<!doctype linuxdoc system>
<article>

<title>
	<tt/XML::Edifact/ - an approach towards <tt>XML/EDI</> as a prototype in perl
<subtitle>
	release 0.40 - stabilisation of edicooked syntax
<author>
	Michael Koehne,
( <htmlurl url="mailto:kraehe@copyleft.de" name="kraehe@copyleft.de"> )
<date>
	v0.40 release
<abstract>
	XML::Edifact is a set of perl scripts, hopefully becoming a
	module, for translating EDIFACT into XML. This 0.40 version
	open the portability track. Starting with a minor bugfix
	( thanks to Werner F.C. Bruns ) and questions for a W32
	port on a DIN meeting in Frankfurt.

</abstract>
<!-- Table of contents -->
<toc>
<!-- Begin the document -->

<sect>
	Introduction
<p>
   <tt/EDIFACT/ often called " nightmare of paper less office " once you
   show a programmer the standard draft. Those 2700 pages of horror full
   advisory board English has cursed many programmers with headaches.
<p>
   EDIFACT is trying the impossible: a single form for the real world.
<p>
   Orders, invoices, fright papers, ..., always look different, if they
   come from different companies. EDIFACT tries to fulfill all needs of
   commercial messages regardless of branch and origin. Of course those
   99% real world is neither simple nor complete.  Nevertheless its
   important for the top companies and their suppliers, you know those
   who can pay a mainframe and a pack of gurus, and in use for years.
<p>
   <tt>XML/EDI</> is will provide a simpler (KISS) format that can be
   translated from and into EDIFACT, to allow smaller companies to avoid
   slaughtering forests and retyping stupid lines into a computer
   keyboard printed by other computers.
<p>
   This is <tt/NOT/ XML/EDI, its certainly not KISS. The <tt/edifact03.dtd/
   reflects the original words of the EDIFACT standard as close as possible
   on a segment, composite and element level.
<p>
   This DTD simplifies EDI in so much as it doesnt distinct between e.g.
   INVOICE or PRICAT but only defines a generic message type called
   edifact:message. The benefit is of course that its possible to
   convert any EDI message into edifact. The drawback is that the dtd
   is realy relaxed. Validation of EDIFACT message design can therefore
   not be done by a validating XML parser. Message designers will still
   need knowledge about EDIFACT message design and EDIFACT tools.
<p>
   But once the message is designed its simpler to read it with XML.
<sect>
	Release Notes:
<sect1>
   Edi2SGML-0.1: About the beauty of plain text
<p>
   Standards should be based on standards. EDIFACT is based on ASCII and
   documentation is available from WWW.Premenos.Com as plain text.
   Well the original contains some PCDOS characters. I took the freedom, to
   replace them with ASCII in this distribution to improve readability.
   I don't talk about human readability here. A friend at SAP joked that
   plain paper is the only platform independent format in that case. But
   I disliked to retype them. And plain text is more flexible, as I'm a
   programmer.
<p>
   Unlike the 0.1 distribution, following distributions will only contain
   those documents I need to parse by the scripts. Download the 0.1
   for a complete set, or surf at Premenos.
<p>
   Note: Premenos was the old url - better start surfing now at www.unece.org
<sect1>
  XML-Edifact-0.2: Its a hard work to cook a second version.
<p>
   As usual. Second versions claim to be better documented and tested, but
   the truth - they contain more features. So talk about features:
<p>
   First of all: Its looking like a module. "use strict" and the package
   concept is a usefull thing. But it'll take a lot of RTFM for me to
   understand the perl way of doing it. The XML/Edifact.pm doesnt export
   anything, and its not even neccessary to "perl Makefile.PL; make install".
<p>
   A 0.2 version is not intendet to become installed, its a test case.
<p>
   So talk about the test case: Run ./bin/make_test.sh from here, and
   anything should be fine. Still it need some RTFM for me to understand
