Re: AS2 XML requirements (was Re: HL7 Standards Process)

I disagree. If you re-encode HL7 into XML syntax, you shouldn't send it
as type of EDI-HL7, since it is not pure HL7 syntax. You should send it
as EDI-XML (if we add that to AS2), and have the "semantic standard"
field/attribute set to "HL7".
Kit.

"Rishel,Wes" wrote:
> 
> I was not saying that AS2 should not carry XML ... quite the contrary. Over
> the years I believe the percentage of AS2 payloads that are encoded using
> XML will rapidly grow to predominate over any other syntax.
> 
> I was saying that XML should not be a content type, in the sense that HL7,
> X12, and NCPDP are content types.
> 
> HL7 already has an ANSI-approved specification for data encoded in XML. X12
> and NCPDP are working on it. Would you suddenly lump the content of all
> three organizations into a general bucket called "XML"? It just doesn't make
> sense.
> 
> Furthermore, if all you know about a message is that it is encoded in the
> XML syntax you really don't know enough to do an EDI function on the
> message. The EDI standards specify a lot more than syntax and these
> specifications are very much a part of the interface contract. With the
> improvements in XML Schema Language 1.0 (and presuming that Schema Language
> manages to predominate over XDR and RELAX) one can tightly nail down the
> syntax of an XML instance, but one cannot directly specify anything about
> workflow, the semantics of the tags (which are NOT self-evident when you get
> to the details), or obligations that are created by sending or accepting
> messages.
> 
> Put it another way, HL7, X12, NCPDP standards (and those of many other
> organizations) define EDI content, maybe using XML maybe using another
> syntax. The W3C XML standard is no more than a building block in defining
> EDI content, just as the standards for TCP, HTTP, MIME etc. are building
> blocks.
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Kit (Christopher) Lueder [mailto:[email protected]]
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2000 8:06 AM
> > To: Rishel,Wes
> > Cc: 'Kepa Zubeldia'; [email protected]; Gunther Schadow; Rik
> > Drummond; CLEM;
> > Gary Crough; Beth Morrow; David@Drummondgroup. Com; [email protected];
> > [email protected]
> > Subject: AS2 XML requirements (was Re: HL7 Standards Process)
> >
> >
> > No! XML must be accommodated in EDIINT! I was figuring XML
> > content would
> > be carried as edi-consent, but that seems like a back-door fix rather
> > than a happy solution.
> >
> > This sounds like Wes has raised a new requirement that should be
> > considered in the AS2 spec (and maybe AS1?). I do consider XML to be a
> > type of EDI, since both are computer-processable electronic
> > representations of business transactions, so I request we add
> > a type of
> > edi-xml. And I request we add an attribute/field that
> > indicates the kind
> > of XML document ("semantic standard") being carried in the payload.
> > Kit Lueder,
> > MITRE.
> >
> > "Rishel,Wes" wrote:
> > >
> > > I doubt if XML will ever be a meaningful content type for
> > EDIINT. Saying
> > > that the content is HL7, X12, or NCPDP implies the availability of a
> > > semantic interpretation of the payload. This would be true
> > whether the
> > > payload was in the current HL7, X12, or NCPDP syntaxes or
> > in the particular
> > > applications of XML that they may adopt.
> > >
> > > If the only claim is that the payload is XML there is no
> > such linkage to a
> > > semantic standard, even if the XML instance contains a
> > pointer to a schema
> > > in a repository somewhere. A schema is far less than a semantic
> > > representation of the instance; it simplify enables a
> > better and more
> > > thorough parsing of the message.
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Kepa Zubeldia [mailto:[email protected]]
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2000 2:52 PM
> > > > To: [email protected]
> > > > Cc: Rishel,Wes; Gunther Schadow; Rik Drummond; CLEM; Gary
> > Crough; Beth
> > > > Morrow; David@Drummondgroup. Com; [email protected];
> > [email protected]
> > > > Subject: Re: HL7 Standards Process (was RE: EDIINT and HIPAA)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Dick,
> > > >
> > > > Probably the requirements are identical, except that the
> > > > content will be
> > > > in X12 or NCPDP syntax instead of HL7 or XML.
> > > >
> > > > Kepa
> > > >
> > > > Dick Brooks wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Kepa,
> > > > >
> > > > > > Are you volunteering to create an interoperability
> > > > profile for digital
> > > > > > signatures of the HIPAA standard transactions ?
> > > > >
> > > > > My offer to assist in the development of an
> > > > interoperability profile was in
> > > > > response to a need identified within HL7. However, I would
> > > > be willing to
> > > > > help the HIPAA folks create an interoperability profile,
> > > > provided it's based
> > > > > on a technology that I'm familiar with (e.g. EDIINT AS2,
> > > > GISB EDM, ebXML).
> > > > >
> > > > > I would hope the investment in developing an
> > > > interoperability profile for
> > > > > HL7 could be leveraged in other areas (e.g. HIPAA, ASTM),
> > > > without any
> > > > > additional work. Do you see HIPAA's requirements being
> > significantly
> > > > > different enough from HL7 to require a separate
> > > > interoperability profile?
