talk) 19:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Mambo Software Link[edit]

I think we should leave that one. I became interested in this page because I'm trying to learn about EDI, and a link to an open-source product that implements EDI was very useful - even if it is only in alpha. Anca 06:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I fully agree with Anca. People in the Open Source community need to have access to information on upcoming tools even if in alpha stage. If anything the person trying to prevent this link from showing up has a commercial product that he/she is fighting for. Panreach 08:38, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I'm fighting for fewer external links in every article, not just this one. Spam and commercial link removal is the main thing I do at Wikipedia. I wont remove the link but just know what door you're opening here. Before long, every person that has written a piece of code remotely related to EDI is going to want their link included. Monkeyman.pngMonkeyman(talk) 14:58, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
I see your point Monkeyman. I'll scope out the EDI space and see if there is other open source software out there, and link to whatever is in the most advanced stage of development. We should probably also have a link to the "List of Software" page, where all the EDI software can be found. Anca 21:37, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

History of EDI - book[edit]

How come nobody mentions the book "Challenge and Consequence: Forcing Change to eCommerce" by Ralph Notto (Fenestra Books, March 2005, ISBN: 158736414X)? It seems to me that any talk of EDI should include mention of historical books by any of it's original developers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.157.199.2 (talkcontribs) 10:15, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree... More history would be good. Anca 19:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

new paper flow[edit]

I would guess that any document could be a new information flow. The Advanced Shipment Notification (856) might have been new information for some companies but I would guess most had someway of knowing a shipment was coming. Maybe the article should say that companies often choose to change the information exchanged in parallel with implimenting an EDI system. You could give the 856 as an example showing that it replaced a phone call? I remember dealing with warehouses that didn't have ship orders before EDI. --Gbleem 06:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Excellent points on the 856 but in actual fact, the 856 was one of the first "new business flows" that were created using EDI as the vehicle for the implementation. The concept of the ASN is not just to inform the receiver that the goods are being shipped, the concept is to specify to the receiver, how the goods are to be packaged. When orignally implemented by Sears int the mid 1980's, it was not "electronicfying" an existing process, it was creating a new business process. With the ASN, Sears changed not only their labour scheduling component, they also changed how they received the goods to allow for store level pakaging which led to cross docking of merchandise which led to huge savings in time and effort to receive and process merchandise. This is why that I added the comment on the 856 as a way of highlighting that EDI can not ony "electronify" exsiting paper processes, it can also be used as a vehicle of change to create a completely new business process...Mike Cobban 16:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Mike Cobban

Was this use by Sears significant historically? Were they the first to use the 856? --Gbleem 17:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Sears designed the 856 and worked the implementation of it through the ANSI X12 committees. They were the first major implementor of it. The reason for the complexity of the 856 was caused by the fact that Sears has 18 separate business units so the original intent of the 856 was to handle how goods would be pakcaged and shipped for all of the shipments to their various divisions. This is why the strucutre of a 856 was designed to be flexible enough to handle all of the variations that Sears required. About 5 years after the initial implmentation of the 856, the 857 was created to reduce the complexity of implmentation of the 856 (in particular the HL looping strucutre), but by that time a lot of companies had alreayd implemented the 856 and didn't want to modify their interfaces so that is why the 856 is still in use.Mike Cobban 21:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Mike Cobban

Data exchange[edit]

Is there a general term for business data exchange? I think all the methods of data exchange would share certain advantages and then this article could just talk about the differences between EDI and the other methods. Or is EDI the generic term? --Gbleem 07:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

EDI is generally looked upon as a standards based formatting of documents. You are very correct that it is now being used too generically to indicate any movement of information "electronically" but in common usage, EDI is specific to standards based electroinc data interchange (I would love to replace it with a much more clear term but I have never found one). The more interesting discussion will be when XML and other data formats create "EDI" like stadnards and what will they be called. That is for another day and time though! 16:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Mike Cobban