   the perl way of regession test. But the ./bin/make_test.sh is the
   one this version offers ,-)
<p>
   I'm now using a tied hash for speeding startup. I've deceided to use SDBM
   as this DBM comes with any perl, and a small DBM is better in this case.
<p>
   I've provided a document type definition. And its now possible to use
   a validating parser like SP from James Clark. You may also notice the
   renaming from Edi2SGML to XML::Edifact. This namechange reflects that
   my script is now producing XML and not SGML, and the name should point
   where in cpan hirachy this package belongs.
<sect1>
   XML-Edifact-0.3x: About normalisation, namespaces and xml2edi
<p>
   You may notice the major change in the DBM design. While the old
   DBM files had been modeled closely to the batch directory. This
   version has been partly normalised to improve coding. Its also
   denormalised for some perlish reasons. Unloading of this DBM into
   a relational database would be possible with varchars, but the
   semantics of the 2nd element in segments and composite could only
   be expressed with some wired object relational databases like PostgreSQL.
<p>
   Also the DTD changed for namespace reason. The 0.2 need to add
   the word literal, where element names clashed segment names of
   the standard. And it droped the composite informations.
   Now trsd:party.name means the segment, while tred:party.name points
   to the element.
<p>
   This allows to parse the XML message to produce a EDI message
   without an backtracking parser. The event based parser used
   for xml2edi is quite new, and certainly contain some bugs.
   Please dig around your real life messages, translate them with
   edi2xml, back with xml2edi and compare the original with the
   double translation. I've tried a robust solution, that doesnt
   croak with codes from the unknown namespace, I hope.
<p>
   Version 0.30 and 0.31 used edicooked:message as namespace, versions
   0.32 and up will use edifact:message for the main namespace. The
   technical reason is quite simple. The namespace prefix of a message
   does not mean anything. Its only a shorthand for the provided URI
   in the xmlns attribute. So any distinct XML message can claim to
   be in the edifact: namespace, if the URI is distinct. So if other
   projects starts becoming implemented, they can claim to be in the
   edifact: namespace for the same right.
<p>
   Version 0.33 first of all solves a bug shown up with xml2edi and
   a TeleOrdering message translated by edi2xml. I just did forgot
   to encode less than and ampersand, if they occure as translation
   in a code list. So NAD+OB+0091987:160:16' will now translated
   using Dun &amp;amp; Bradstreet, which is right.
<p>
  Two other improvements are for major notice. The brand new Perl5
  version 005.60 contains a profiler, and hunting the hot spots and
  optimising the SDBM by further denormalisation improved performance
  of <tt/edi2xml/ by factor 12. I hope nobody did use the SDBM internals
  so far. The last major improvement is, that I'm getting familar with
  ExtUtils::MakeMaker, File::Spec and friends. Version 0.33 is the
  first that did install - at least on my Linux box :-)
<p>
  Version 0.34 introduced coding of UN/EDIFACT code list extensions
  by XML-Edifact namespace migration.
<p>
  Version 0.34 fixed a bug concerning the release indicatior. As a minor
  improvement the edi2xml and xml2edi scripts now have <tt/pod/ documentation.
<p>
  Version 0.35 was a bug fix, thanks to Detlef Lammermann from Dr.
  Materna GmbH, who found that ??' was missinterpreted.
<sect1>
  Version 0.40 will open the portability track.
<p>  
  Intension is a version running under as many operating systems as
  possible. Bug fixes may still merge in this version, but new features
  are implemented into the 0.50 track.

<sect>
	Installation
<p>
   I've included my modified documents, so others can be able to rebuild
   the DBM files. You may need a Unix like system because of newline
   conventions.

