Rachel, Thank you for taking the time to illustrate IMPDEF formats in greater detail. I still can't say that I understand exactly how this format conveys the IG logic or whether it could function as the *primary* representation of a "standard". But it's not really important that I understand how it would work... only *whether* it would work. I am using the word representation is a very broad sense here. I.e., an SDO considers the business needs and then builds a "standard". The standard could be represented and published in many different forms... for different kinds of machines, for humans with various levels of need and/or understanding, etc. But one and only one of those possible presentation formats (the least ambiguous one, I would assume) should be identified as the official or "parent" standard. All others would be interpretations or "translations" of the core "standard".
By settling on the English language, narrative description of the standard as the "parent", I believe we have introduced unnecessary confusion/ambiguity, as these standards are implemented. That has lead (in my opinion) to an excessive need for "testing" at every trading partner interface... probably the chief barrier to "open EDI". Regards, Chris At 01:47 PM 7/17/2002 -0500, Rachel Foerster wrote: >Chris, I'll try to answer each of your questions in-line below. > >Rachel > >-----Original Message----- >From: Christopher J. Feahr, OD [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2002 8:16 PM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: RE: Testing for levels 3, 4, and 6 > > >Rachel, >I have a few questions about this... > >- What sort of labor is required to convert the plain text version of an >X12 IG into the IMPDEF format? > ><ref>Don't know yet. A colleague has developed a toolset to do some of the >work.</ref> > >- How is the logic represented... SQL statements? > ><ref>No. IMPDEF is a UN/EDIFACT EDI message. Here's a snippet of an example >from the 837D which shows both the message and the constraint/alias >structures, and folded multiple code-value lines: > >. . . >FTX+AFE+++Transaction Set Identifier Code' >CDV+837' >DFN+3' >ELU+329+2+02+++++2' >ELM+329+2+2+9+4+2' >FTX+AFE+++Transaction Set Control Number' >DFN+3' >SGU+BHT+2++0+010+1' >ELU+1005+2+01+++2++2' >CDV+0019' >DFN+3' >ELU+353+2+02+++2++2' >CDV+00' >CDV+18' >DFN+3' >ELU+127+6+03+++++2' >ELU+373+6+04+++++2' >ELU+337+6+05+++++2' >ELU+640+6+06+++++2' >CDV+CH' CDV+RP' >DFN+3' >SGU+REF+6++0+015+1' >ELU+128+2+01+++2++2' >CDV+87' >DFN+3' >ELU+127+6+02+++++2' >ELV+3+004010X0097D' >ELV+3+004010X0097' >DFN+3' >GRU+1000+6' > SGU+NM1+2++1+020+1' > ELU+98+2+01+++2++2' > CDV+41' > DFN+2+1+Submitter' > ELU+1065+2+02+++2++2' > CDV+1' > DFN+2+1' > ELU+1035+6+03+++++2' > ELU+1036+3+04+++++2' > ELU+1037+3+05+++++2' > DFN+2+2' > CDV+2' > DFN+2+1' > ELU+1035+6+03+++++2' > DFN+2+2' > ELU+66+6+08+++2++2' > CDV+46' > DFN+3' > ELU+67+6+09+++++2' > DFN+3' > SGU+N2+3++1+025+1' > MEA+CT++*:::1' > DFN+3' > ELU+93+2+01+++++2' > DFN+3' > SGU+PER+6++1+045+1' > ELU+366+2+01+++2++2' > CDV+IC' > DFN+3' > ELU+93+6+02+++++2' > ELU+365+6+03+++2++2' > CDV+ED' CDV+EM' CDV+FX' CDV+TE' > DFN+3' > ELU+364+6+04+++++2' > ELU+365+1+05+++2++2' > CDV+ED' CDV+EM' CDV+FX' CDV+TE' > >This snippet is actually not all that different from a HIPAA transaction >either, except that the syntax is X12 rather than UN/EDIFACT. Here's an >example of an 834: > >ST*834*12345~ >BGN*00*12456*19980520*1200****2~ >N1*P5**FI*999888777~ >N1*IN**FI*654456654~ >INS*Y*18*021*20*A***FT~ >REF*0F*123456789~ >REF*1L*123456001~ >DTP*356*D8*19960523~ >NM1*IL*1*DOE*JOHN*P***34*123456789~ >PER*IP**HP*7172343334*WP*7172341240~ >N3*100 MARKET ST*APT 3G~ >N4*CAMP HILL*PA*17011**CY*CUMBERLAND~ >DMG*D8*19400816*M~ >HD*021**HLT~ >DTP*348*D8*19960601~ >COB*P*890111*5~ >N1*IN*ABC INSURANCE CO~ >HD*021**DEN~ >DTP*348*D8*19960601~ >HD*021**VIS~ >DTP*348*D8*19960601~ >SE*22*12345~ > ></ref> > > >- Do commercial translators reliably read IMPDEF documents today? > ><ref>Sure, just as reliably as they can read an 837, and 834 or any other >transaction set. Any commercial translator that purports to support the >UN/EDIFACT standards should be able to read IMPDEF messages today since >IMPDEF is a "standard" UN/EDIFACT message specification.