I always understood EDI is the generic term for all computerized/electronic data interchange, whether this is not standarized like the first mutual agreed upon messages, the first standards (like EDIFACT, X12 etc), the new generations based on XML, as well as the application based standards (like SAP's iDoc). Is this my misunderstanding, or are phrases in the main article like "Even in this era of technologies such as XML ... EDI is still the data format.." a bit misleading? --Antheii (talk) 14:43, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Your confusion is justified. EDI has been (and is) variously used to describe any machine to machine data exchange for business purposes, the exchange of structured documents according to a recognised standard, and documents conforming to one of the legacy standards such as Tradacoms, EDIFACT and X12. Furthermore it is applied to the whole operational process surrounding these exchanges. You have to interpret what the expression is being used to mean from the context. Chrisj1948 (talk) 08:44, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Audit[edit]

"Another critical component of any EDI translation software is a complete "audit"" Should we mention a critical component is having someone who will pay attention to the messages from the computer that say a document is missing? --Gbleem 08:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Very good point but this is not a forum to discuss companies lack of controls to make thigs damm fool proof not just fool proof. I wouldn't be opposed to adding that in a seaprate section on failings of EDI thoughMike Cobban 16:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Mike Cobban
I'm sorry I meant it as a joke. Just remembering clients I dealt with when I did EDI years ago. --Gbleem 16:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I saw that a clear definition was needed for EDI. I work at JPMorgan Chase, have worked in Treasury Services for many years, and attended cash management courses which explain EDI in detail (including definition, uses, and history). This is not an attempt to sell anything at Chase. I was looking for a quick definition on the Web that I could use and could not easily find one, so I went back to one of my courses and obtained it. Here you go:

EDI - Electronic Data Interchange: (basic definition) The exchange of goods and services or information about goods and services in a standard electronic format directly between business application systems [copyright 2007 End Results, Inc.].

Addition information: Standard Financial EDI formats (or FEDI)include BAI, NACHA, ANSI ASAC x12, UN/EDIFACT, and SWIFT. This helps to tie-in the many uses that banks and customers use EDI in order to exchange information in various ways and for many, many purposes. Anything beyond this will go into detail about the uses of EDI for commerce, which is too detailed to go into here.

Please feel free to contact me if more information or clarification is needed. My information is obtained from the course, "Foundations of Treasury Management: A Day in the Life of a Customer", End Rusults, Inc., written by David Wikoff, Ph.D., CTP, Cert ICM. I am not connected to Dr. Wikoff in any other way other than I took his course. I am not promoting his books, business, or any product. I only want to ensure credit is given where credit is due. Not sure if you are able to use it. Good luck! Thanks 159.53.110.142 (talk) 18:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC) 13:03, 23 January 2008, Benjamin Wolfe, wolfeb@ptd.net or benjamin.c.wolfe@jpmchase.com

list of x12 documents[edit]

I think the list of x12 documents is fine but I think it should be in the x12 article. --Gbleem 16:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Should we create a new page for the x12 document list? Having the full list in this article really breaks the flow.--Ideoplex 20:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I think that if you have a new page for the X12 document and link to it, that it would be a great ideaMike Cobban 20:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Mike Cobban
I've created a new page for the list of X12 documents. It's also linked from the X12 article. I'd appreciate it if someone would verify that they are correct.--Ideoplex 02:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
The list of doucments is correct. I would like to see a direct link to the list of documents from this article if possible as it would make it easier for the average user to find it. Mike Cobban 17:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)Mike Cobban

old question[edit]

"and write appropriate solutions to validate the business information received." What does this mean? --Gbleem 17:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

AN EDI converter should check the superficial characteristics of the data in messages it transforms against the standard used for the message; that it conforms to the field length limitations, contains alphanumeric or numeric information, required decimal precision is correct, etc. The data may still not be acceptable from a business standpoint; it may reference a document number unknown to the receiving system, a delivery date may be in the past, an order may exceed a credit limit, and so on. Validation against business rules is desirable before the information is put into the application database.Chrisj1948 09:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

EDI War Stories[edit]

Do we really want an external link to somebodies web site describing a problem they had seven years ago ? Woodsstock 18:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Question[edit]

since data is the smallest part of information and here the EDI is explained as exchange of forms and documents, shouldn't then it be interpreted as Electronic Document Exchange?

