Clickable Business Models eBusiness Education Acronyms Cross References
B2B Content Standards EC Technology Standards Glossary Implementation Guidelines
Implementation Options General Recommendations References Methodology/Legends
 Home | Copyright Notice and Legal Disclaimers | Navigation Help | Tour! | Downloads | Contact Us | Site Index | Search
Implementation Options | Technical Basics | Internet Commerce Model  | Architecture |
Implementation (Technology) Options

Implementation Option 3c - Integrated B2B via the Internet, Point-to-Point (PTP, No VAN or Hub) - RosettaNet XML Using RNIF
Special Notes:  

Business User View
When to Use this Implementation Option
EDI/RosettaNet Comparison
What You Need for this Implementation Option
How it Works - Design Time (Initial Implementation, New Partner, New Business Process/New Business Document)
How it Works - Run Time, Outbound
How it Works - Run Time, Inbound
In Order Model 1 Section:
UML Activity Diagram - Inventory Report Example


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

Compare with Basic Implementation Options 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

  • Minimal new development planned - mature
  • Data-centric
  • Regional variations of standards
  • Implemented in many verticals
  • People still use it widely - "if it's not broke, don't fix it!"
  • 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

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


  • €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

  • 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 is work today
  • RNIF 2.0 supports attachments

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


  • €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.


Last updated 02 March 2003