Xpath Tika或JAXP或两者
为了更好地理解我的困境，请参阅第页；） 正如在上面的线程中提到的，我决定使用Tika提供一个通用接口来解析文档。并提取内容。现在，我决定使用适当的ContentHandler将每个文档转换为XML/HTML 以下是示例输出：Xpath Tika或JAXP或两者,xpath,apache-tika,jaxp,javax.xml,Xpath,Apache Tika,Jaxp,Javax.xml,为了更好地理解我的困境，请参阅第页；） 正如在上面的线程中提到的，我决定使用Tika提供一个通用接口来解析文档。并提取内容。现在，我决定使用适当的ContentHandler将每个文档转换为XML/HTML 以下是示例输出： File type is application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Handler <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/19
File type is application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Handler <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
<meta name="cp:revision" content="2" />
<meta name="meta:last-author" content="ogilvie.f" />
<meta name="Last-Author" content="ogilvie.f" />
<meta name="meta:save-date" content="2012-04-24T15:24:00Z" />
<meta name="Application-Name" content="Microsoft Office Word" />
<meta name="Author" content="ogilvie.f" />
<meta name="dcterms:created" content="2012-04-24T15:24:00Z" />
<meta name="Application-Version" content="12.0000" />
<meta name="Character-Count-With-Spaces" content="21667" />
<meta name="date" content="2012-04-24T15:24:00Z" />
<meta name="extended-properties:Template" content="Normal" />
<meta name="meta:line-count" content="153" />
<meta name="creator" content="ogilvie.f" />
<meta name="publisher" content="Procter & Gamble" />
<meta name="Word-Count" content="3240" />
<meta name="meta:paragraph-count" content="43" />
<meta name="Creation-Date" content="2012-04-24T15:24:00Z" />
<meta name="extended-properties:AppVersion" content="12.0000" />
<meta name="meta:author" content="ogilvie.f" />
<meta name="Line-Count" content="153" />
<meta name="extended-properties:Application" content="Microsoft Office Word" />
<meta name="Paragraph-Count" content="43" />
<meta name="Last-Save-Date" content="2012-04-24T15:24:00Z" />
<meta name="Last-Printed" content="2012-03-29T15:06:00Z" />
<meta name="Revision-Number" content="2" />
<meta name="meta:print-date" content="2012-03-29T15:06:00Z" />
<meta name="meta:creation-date" content="2012-04-24T15:24:00Z" />
<meta name="dcterms:modified" content="2012-04-24T15:24:00Z" />
<meta name="Template" content="Normal" />
<meta name="Page-Count" content="15" />
<meta name="meta:character-count" content="18470" />
<meta name="dc:creator" content="ogilvie.f" />
<meta name="meta:word-count" content="3240" />
<meta name="extended-properties:Company" content="Procter & Gamble" />
<meta name="Last-Modified" content="2012-04-24T15:24:00Z" />
<meta name="custom:ContentTypeId" content="0x010100832DCE57D1DD144A851051A25C75E147" />
<meta name="modified" content="2012-04-24T15:24:00Z" />
<meta name="xmpTPg:NPages" content="15" />
<meta name="dc:publisher" content="Procter & Gamble" />
<meta name="Character Count" content="18470" />
<meta name="meta:page-count" content="15" />
<meta name="meta:character-count-with-spaces" content="21667" />
<meta name="Content-Type" content="application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document" />
<title></title>
</head>
<body><p class="body_Text"><b>CONFIDENTIAL</b></p>
<table><tbody><tr> <td><p>principle</p>
</td> <td><p>optimum</p>
</td> <td><p>rationale</p>
</td></tr>
<tr> <td><p>Number of suppliers</p>
</td> <td><p class="list_Paragraph">2-3 per plant</p>
<p class="list_Paragraph">>80% with 5 per region/country cluster</p>
</td> <td><p class="list_Paragraph">Competition is local</p>
<p class="list_Paragraph">Scale the spend with central accounts</p>
</td></tr>
<tr> <td><p>Global/local suppliers</p>
</td> <td><p>Regional is sufficient</p>
</td> <td><p class="list_Paragraph">No advantage to global as scale is regional only and there is limited IP to transfer.</p>