Maybe they should have called it FADE for Form And Document Exchange. How about IMI for Idiots Misinterpretting Information. That would describe some of the clients where I worked. --Gbleem 10:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

mailbag[edit]

I don't remember the term mailbag. Is that a software specific thing? It sounds like something that may be in newer software after I left the field. --Gbleem 10:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Since EDI messages are said to be "enveloped" with the data for routing the internal message, much like a piece of letter mail in an envelope with the address on the outside, a receptacle for collecting EDI envelopes of any document type is known as a mailbag, continuing the postal analogy where mail is picked up/delivered in a physical bag to be routed at the depot. Each mailbag has it's own ID and can be tracked.--WPaulB 17:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
The postal analogy is obvious. That still doesn't tell me where it came from. I'm sure the term mailbag is not in any of the standards. It must be a van or software company thing. --Gbleem 12:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, sorry. It's a VAN term as well as used by software company who do EDI translation between standards.--WPaulB 15:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
No. Mailbag is in the standards. As someone else has pointed out, the standards documents are copyrighted. I'm not going to quote the standards documents and assume I'm within fair use, but I will refer you to ASC X12.56 (Release 003050, December 2004) Interconnect Mailbag Structures. JordanHenderson 21:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

EDI definition[edit]

I moved this from the end of the discussion as it was not getting any attention ! : Looking at all the references I have for EDI they tend to agree on a broad definition like "the computer-to computer exchange of structured business documents using agreed upon formats and networks" that is the definition I would expect to see at the beginning of this article as historically (here in the UK at least) it is the accepted definition and EDI is not just limited to the standards themselves. The EDI standards are vital and should be at the heart of any article but the term EDI should (in my opinion) be given the broadly accepted definition. What sources do you cite for this limited definition of EDI ? (as I have many for the broader definition !) Thanks - GrahamHardy 16:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

External links[edit]

EDI Training[edit]

I am going to add a link to the EDI Academy. If a person is researching EDI, why can't we provide an external link to a training provider? --User:Michaeko 02:34, 18 July 2007 (PST)

Why this one? External links should provide additional information, not available in the article. Check WP:EL for the relevant information on which links to add. --S.K. 08:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
EDI Training is not listed anywhere in the article. Especially no reference anywhere to where anyone can get EDI training. This link provides an opportunity for researchers to look at 'EDI Training Tips' offered on the EDI Academy web site. I ask that you stop removing it. You are welcome to email me and discuss the issue ediguy@gmail.com --User:Michaeko 14:20, 19 July 2007 (PST)
This is not an appropriate link. Please check WP:EL as S.K. suggested, Ideoplex 22:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Please explain to me what's unappropriate about it. --User:Michaeko 14:20, 19 July 2007 (PST)
From WP:EL#What to link, one should avoid:
  • Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article.
  • Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services. For example, instead of linking to a commercial bookstore site, use the "ISBN" linking format, giving readers an opportunity to search a wide variety of free and non-free book sources. Ideoplex 12:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
The purpose of this link is not to sell products but to provide EDI Training Tips --User:Michaeko 12:35, 21 July 2007 (PST)
The purpose of the site that you're linking to is to sell EDI training. The training tips at this site could apply to any new business process Ideoplex 01:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Michaeko, but it's obvious that the site www.ediacademy.com exists primarily to sell EDI training services, and it's obvious that the reason you're so anxious to add the link is that you'd like to promote the site.

If the primary purpose of www.ediacademy.com were to provide free EDI training (e.g. on-line tutorials, reference manuals, and FAQ lists), and if Wikipedia's EDI article did not already have several links to existing free on-line documentation of that kind, then this link would be appropriate. But neither of these things is true, so the link is not appropriate.

Wikipedia does not exist as a service to help drive traffic to your site. There are plenty of good, appropriate ways to do that -- please pursue them. If you persist in edit warring here, you run the risk of being blocked.