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > >
> > > > > Dick Brooks
> > > > > Group 8760
> > > > > 110 12th Street North
> > > > > Birmingham, AL 35203
> > > > > [email protected]
> > > > > 205-250-8053
> > > > > Fax: 205-250-8057
> > > > > http://www.8760.com/
> > > > >
> > > > > InsideAgent - Empowering e-commerce solutions
> > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: Kepa Zubeldia [mailto:[email protected]]
> > > > > > Sent: Monday, November 20, 2000 6:13 PM
> > > > > > To: Dick Brooks
> > > > > > Cc: Rishel,Wes; Gunther Schadow; Rik Drummond; CLEM; Gary
> > > > Crough; Beth
> > > > > > Morrow; David@Drummondgroup. Com; [email protected];
> > > > [email protected]
> > > > > > Subject: Re: HL7 Standards Process (was RE: EDIINT and HIPAA)
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Dick,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Are you volunteering to create an interoperability
> > > > profile for digital
> > > > > > signatures of the HIPAA standard transactions ?  X12,
> > > > NCPDP, and X12+HL7
> > > > > > (in which the signature could be on the HL7 or on the X12
> > > > components)
> > > > > > are the immediate needs.  However, keep in mind that
> > > > NCPDP could also be
> > > > > > in EDIFACT syntax (e.g. prescriptions) and HL7 could be
> > > > in different
> > > > > > syntaxes.  But, for HIPAA purposes, at this time we need
> > > > something for
> > > > > > the 275 attachment only.  Other HL7 messages could come
> > > > later through
> > > > > > other interoperability profiles.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If we have a very narrow scope (HIPAA transactions as
> > > > they were released
> > > > > > in the Final Rule, plus attachments as we know them) then
> > > > it is possible
> > > > > > to get an agreement, even if there is not yet an
> > > > agreement on other
> > > > > > issues or on PKI issues.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Other volunteers ?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Kepa
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Dick Brooks wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks Wes.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Based on your description I would anticipate the EDIINT AS2
> > > > > > spec taking the
> > > > > > > "Recommendation" route, IF the group decides to go
> > forward. Do
> > > > > > you see it
> > > > > > > the same way?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > FYI - other groups that have adopted AS2 have found it
> > > > > > necessary to define
> > > > > > > "interoperability profiles". These profiles identify
> > > > the exact set of
> > > > > > > "options" from AS2 that everyone in the "trading
> > > > community" agrees to
> > > > > > > follow, in order to ensure interoperability. For
> > example, GISB
> > > > > > has already
> > > > > > > defined an AS2 interoperability profile and the New York
> > > > > > Collaborative, in
> > > > > > > accordance with the Public Service Commission
> > regulations, is
> > > > > > in the process
> > > > > > > of defining their interoperability profile. I'm
> > > > familiar with both these
> > > > > > > groups and the process used to develop their profiles.
> > > > I could help HL7
> > > > > > > develop an AS2 interoperability profile, if the
> > group decides
> > > > > > to pursue this
> > > > > > > approach.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Dick Brooks
> > > > > > > Group 8760
> > > > > > > 110 12th Street North
> > > > > > > Birmingham, AL 35203
> > > > > > > [email protected]
> > > > > > > 205-250-8053
> > > > > > > Fax: 205-250-8057
> > > > > > > http://www.8760.com/
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > InsideAgent - Empowering e-commerce solutions
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > > From: Rishel,Wes [mailto:[email protected]]
> > > > > > > > Sent: Friday, November 17, 2000 8:32 PM
> > > > > > > > To: '[email protected]'; Gunther Schadow
> > > > > > > > Cc: Rik Drummond; Kepa Zubeldia; CLEM; Gary Crough;
> > > > Beth Morrow;
> > > > > > > > David@Drummondgroup. Com; [email protected];
> > [email protected]
> > > > > > > > Subject: HL7 Standards Process (was RE: EDIINT and HIPAA)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > As the chair-elect of HL7 I would like to respond to DB's
> > > > > > > > question about HL7
> > > > > > > > process.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > HL7 has two kinds of specifications that are
> > > > published using slighly
> > > > > > > > different processes: a Standard is submitted to ANSI for
> > > > > > > > certification once
> > > > > > > > it has passed ballot; a Recommendation is published
> > > > by HL7 but is not
> > > > > > > > submitted to ANSI and does not become an ANSI
> > standard. Some
> > > > > > > > Recommendations
> > > > > > > > have had substantial acceptance among the HL7 community,
> > > > > > including it's
> > > > > > > > "lower level protocols" which define ways to reliably pass
> > > > > > > > discrete messages
> > > > > > > > over RS-232 and TCP, and were published sometime in
> > > > the early 1990s.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > A Standard originates under the sponsorship of a Technical
> > > > > > > > Committee. If HL7
> > > > > > > > were to create a Standard for EDIINT it would be the
> > > > Control/Query
> > > > > > > > committee. It is balloted at the committee level.
