Talk:TRADACOMS

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

United Kingdom

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Please be kind. This is my first attempt at a Wiki page, and was motivated because there was an empty internal link to TRADACOMS in the EDI article. I am painfully aware that there is a dearth of references in it. This is because the standard is outmoded, although still widely used in the UK, and most information about it is merely as minor references in articles whose main content is different. The information content is fairly solid (I have been working with Tradacoms for many years) but it is difficult to prove much of it. I nevertheless felt it was better than an empty link.

I suspect the longevity of Tradacoms is due to the advent of XML, which effectively stopped EDIFACT as being seen as the way forward, but was not ready for standardised commercial use itself. This led people to stay with, and even adopt, a tried and true standard. Chrisj1948 17:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The durability of the standard is interesting, and one might consider putting something about it in the main article. An additional factor could be that the transactions were well-designed, and still satisfy the data transfer needs of the majority of those in UK Retail. Their lack of development thus becomes a virtue, since it equates to stability. EDIFACT EANCOM subsets (and XML) are more volatile, so unless changes give a business gain this is a disadvantage. It would be interesting to compare with the persistence of usage of the early automotive VDA standard, which has been replaced by an EDIFACT equivalent, but unfortunately I have no information about this. Chrisj1948 09:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that some of the comments in the Syntax section really belong elsewhere (the header as it stands) but will not do anything until the article has had a shakedown period Chrisj1948 17:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a link to a page on the website of an EDI software provider which talks a little about Tradacoms and gives an example of an Order File. This link also gives the date of the inception of the standard as 1982. This may be correct, since Tradanet started in 1985 and it would be reasonable for the standard to have pre-dated it slightly. More research needed. Chrisj1948 12:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Volume 1 of the ANA TRADACOMS MANUAL OF STANDARDS FOR ELECTRONIC DATA INTERCHANGE states that the standard originated in 1980, with its first published version in 1982. Page modified accordingly Chrisj1948 13:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added categories (same as in the EDI article) Chrisj1948 10:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good article. Markgarnett2008 (talk) 10:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added an anonymised example of a small Tradacoms order, since the original link to a commercial website displaying one was removed by an undoubtedly worthy editor in the interests of Wikipedia standards. Chrisj1948 (talk) 15:51, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The link to Sainsburys doesn't give you anything useful Stümper (talk) 10:07, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. The original link must have been changed. I will try to find a new URL. Chrisj1948 (talk) 08:40, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed the link to one for EDI order specification for House of Fraser. It is not ideal, and I will try to find a better example, but at least the link works Chrisj1948 (talk) 19:15, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]