Chris, Rather than "naming" a DNS model as you suggest below, I would suggest that we adopt the UN/CEFACT Unified Modeling Methodology and develop the appropriate use cases and scenarios in a more rigorous and disciplined manner. Actually, my proposed approach to requirements developed is based on that UMM, which by the way, is based on the Rational Unified Process but adapted for standards development organizations. This is the globally recognized and used methodology for almost all systems design work, and one that is used by all of the major systems developers, such as IBM, Sun, CommerceOne, etc., all of which are active participants in the continuation of the ebXML work under both UN/CEFACT and OASIS. Additionally, major participants also include a large number of X12 members, and of course, the X12 Committee is the official U.S. representative into this effort.
If there is sufficient interest, I'll post the introductory chapter of the UN/CEFACT UMM document, which is still in draft form, to this lists document server. This introduction will give everyone a good overview of this approach. Rachel -----Original Message----- From: Christopher J. Feahr, OD [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2002 9:01 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: auto-discovery of the "return path" (In the Kepa-DNS model) Speaking of semantics, we should figure out a standard term for the DNS model that Kepa has suggested. Anyway, in that model, if a "small provider" (also needs a definition!) is able to send a claim (or anything) directly to a payor using the health plan's "smart EDI address"... will this automatically mean that the payor will be able to discover the address/route back to the provider for 271s, 824s, etc.? (I assume that the 835 will require special handling in a provider-payor agreement) Does the provider's EDI address automatically get entered into the "DNS table" in this proposed model? -Chris Christopher J. Feahr, OD http://visiondatastandard.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cell/Pager: 707-529-2268