<tscreen><verb>
	$ perl Makefile.PL

	I know I should check for those 99 possible places, but I prefer to ask :-)

	URL for public documents [http://localhost/xml-edifact] 
	Directory on this system [/usr/local/apache/htdocs/xml-edifact] 

	Writing Makefile for XML::Edifact

	$ make
</verb></tscreen>

   <tt/perl perl Makefile.PL/ will first ask two questions. The reason
   is that XML::Edifact wants to install his document type definition
   on a web server to allow validation XML parser to grep the DTD.
<p>
   If you dont have a web server, anwer "." as the URL and
   "/tmp/xml-edifact" as a directoryname. You may change those
   decissions later by reperling the Makefile.PL, or by editing
   the XML::Edifact::Config module in your SITE_PERL.
<p>
   Make will take a while and you hopefully have a working database.
   This database covers the 96b version of the UN/EDIFACT batch
   directory and will become installed as XML::Edifact::d96b later.

<tscreen><verb>
	$ make test
</verb></tscreen>

  The regression test will translate any .edi file found in the
  examples directory to xml and translate the xml back to EDIFACT.
  The result should not change.

<tscreen><verb>
	$ make install
</verb></tscreen>

  This will install the XML::Edifact module the D96B batch directory,
  various files for the URL and two scripts: <tt/edi2xml/ and <tt/xml2edi/
<p>
  You can now try own UN/EDIFACT files. I really want to know how your
  EDI messages look like, do they break anything, what about your code
  list extension, ...
<p>
  Testing different real examples should show some bugs, I hav'nt
  thought about.  Think about the <tt/O'Reilly/ invoice or the
  <tt/Dubbel:Test/ and you should catch the clue. I've tried to implement
  the <tt/UNA/ right, but this may need some additional debugging.
  Take a look at the difference between the editeur.edi file from
  Frankfurt and the Springer message. The last one is using newline
  as a 9th character in UNA, so its nearly human readable.
<p>
  A last word - I hope this complex installlation will work on most
  Unix look likes, but I'm quite sure that it'll break on Windows and
  Mac. If you have such a system, and problems during installation,
  drop me a mail. You are granted my help, as I need your help to
  make the installation portabel across different platforms.
<sect>
	Known Bugs
<sect1>
	Double namespace declarations
<p>
  Namespace declaration was redefined in January 1999. XML::Edifact 0.30
  produced <tt/both/ the old and the new declarations. XML::Edifact 0.31
  droped the depreciated declartions! If you have an old browser, you may
  have to download XML::Edifact 0.30 and to edit the actual XML::Edifact.
  Search for <tt/HERE_/ and adopt the headers to your browsers preferences.
<sect1>
	Stating level in Syntax identifier.
<p>
  This has to be parsed. The stating level in EDIFACT speak is
  called charset encoding in XML speak, and its of course important
  if you thing about non US/UK products. See un_edifact/unsl.
<sect1>
	Explicit Indication of Nesting
<p>
  This has not been coded yet, as no example messsages are available
  to me.
<sect1>
	XML::Edifact is slow!
<p>
  The 0.50 will be times faster ;-)
<sect>
	Roadmap
<p>
   I'm using even and odd numbering to distinct from stable and
   experimental version. Well 0.2 was not as stable as an
   even number suggests. And I hope this 0.3x is stable enough
   as as often a third version, will be the first usefull one.
<p>
   Both 0.4x track and 0.5x track are active currently. The 0.35
   was quite stable, and there is a need for portability, while the
   version under development is far from beeing usable.
<descrip>
<tag/0.4x/
   This version focus on portability, of the EdiCooked style.
<p>
   While Perl ensures
   portability across the unix'es, MacOS and Win32 will cause
   some problems. The 0.4 version will also be the first one
   intended to become installed. As installation also means
   configuration of non Perlish paths e.g. for webserver,
