EDI: an introduction
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/eb040518 |
| Published date | 01 January 1994 |
| Pages | 3-4 |
| Date | 01 January 1994 |
| Subject Matter | Information & knowledge management |
EDI:
an introduction
Bibliographic records
What is EDI?
Electronic data interchange, or EDI, can be defined
as "the paperless exchange of information between
computer systems".(1) Instead of keying of the
same data by numerous organisations at different
stages, this represents the old idea that data should
be entered once only and subsequently passed
electronically between all relevant parties. Within
the ordering framework this removes duplication
of effort, thus saving time and money and reducing
the chances of inaccuracies. The full implications
for the various parties involved are considered in
much greater depth by the contributors to this
issue.
EDI is therefore not a new concept. It has been
around in various forms for a number of years (eg
Teleordering) and has been implemented in a
variety of commercial sectors outside the book
world to handle trading messages.
In the library and information context EDI is so far
primarily applied to the trading component of the
acquisitions process. Therefore, the most common
sets of information to be exchanged in this way are
price and availability updates, orders, acknowl-
edgements, despatch notes, invoices, credit notes,
chasers and fund transfers. In the library world,
the EDI concept has also come to imply the
incorporation of certain standards.
Standards
It is agreed that to contemplate the exchange of
information with a wide range of suppliers/cus-
tomers, the establishment of, and conformance to
standards is all-important. "Standards are the
essence of
EDI",
according to Karl Lawrence of
HarperCollins (2).
The TRADACOMS format, devised by the Article
Numbering Association in the mid-80s, was
adopted as the UK standard by high street retailers
and the book trade alike. The UN EDIFACT
standard (or more precisely the EANCOM subset)
is now emerging as the international standard for
the information world. These are both examined in
detail by Brian Green in the following article and
the implications for the different players discussed
further by their representatives.
One area which has not received much attention in
the EDI debate is that of bibliographic records.
Even trading messages must by definition contain
some bibliographic elements. This is not such an
issue for libraries who have access to union and
extended catalogues such as those maintained by
BLCMP and SLS. However for libraries without
an established source for capturing records, EDI
could also be seen as a cataloguing resource. It is
of course most relevant when libraries are using
integrated automated acquisitions and cataloguing
modules.
Libraries have of course been exchanging biblio-
graphic records for many years using the MARC
exchange format. Juliet Leeves in her 1992
EDIBIB Report (3) points out that:
EDI will facilitate the transfer of bibliographic
data from a variety of sources across the book
world, rather than just from the traditional
sources for record supply such as the British
Library and the bibliographic utilities. In
particular, bibliographic data held on
publishers' databases could form the
embryonic record which would ultimately
reside on a local library system.
Libraries have always been reluctant to use com-
mercially-supplied records (for obvious reasons) as
catalogue records; if they are used as a basis for
fuller entries, extensive editing is often carried out.
In her report Leeves reviews the provision for
bibliographic data within the EDIFACT standard
and examines the implications for MARC-based
standards (UKMARC, UNIMARC etc).
One suggestion made is that EDIFACT could
be used as a 'message wrapper' for a MARC
record. "This would allow for the transmission
of MARC-style records across the trading
environment as well as in the bibliographic envi-
ronment."(4)
There is still a long way to go before the inter-
change of data can complete a circuit, having
satisfied all parties at the various stages, in the
same standard format. Although EDI is currently
considered as an ordering mechanism, with the
continued squeezing of library budgets, libraries
may be forced to consider it also as a means of
bibliographic record supply, a cost-effective
VlNE94(March 1994)—3
To continue reading
Request your trial