RosettaNet VS EDI


I am new to webMethods e-Standards. So many e-stds are available.
Some of the companies using only RosettaNet instead of EDI.

Can any one tell me what are major advantages of RosettaNet compared to other EDI Standards.

Thanks in advance

My company is using both. Main advantages I see are those RN processes available that do not have any corresponding EDI transactions, such as Design Win 5Cx PIPs, Work in Progress 7Bw PIPs, Quality related PIPs 6xy PIPs.
For traditional business processes such as Order cycle or collaborative forecasting and dynamic replenishment, these are equal, same features, but a bit more constraints in RN (response mandatory in 24 hours). The framework for exchanges RNIF is ok, but the corresponding framework EDIINT AS2 is a bit more performant and may carry EDI, flat file, binaries, …
Other considerations: PIPs may be 7 times bigger than an EDI transactions !

Hi Pierre-Emmanuel

    Thanks a lot


RosettaNet VS EDI

EDI : Value added network needed for each trading partner.
RosettaNet : internet is enough to transfer the document

EDI : High cost effective, customized business process,
RosettaNet : One time initial setup, standard business process.

I do not share at all what has been given as definition of EDI or RN.

" EDI : Value added network needed for each trading partner.
RosettaNet : internet is enough to transfer the document

EDI : High cost effective, customized business process,
RosettaNet : One time initial setup, standard business process. "

EDI can use EDIINT AS1, AS2, AS3 and VAN is a traditional way to exchange, but not mandatory
EDI is not High cost effective, or customized biz approach, it only depends on the company approach versus the standard.
RN is in theory “One time initial setup, standard business process” but with the 30+ implementations my company did, none of them is fully identical, XML is so easy to adapt that each company is interprating the standard and implementing differently. Only RNIF is the same.

Sorry for this other point of view, but base on large experience of both standards !
PE Nuiry

How RosettaNet Differs From EDI

There are many major elements distinguishing the RosettaNet initiative from traditional EDI initiatives. First, RosettaNet’s focus is on process and process modeling. The lack of process-focused messages in traditional EDI is widely accepted as a strategic fault and most current attempts to revise EDI, have also introduced a RosettaNet-like process focus as a major part of their revision efforts.
A second major difference is the ability for time compression across organizational boundaries. EDI architecture was originally designed and built around the concept of 24-hour batch processing. Efforts have been made to increase the number of batches to bring EDI processing closer to real-time, but the systems are severely limited by the design of the original architecture. RosettaNet’s quality-of-service expectations are inherently expressed in the standard allowing systems to have confidence around performance. This translates to having reliable, sub-minute response times which can be critical for certain inter-organizational, collaborative processes. Real-time Availability and Pricing is an example use case where rapid response time is extremely important. Today, distributors with multiple suppliers have embedded their supplier’s systems within their own mainframe systems. They have created virtual connections into these supplier systems to check on availability and pricing. For each different supplier however, there is a different interface to learn and navigate. Some distributors tried to solve this problem with EDI, but the information lag made it insufficient. Weekly inventory advice transmissions were sent, but the weekly data was not accurate enough. Even if the transmissions of data became more frequent, customer requirements called for real-time information. The cost of sending that much information that often, via EDI, is much too high. However, using RosettaNet, it is possible for distributors to get accurate inventory information for multiple suppliers onto a single screen.
Another difference between RosettaNet and EDI is the replacement of numeric-code based segment and data IDs with XML encapsulation. A RosettaNet message package consists of two major parts: headers that define the source, destination, and purpose of the message package; and a payload (with optional attachments) that carries the actual business data or operational signals (like error messages). Both the headers and the payload are encapsulated in XML tags that enable content recognition by computers and automatic message validation.
Unlike EDI, RosettaNet created business concept dictionaries and product characteristic dictionaries. The business concept dictionary, the RosettaNet Business Dictionary (RNBD), defines the meaning of business terms like ‘PO-acknowledgment’ so that trading partners can be assured the processes interfaced between two companies are being correctly mapped. The product characteristic dictionary, the RosettaNet Technical Dictionary (RNTD), ensures that product data exchanged between two companies uses a common vocabulary regardless of whether either partner has an internal preference for non-standard terms. The EDI world has long recognized the need for both such dictionaries, but earlier attempts to make such dictionaries, such as the ISO Basic Semantics Repository, have always foundered on the size of the task. RosettaNet feels it has been able to be successful because it restricted the scope of the dictionaries to first the IT industry, then the Electronic Component (EC) industry, and now the Semiconductor (SM), Telecommunications (TC) and Logistics (LG) industries.
RosettaNet now has a policy of making all information machine-processable, which is not available in EDI. At first RosettaNet made this a requirement only for the messages and the dictionaries, but quickly realized the value of also making the process definitions machine-processable. Revising the process descriptions in the PIPs so that they can be processed by computers has already been completed for many PIPs and will continue over the six months.
With RosettaNet, traditional EDI Value Added Network (VAN) activities have been absorbed by the RosettaNet network architecture. Guarantees around security, non-repudiation and message sequencing are now a part of the architecture. As a result, the network interface is now partner-independent in that it no longer requires changes if an organization changes their VAN provider or trading partners.