|
Implementation Option 3c - Integrated B2B via the Internet, Point-to-Point (PTP, No VAN or Hub) -
RosettaNet XML Using RNIF
Introduction
This is a technology where the both sending and receiving partners are using the
RosettaNet standard, which includes business process standards called Partner Interface Processes (PIPs), which
include specifications for business documents using RosettaNet's XML vocabulary, and a specification for transport and routing, called the
RosettaNet Implementation Framework (RNIF).
In RosettaNet's early days, the business processes were expected to be fully integrated for all partners. As with legacy EDI, some alternatives
have been emerging, such as a PC front-end, and web-based applications.
In this implementation option, all connections with trading partners are point-to-point, via the
internet. Again, because point-to-point connections are expensive to maintain, as with
EDI, modern VANs have been emerging to handle RosettaNet traffic.
Business User View
When to Use This Technology
This technology is appropriate wherever you would use legacy EDI; see When to Use This Implementation Option -
Implementation Option 1. Since RosettaNet is business-process based and uses XML syntax, its potential for extensibility
and scalability is somewhat higher than for the legacy EDI standards, ASC X12 and EDIFACT.
Some companies have adopted a strategy of eventually replacing their legacy EDI implementations with RosettaNet implementations.
Other companies are leaving existing EDI partnerships in place, and using RosettaNet for business processes for which legacy EDI standards are not as
robust as they need to be. Some companies implement RosettaNet with trading partners who also have a RosettaNet strategy, or trading partners
who have not yet invested in legacy EDI standards.
EDI/RosettaNet Comparison
| Legacy EDI Standards |
RosettaNet |
General
- Minimal new development planned - mature
- Data-centric
- Regional variations of standards
- Implemented in many verticals
- People still use it widely
- Continued expansion expected through 2005
- Has a very big installed base, feasible for and reaching SME's with web technology
- Works today
- Does not support attachments
|
General
- New and evolving, solving legacy issues that were being ignored
- Process-centric
- Target: Single global standard
- Emerging technology, target is 100% of Information Technology, Electronic Components and Semiconductor supply chains
- Addressing new business areas, e.g. warranty, returns, Design Win
- Goal is to eventually make feasible for SME's
- RosettaNet work today
- RNIF 2.0 supports attachments
|
Transport and Routing
- Mostly VAN-enabled, but there is significant amount of EDI-over-the-internet traffic
- Cost model is to charge a per transaction fee plus an amount per thousand kilocharacters.
- Manual retries on failures
- Has robust error handling capabilities
- Can be event-driven - the reputation that it's batch processing is usually due to the back-end applications doing
batch processing
- Synchronous messaging
- Maps tend to be highly customized - trading partners don't adhere to industry guidelines
|
Transport and Routing
- Internet virtually free; cost model is not based on file size (but cost models are still evolving)
- Supports automated resends (rules-based)
- Has error handling capabilities
- Event-driven, real-time - as real time as your back-end system is
- Synchronous and asynchronous
- Maps still tend to be customized, but easier to develop and maintain
- XML volume can be hard to handle - can be 25 times the size as a legacy EDI file
- Problematic to parse large files
|
Infrastructure
- €5K - 500K EDI infrastructure cost
- Ongoing costs significant for development - hard to find resources who understand legacy EDI; VAN costs can be high for
volumes in the millions of transactions per day
- But ... most companies using EDI have knowledgeable EDI teams already
- Should use VAN or EDIINT or your solution is not extensible due to dedicated secure line requirement
|
Infrastructure
- €5K - 2M B2B infrastructure cost
- Costs up front can be significant, then ongoing cost is in new business process development and partner
implementations
- Seamless communication requires end-to-end interoperability or time-consuming, costly IT efforts for connections
- If you can establish connectivity rules with partners first, you win
|
Options for Connecting with Partners
For a point-to-point RosettaNet connection, both partners must be using the same RNIF version at both ends.
|
contact
us 