   mime.types, mailcap, dtds and databases, XML::Config.pm
   will be discussed in the perlxml list.
<tag/0.5x/
   This is the unstable version track.
<p>
   XML::Edifact now provides
   PerlSAX objects as drivers and handlers to UN/EDIFACT, making
   usage more flexible. Current step is the reverse engineering
   of a document type definition for the original EDI standard draft.
<tag/0.6x/
   Stabilisation by disscussion and consens about features
   introduced with 0.5. Portability across networks using SAX
   may be one concern.
<tag/0.7x/
   EdiCooked is far from being KISS. This release will try on a
   smarter DTD called EdiLean. EdiLean will focus on PRICAT, QUOTES,
   ORDERS, ORDRSP, ORDCHG and INVOICE. If a consens about a KISS
   XML/EDI already exist, EdiLean will try to implement it.
<tag/0.8x/
   Stabilisation by disscussion and consens about the XML DTDs
   introduced with 0.7.
<tag/0.9x/
   Its important for me that authentication and authorisation
   will be provided <tt/before/ I call it final 1.0. Some
   Edifact messages contain medical informations (MED*), other
   contain personal informations (JOB*). Most messages contain
   viable information for running a bussiness. Only cryptography
   on a document level would preserve authentication and authorisation
   once a message stored on a disk.
<p>
   Alf O. Watt
   ( <htmlurl url="mailto:alfwatt@pacbell.net" name="alfwatt@pacbell.net"> )
   proposed a simple solution using namespaces and processing
   instructions at the perlxml mailing list in December 1998. The beauty
   of this aproach is, that the secure document is still wellformed and
   valid of the same document type. It could even translated back to
   UN/EDIFACT to obtain a message with crypted segments.
<tag/1.0/
   I hope that any consens have been found on that road, so the DTDs
   wont change in further releases. Those versions may focus on
   <tt/using/ XML::Edifact in real life applications. I can think
   about an SQL interface, a Cobol interface, a message designer,
   a DOM/CORBA wrapper, and much more.
<p>
   Once I think to have XML::Edifact complete, I have to think about
   speed. Perl is a perfect language for prototyping, but profiling
   and using a low level language like C for hot spots, will be
   necessary to handle large batches.
</descrip>
<sect>
	Legal stuff
<p>
   Programs provided with this copy called XML-Edifact-0.32.tgz
   can be used, distributed and modified under terms of the GNU
   General Public License.
<p>
   Files in the ./examples directory are from varios sources and
   free of claims as far as I know.
<p>
   Files inside the ./un_edifact_d96b directory are based on EDI
   batch directory and are therefore copyrighted by the United Nations.
   See un_edifact_d96b/LICENAGR.TXT.
<p>
   Files that are produced during the bootstrap process and placed
   in XML::Edifact::d96b are based on the original UN/EDIFACT
   standard and therefore not covered by GPL, but likely copyrighted
   by the United Nations. The same is with the text tables produced
   during Bootstrap.PL.
<p>
   Besides the GPLed Edition a Custom Edition, exist if you dislike
   GPL. Drop me an eMail and ask for price and conditions. 
<sect>
	Download
<p>
   I just got a message from PAUSE that I can upload it to :

<tscreen><verb>
   	$CPAN/authors/id/K/KR/KRAEHE
</verb></tscreen>

   XML::Edifact requires XML::Parser, so to download and install type:

<tscreen><verb>
	$ perl -MCPAN -e shell
	cpan> install XML::Parser
	cpan> install XML::Edifact
</verb></tscreen>

   or ftp directly at:

<tscreen><verb>
	ftp://ftp.cpan.org/pub/perl/CPAN/modules/by-module/XML/XML-Parser-*.tar.gz
	ftp://ftp.cpan.org/pub/perl/CPAN/modules/by-module/XML/XML-Edifact-*.tar.gz
</verb></tscreen>

   The canon source of the XML::Edifact project is now:

<tscreen><verb>
	http://www.xml-edifact.org/
</verb></tscreen>

  This site contain varius example files, research papers, a complete set
  of UN/EDIFACT batch directorys and most important actual versions from
  the unstable track.

</article>