<p class="list_Paragraph">Larger regional suppliers can consolidate local single-plant suppliers to make it efficient for us. They also bring capital for machinery upgrading and scale for paper source.</p>
</td></tr>
<tr> <td><p>Approach to suppliers</p>
</td> <td><p>collaborative</p>
</td> <td><p>Competition to drive price is clear; preferential and value-add deals require collaboration</p>
</td></tr>
<tr> <td><p>Make v buy</p>
</td> <td><p>buy</p>
</td> <td><p>Multiple suppliers; commoditised technologies</p>
</td></tr>
<tr> <td><p>Distance of suppliers to plant</p>
</td> <td><p class="list_Paragraph">Max 300km for boxes (300miles in NA); up to 1000km for paper reels.</p>
<p class="list_Paragraph">Can be longer for specialist print grades or to countries with no high quality local supply</p>
</td> <td><p class="list_Paragraph">Economic max as high volume product (air in the fluting)</p>
<p class="list_Paragraph">Need recent built paper machines to produce paper strong enough to run on high-speed corrugators</p>
</td></tr>
<tr> <td><p>Type of suppliers</p>
</td> <td><p class="list_Paragraph">Integrated with containerboard making</p>
<p />
<p class="list_Paragraph">Corrugators on-site</p>
</td> <td><p class="list_Paragraph">To assure supply and avoid being leveraged by paper making scale</p>
<p class="list_Paragraph">Cost structure not competitive if have to buy in board (shipping air)</p>
</td></tr>
<tr> <td><p>Purchase of feedstocks</p>
</td> <td><p>Not if integrated suppliers</p>
</td> <td><p>Integrated suppliers have 20x our scale</p>
</td></tr>
<tr> <td><p>Length and nature of contracts</p>
</td> <td><p>Multiple year (2-3), but with fixed glidepath pricing/value every year</p>
</td> <td><p>Significant effort for Purchases to re-enquire annually. High number of specs and low resources mean long time to qualify relative to additional value if only 12 month allocation.</p>
</td></tr>
<tr> <td><p>Specifications</p>
</td> <td><p class="list_Paragraph">Standard board weights</p>
<p />
<p />
<p class="list_Paragraph">Tailored box sizes</p>
</td> <td><p class="list_Paragraph">Paper scale much higher so uneconomic to make tailored weight</p>
<p class="list_Paragraph">Maximising pallet fit delivers better savings and stronger pallet (less transport damages) than scale savings of standard box size.</p>
</td></tr>
<tr> <td><p>Terms</p>
</td> <td><p>Standard, including payment terms</p>
</td> <td><p>High degree of competition, no specialist investment. Paper making has good cash-flow, so no need for shorter payment terms.</p>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<p>date</p>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<p />
<p />
<p>1</p>
<p class="footer" />
</body></html>
文件类型为application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
处理者
机密
原则
最佳的
理由
供应商数量
每个工厂2-3个
80%，每个地区/国家/地区集群5个
竞争是本地的
用中央账户衡量支出
全球/本地供应商
区域合作就足够了
由于规模仅限于区域，且可转让的IP有限，因此对全球没有任何优势
较大的区域供应商可以合并本地的单一工厂供应商，使其对我们更有效。他们还为机械升级和纸张来源的规模带来资金
对供应商的做法
协作
推动价格的竞争显而易见；优惠和增值交易需要合作
买
买
多个供应商；商品化技术
供应商到工厂的距离
箱子的最大行驶里程为300公里（北美为300英里）；卷筒纸长度可达1000公里
对于专业印刷品等级或没有高质量本地供应的国家，可以更长
作为大容量产品的经济最大值（水槽中的空气）
需要最新制造的造纸机来生产强度足以在高速瓦楞机上运行的纸张
供应商类型
与纸板制作相结合
现场瓦楞机
确保供应，避免被造纸规模所利用
如果必须在船上购买（空运），则成本结构没有竞争力
原料采购
如果是综合供应商，则不会
综合供应商的规模是我们的20倍
合同的期限和性质
多年（2-3年），但每年固定下滑道定价/价值
每年对采购进行重新查询的重大努力。如果只有12个月的分配，高规格数量和低资源意味着相对于附加值的认证时间较长
规格
标准板重量
定制的盒子尺寸
纸质秤要高得多，所以定制重量不经济
与标准箱子尺寸的秤节约相比，最大化托盘适合度可提供更好的节约和更强的托盘（更少的运输损坏）
条件
标准，包括付款条件
高度竞争，没有专业投资。造纸具有良好的现金流，因此无需缩短付款期限
日期
一,
有谁能告诉我，我的假设、方向哪里错了，我该怎么做？出于多种原因，你的问题不适合这样做。首先，我们不推荐这里的工具。第二，使用哪种工具在很多因素上都是高度主观的。此外，您缺少了真正重要的细节（例如，
不能做“