Talk:IDoc

Notability

I explained in the article why this topic is notable. Is this enough to remove the "Notability infobox"? --Pavel Jelinek (talk) 12:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

This subject doesn't seem notable enough for a Wikipedia entry to me, despite what is written in the article. -- Michael Warner 192.91.173.42 (talk) 16:38, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Misleading Comparison to XML

This article makes claims that IDoc "goes further" than XML. In fact, XML is just much more general then IDoc. XML namespaces can be used to define metadata (or other sections/segments). Thus, XML can include as much or as little metadata as desired.

XML vs. IDoc

IMHO this has to be seen in historic context as well.

"Traditionally", XML was not a possible choice, as it required a well-defined format and a parser (which, in turn, required considerable computing power).

Fixed format text files were ubiquitous, "readable" in regular editors, and much less challenging for mass processing. The specialty of the IDoc is probably that it forcibly embeds the meta information into the same file as the actual data. As far as I recollect, "traditionally" the meta information was held elsewhere (and/or implicitly, like via the file system: one folder for "incoming", one folder for "processed", one folder for "failed").

"no need to translate binary data"

a thousand formats

IDoc could be called "a sort of predefined format", but actually, it should be seen as a family of file formats.

For the use on any platform one needs a specific parser for the relevant fixed formats, in complete and terminal detail. (That is likely one major reason, why the basic formats are not "extendable" per se.)

OTOH XML requires just an XML parser. After that, one can focus on extracting whatever pieces of information one finds relevant, and skip anything else.

a thousand character sets

A text file format had always (and has still to some degree) the issue of character sets:

"Traditionally", a system's text files had a fixed defined country-specific format (and sometimes even: region/language-specific, think Switzerland).

e.g. ascii, code page 437, iso-code 8859, IBM EBCDIC, ...

It was implicit, not declared, and quite restricted (single 8-bit characters => 256 "code points", if ascii-compatible: 127 non-ascii characters).

Consequently, conversion protocols were required in any international context (esp. challenging if non-ascii-compatible formats were involved, e.g. from EBCDIC to CP437...)

OTOH XML declares the used character set explicitly, and the modern Unicode standard all but obsoletes character set conversions.

Link not working

One of the link referred in the External Links section is not working. Either URL can be repaired or removed A tutorial on ALE / IDoc technology at www.thespot4sap.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 15.219.201.80 (talk) 07:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Transaction ZIDOC

Z* always refers to customer specific functions in SAP environments. This kind of information is useless for anyone outside your company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.153.238.130 (talk) 14:49, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Functionality

"IDoc technology offers many tools for automation, monitoring and error handling. For example, if the IDocs are customised that way on a particular server, then a user of SAP R/3 system creates a purchase order <SNIP>"

This and the next paragraph are functions of the application that uses the idoc, not a function of the doc itself. Like most companies, the one I work for uses XML for this and the applications can do all this and more with the XML files. Sorry, but much of this article reads like someone trying to jusify proprietary methods over a well established open standard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.245.104.110 (talk) 15:46, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Notability: Revisited

The notability of this article needs to be reviewed for the following reasons:

• The notability of this article has been in question since at least 2008. It was never defended (as far as I can tell) and the notice was simply removed from the page.
• It has had the "Needs Attention" banner since May 2008.
• It hasn't had any major contributions since October 2012.
• The most significant "contribution" over the last three years is a spate of vandalism.

I would like the contributors to have a say before the official WP:PROD discussion. Padillah (talk) 13:12, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Padillah, and thank you for noting me of this discussion.

I don't quite understand how the second reason ("Needs attention") and third reason (no recent contributions) and the fourth tells anything about notability. It seems to me that it just tells that wikipedians do not notice this article too much.

When I google "SAP IDoc -site:sap.com", I see mostly tutorials. If I understand well, tutorials are not good sources for proving notability? What kind of sources should I look for and HOW to find them? What should I type into Google to find them?

SAP is an extremely well known a often used system - and IDoc is an important part of SAP architectures (and used also by many non-SAP systems). Do you really believe that there will be no sources (enough for proving notability) for such a technology? But I am not experienced in finding sources... Thank you if you help me find them... --Pavel Jelínek (talk) 05:36, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

To be fair, you are right: edit activity does not suggest notability. Notability is established by siting third-party sources that explain and expound on the subject matter. Are there trade publications that talk about iDoc? Is there mention of it in peer reviewed journals or periodicals? Has anyone other than SAP said how cool and useful the iDoc standard is? Remember, we are going for notability, not impact. Also, notability is not transferable. Just because SAP is notable, doesn't suggest that everything having to do with SAP is notable as well. Also, Google searches are not evidence of notability either. If you are looking for guidlines on notability try WP:NOTE or some of the essays linked in that article. Padillah (talk) 17:09, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

OK. Sorry, in my personal situation, I don't have strength and time to look for sources, so I will see what the outcome will be.

And when I looked for essays as you advised me, I have read: "By subject -> Software -> Before nominating an unsourced article for deletion, make sure to verify that it is non-notable, not just missing citations". So I hope that someone will try to find them before deleting the article - but I will respect any outcome. Have a nice day. Pavel Jelínek (talk) 18:43, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Reference link is dead

The link to the official SAP help page leads into data nirvana. Tried it with IE, Chrome and Firefox. Regards M — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.67.63.18 (talk) 16:04, 13 July 2014 (UTC)