[Message also placed on Michaeko's talk page.] —Steve Summit (talk) 01:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

EDI Basics Link Discussion[edit]

I have re-added a link to "A Step-by-Step Guide to Electronic Data Interchange (EDI)" in the external links section that was removed yesterday without reason. Just to clarify; this site is a useful resource for EDI begginers and whilst some content is covered on this page the site goes more in depth as well as providing some useful next steps when trying to understand some of the messaging standards out there. Perhaps the individual who removed it is forgetting for some this topic can be new and whilst there is a lot of information on the wikki page it is far from the easiest format to work through.(158.43.47.130 18:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC))

I do not understand how "Idoplex" can over rule the decisions of other users? "Shalom" suggested it should be moved to the bottom and everyone was happy other than this one user! It does provide additional information to that already on the page and does not exist to sell products - in fact no products names are even mentioned. It is 'sponsored' by a provider of EDI services and if it were these services that were to be promoted then the link would be to that site and not this educational based one. Surely there must be a process in place to stop one individual dictating what should and shouldn't be included, guidelines exist and this site is inside those as I have already demonstrated? I do not want to start getting into a war of link adding and removing but at the same time will not give into an individual who seems determined to hide a source of information that is of use. I will add the link back again but if "Idoplex" wants to continue this I suggest he/she either adds the content of the EDI Basics site to the Wikki page that is not already present or escalate this to an administrator or mediator (not sure how it works on here) who can make an independent decision which we both agree to adhere to. (158.43.47.130 11:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC))

Third opinion[edit]

I am responding to a request for a Third opinion. The following links were in the article:

  1. EDI Introduction
        ↑ page on Minnesota Department of Labor & Industry website.
  2. Electronic Data Interchange (EDI): An Introduction
        ↑ page of a visiting fellow on Australian National University website.
  3. ANSI X12/EDI Format Overview
        ↑ documentation of "2004 Pinnacle Software (Toronto)" on AOL user page.
  4. ANSI X12/EDI Transaction Descriptions
        ↑ page on "Kleinschmidt, Inc. Your EC/EDI Gateway" - "eBusiness solutions"
  5. Accredited Standards Committee X12
        ↑ ASC X12 homepage.
  6. IETF working group
        ↑ Internet Mail Consortium mailing list.
  7. A Step-by-Step Guide to Electronic Data Interchange (EDI)
        ↑ homepage of a company called "EDI Basics."(the site 158.43.47.130 wants to add)

As per Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines such as What Wikipedia is not, Conflict of interest and External links, only the first three two [see below] seem acceptable.

I think link 6 (IETF) is acceptable too. It's an archive of a mailing-list that was used to discuss developing EDI standards. Since it's no longer active, it's not really promoting a specific organization. DavidLeeLambert (talk) 17:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

If any of you have questions about this, please ask them here, not on my user talk page. This article and its talk page are now on my watchlist. — Athaenara 15:51, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Addendum: ASC X12 was linked 3 4 times. Once in the text "See also" section is sufficient. — Athaenara 16:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to me Ideoplex 21:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

AS2 paragraph[edit]

I have undone the insertion of a paragraph about AS2 at the head of the article. This was clearly misplaced, since the article is about EDI, not one of the many transmission protocols which can be used to transport EDI documents. There is also no need for such a paragraph, since AS2 has its own article.Chrisj1948 08:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Edward A. Guilbert[edit]

On the topic of EDI (Electronic Data Interchange), please consider giving credit to and noting history of Ed Guilbert's accomplishments. He is the Father of EDI. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.244.164.254 (talk) 13:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

from Ethiopia[edit]

will you send me notes in e-mail???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.55.74.40 (talk) 15:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Ref Bergeron, François; Louis Raymond (1992 ) too old[edit]

I think this 18 year old study is irrelevant. EDI communications have come down greatly in cost since then and I think the businesses being disadvantaged by it would be far less than 1992. Delete this reference?

