William,
On the EDI-L list you espousedthe view that:
> Any valid HIPAA transaction will pass with flying colors through an
> EDISIM Analyzer syntax check against the original X12 standard -
> the ultimate proof of X12 compliance!
Given that both yourself and other members of Foresight Corporation
have previously gone on record to your customers, including the US DoD
as saying that:
"Compliance is not an issue that we are concerned about"
it is good to see that you have changed your mind about the importance
of compliance. However, since EDISIM Analyzer has not (as far as I
know) been audited by anyone from X12, it can hardly be called the ultimate
proof of X12 compliance - X12 itself is responsible for defining what
compliance with the X12 Standard is. Since you sit on the very same X12
committee as I do, and voted to approve the Technical Report which makes
that definition for publication, you have also endorsed X12's position in
that respect.
It is also necessary to point out that compliance with the basic X12
standard does not mean that the data is compliant with any particular
IC or is interoperable between trading partners. So the comment that
the HIPAA transactions pass when compared against the X12 standard is
in fact more or less meaningless.
> Every valid HIPAA transaction set is also a valid X12 transaction set.
This is true, but that does not mean that their Implementation Convention
is compliant with X12's definition of Compliance with X12. Someone could
send you, for instance, an implementation guide written in baroque German,
which you might be completely unable to use or understand but that doesn't
mean that a compliant X12 transmission couldn't be formulated in accordance
with that IC by someone who could read it. If in particular, in the
interests of the broadest possible understanding of ICs, X12 had stipulated
that ICs must be written in English, then this IC could hardly be considered
compliant.
In practice, of course, as would be expected of a serious EDI standards
setting body such as X12, the Technical Report on "Compliance in X12",
which you correctly point out is document X12C/99-197, has been through
detailed discussion and analysis in the standard committee process. It
passed both a letter and full ballot in X12C, including your vote on both
occasions, and has also been approved for publication by X12J, Technical
Assessment. Given the cumulative years of experience within these august
bodies, and their combined skills in setting, maintaining and interpreting
the X12 standard, I think we may safely trust them to know what is and
is not both relevant and correct in terms of X12 compliance, don't you ?
Jonathan
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Allen | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Voice: 01404-823670
Barum Computer Consultants | | Fax: 01404-823671
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
=======================================================================
To contact the list owner: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archives at http://www.mail-archive.com/edi-l%40listserv.ucop.edu/