</ref> > >- Are there other approaches to "machine-readable IGs" in reasonably wide >use besides IMPDEF? > ><ref>No, none that are based on any official standard EDI rules. There are >proprietary formats, such as SEF and other XML-based formats, but none of >these is an official standard.</ref> > >- Will the XML versions of the standards eventually render some of this >moot? > ><ref>Possibly in somebody's lifetime.....I wouldn't hold my breath.</ref> > >Since we would only be talking about a different presentation format, it >would seem that X12 IGs could be translated to IMPDEF without any specific >HHS authorization... right? > ><ref>Any one can render the HIPAA IGs in IMPDEF and make them available. >They just wouldn't be DHHS "officiallly authorized" since I believe that >Washington-Publishing is the only DHHS authorized publisher of the HIPAA >IGs. Keep in mind that a machine-readable format is not a "presentation" >format, which I would interpret to be a human-readable format. If by >presentation format you mean the presentation of the message to an >application system, such as a translator, then both X12 syntax based and >UN/EDIFACT syntax based messages are in standard presentation formats. >IMPDEF is intended for translators, etc. to understand, just as the HIPAA >transaction sets in their raw/native X12 format are intended for machine >processing and not human processing.</ref> > >(I'm sure there must be a slew of problems with doing this... or we would >have done it. Where is the current discussion taking place within X12?) > ><ref>Not sure what you mean by current discussion taking place within X12. >The X12 Committee through its X12C Communications & Controls Subcommittee >was a major contributor to the development of the IMPDEF message. Since X12 >has blessed IMPDEF, I don't know how much more official it could be as far >as the X12 Committee is concerned.</ref> > >Thanks, >Chris > >At 03:14 PM 7/16/2002 -0500, Rachel Foerster wrote: > >BTW, a colleague of mine already has the HIPAA 270, 820, 834 and 835 ICs >and > >a portion of the 837D in IMPDEF form. > >Christopher J. Feahr, OD >http://visiondatastandard.org >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Cell/Pager: 707-529-2268 > > > > >********************************************************************** >To be removed from this list, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Please note that it may take up to 72 hours to process your request. > >====================================================== >The WEDI SNIP listserv to which you are subscribed is not moderated. The >discussions on this listserv therefore represent the views of the >individual participants, and do not necessarily represent the views of the >WEDI Board of Directors nor WEDI SNIP. If you wish to receive an official >opinion, post your question to the WEDI SNIP Issues Database at >http://snip.wedi.org/tracking/. >Posting of advertisements or other commercial use of this listserv is >specifically prohibited. Christopher J. Feahr, OD http://visiondatastandard.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cell/Pager: 707-529-2268 ********************************************************************** To be removed from this list, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please note that it may take up to 72 hours to process your request. ====================================================== The WEDI SNIP listserv to which you are subscribed is not moderated. The discussions on this listserv therefore represent the views of the individual participants, and do not necessarily represent the views of the WEDI Board of Directors nor WEDI SNIP. If you wish to receive an official opinion, post your question to the WEDI SNIP Issues Database at http://snip.wedi.org/tracking/. Posting of advertisements or other commercial use of this listserv is specifically prohibited.