Ibcnul8r (talk) 20:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

its new date —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.166.237.202 (talk) 00:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

TOO MANY CAPITAL LETTERS[edit]

I've copied the discussion below from my talk page. Michael Hardy (talk) 17:15, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

You recently renamed the main and talk pages for "Electronic Data Interchange" to "Electronic data interchange". I have worked exclusively with EDI for well over twenty years and have *never* seen it referred to other than using the fully capitalized form. I am not confident enough about using Wikipedia to revert your changes, but I would be grateful if you would do so. Chrisj1948 (talk) 11:21, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I've moved it back, but I have these comments:
  • Why all those plainly incorrect capitals in section headings that I fixed? Those insisting on capital initials in the title would be more credible if they didn't do that.
  • In at least two places in the article it was written with all lower-case initials before I ever touched the article. Hence if you have never seen it that way, then you didn't read the article before my edits.
  • Before editing the article I googled the phrase and found both forms.

Michael Hardy (talk) 17:13, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

end of excerpt from my talk page See below, style guidelines are that we can paraphrase sources by using standard English capitalization even if sources like to use non-standard caps. W Nowicki (talk) 23:23, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I regret the recent move to a page titled "Electronic data interchange". The capitalised "Electronic Data Interchange" refers to a specific set of technologies which are described, after a fashion, in the article itself, whilst "electronic data interchange" is a very general identification which could refer to file transfer protocols and a host of other techniques. If WP:CAPS is the law which dictates this change then, as Mr Bumble observed in 'Oliver Twist', "The law, Sir, is an ass". Chrisj1948 (talk) 09:41, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Are we reading the same article? It seems to describe a whole bunch of standards from several unrelated standards bodies. Certainly if one of those sets of standards was independently notable it could be spun off to its own article with enough citations to independent sources. But listing everything from FTP to XML seems general to me and not specific. W Nowicki (talk) 18:14, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Wal-Mart Mention[edit]

Wal-Mart is mentioned twice in this article. I think that it is appropriate in the "Internet/AS2" section and it is supported with a link from the organization itself.

HOWEVER,

In the section 'barriers to implementation', it appears that the only reason Wal-Mart is mentioned is to present it in a bad light. This is a typical complaint from a leftist point of view.

I think the following should be removed from the article.

"But even if a company would not choose to use EDI on their own, pressures from larger trading partners (called hubs) often force smaller trading partners to use EDI. An example of this is Wal-Mart`s insistence on using EDI with all of its trading partners; any partner not willing to use EDI with Wal-Mart will not be able to do business with the company."

The link listed under the "INTERNET/AS2" heading above does not specify that a partner would not be able to do business with the company, it simply states that they would not be able to perform EDI transactions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.225.21.65 (talk) 17:00, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Is 'structured transmission' correct?[edit]

The first paragraph says that EDI is 'the structured transmission of data between organizations by electronic means'. What is a 'structured transmission'?

Later in the article there is mention made of 'structured data'. Should this be 'the transmission of structured data between organizations by electronic means'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.175.225.22 (talk) 12:27, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to Electronic data interchange. Favonian (talk) 12:54, 16 September 2011 (UTC)


Electronic Data InterchangeElectronic data interchange

Common name, per MoS and WP:TITLE. Matches sibling article titles. Tony (talk) 02:40, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

  • Support per WP:CAPS. Jenks24 (talk) 14:02, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Support this seems to be about the concept in general, not a specific protocol, so is not a proper noun, just acronymized often to obfuscate or give delusions of grandeur W Nowicki (talk) 23:23, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

National Institute of Standards and Technology and Dragons[edit]

I removed the words "And Dragons" after "National Institute of Standards and Technology and Dragons" in the second paragraph. I assume that "And Dragons" was entered as a joke to make NIST sound like the game Dungeons and Dragons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamnorten (talkcontribs) 21:21, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Peer-to-Peer?[edit]

From my understanding the term peer-to-peer is not what is used with EDI. It should either state point-to-point or refer to the client-server-model — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.86.190.45 (talk) 15:01, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation[edit]

Hello: I searched for this page using "EDI"but the option did not come up in the disambiguation page. An additional link there would be helpful.

Thanks!

99.137.196.70 (talk) 00:14, 13 November 2013 (UTC)