> > > > (Actually anyone can
> > > > > > > > participate in the committee ballot, but in
> > practice those who
> > > > > > > > choose to do
> > > > > > > > so are usually those who participate in, or follow
> > > > the work of, the
> > > > > > > > Technical Committee.) When it passes a committee
> > > > level ballot it is
> > > > > > > > submitted for ballot by the full HL7 Working
> > Group (which is
> > > > > > the entire
> > > > > > > > organization). If it passes at this level it is
> > automatically
> > > > > > submitted to
> > > > > > > > ANSI for certification. The ANSI review allows
> > time for public
> > > > > > > > comment, but
> > > > > > > > it is primarily a certification that the process
> > was fair and
> > > > > > consistent
> > > > > > > > with our bylaws. To date, have never had an issue
> > arise that
> > > > > > prevented or
> > > > > > > > delayed the certification process.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > In addition to Technical Committees HL7 has
> > Special Interest
> > > > > > > > Groups. Gunther
> > > > > > > > is co-chair of our SIG on security. Strictly
> > speaking, a SIG
> > > > > > > > cannot initiate
> > > > > > > > the balloting of a standard; but SIGs can prepare
> > > > such a document, and
> > > > > > > > obtain the consent of a Technical Committee which
> > > > sponsors the ballot.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The other kind of document, the Recommendation,
> > is easier to
> > > > > > get out the
> > > > > > > > door. It can be originated by a SIG, and it has only
> > > > one level of
> > > > > > > > balloting.
> > > > > > > > The majority that is required to pass a Recommendation is
> > > > > > less severe than
> > > > > > > > the majority required to pass a Standard (67% vs. 90%).
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Ballots are conducted using the Web. Assuming that both
> > > > > > ballots pass an
> > > > > > > > energetic committee can easily complete the
> > entire process in
> > > > > > two of our
> > > > > > > > three-per-year Working Group meetings (roughly 8 months
> > > > > > elapsed time). (Of
> > > > > > > > course most committees have substantial time invested
> > > > in debating the
> > > > > > > > document before it begins the process.)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Most of the meetings required at certain points in
> > > > the process can be
> > > > > > > > handled using conference calls; in theory a
> > REALLY motivated
> > > > > > > > committee could
> > > > > > > > accomplish the two-level ballot in five months
> > and then wait
> > > > > > about three
> > > > > > > > months for ANSI certication. (That is a theoretical figure
> > > > > > that has never
> > > > > > > > been realized in practise.)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Recommendations can be passed in roughly four months.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Wes Rishel
> > > > > > > > Research Director
> > > > > > > > Healthcare Industry Research & Advisory Services
> > > > > > > > GartnerGroup
> > > > > > > > Alameda, CA
> > > > > > > > Client inquiries: call +1-203-316-1288 or email to
> > > > [email protected]
> > > > > > > > [email protected]
> > > > > > > > 510 522 8135
> > > > > > > > 510 521 2423 (fax)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > > > From: Dick Brooks [mailto:[email protected]]
> > > > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2000 10:27 AM
> > > > > > > > > To: Gunther Schadow
> > > > > > > > > Cc: Rik Drummond; Kepa Zubeldia; CLEM; Gary Crough;
> > > > Beth Morrow;
> > > > > > > > > David@Drummondgroup. Com; [email protected];
> > > > [email protected]; Dick
> > > > > > > > > Brooks
> > > > > > > > > Subject: RE: EDIINT and HIPAA
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > <DB> I'm not familiar with the HL7 standards
> > process, all of
> > > > > > > > > my experience
> > > > > > > > > has been with IETF, DISA, GISB and recently ebXML.
> > > > Each of these
> > > > > > > > > organizations has a different process for developing
> > > > > > standards. If we
> > > > > > > > > brought AS2 to HL7 today, how long would it take to
> > > > become an
> > > > > > > > > ANSI standard?
> > > > > > > > > I would like to read HL7's operational process
> > document, can
> > > > > > > > > you provide a
> > > > > > > > > pointer?
> > > > > > > > > </DB>
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> >
> > --
> >     _/    _/             Kit C. J. Lueder
> >    _/   _/         _/   The MITRE Corp.         Tel:  703-883-5205
> >   _/_/_/    _/  _/_/_/ 1820 Dolley Madison Bl  Cell: 703-577-2463
> >  _/   _/   _/    _/   Mailstop W658           FAX:  703-883-3383
> > _/    _/  _/    _/   McLean, VA 22102        Mail: [email protected]
> > Worse than an unanswered question is an unquestioned answer.
> >

-- 
    _/    _/             Kit C. J. Lueder       
   _/   _/         _/   The MITRE Corp.         Tel:  703-883-5205
  _/_/_/    _/  _/_/_/ 1820 Dolley Madison Bl  Cell: 703-577-2463
 _/   _/   _/    _/   Mailstop W658           FAX:  703-883-3383
_/    _/  _/    _/   McLean, VA 22102        Mail: [email protected]
Worse than an unanswered question is an unquestioned answer.