AS2 XML requirements (was Re: HL7 Standards Process)

["Kit (Christopher) Lueder" <kit@xxxxxxxxx>]

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:Kepa.Zubeldia@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2000 2:52 PM
> > To: dick@xxxxxxxx
> > Cc: Rishel,Wes; Gunther Schadow; Rik Drummond; CLEM; Gary Crough; Beth
> > Morrow; David@Drummondgroup. Com; GISB1@xxxxxxx; ietf-ediint@xxxxxxx
> > 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
> > > dick@xxxxxxxx
> > > 205-250-8053
> > > Fax: 205-250-8057
> > > http://www.8760.com/
> > >
> > > InsideAgent - Empowering e-commerce solutions
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Kepa Zubeldia [mailto:Kepa.Zubeldia@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> > > > 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; GISB1@xxxxxxx;
> > ietf-ediint@xxxxxxx
> > > > 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
> > > > > dick@xxxxxxxx
> > > > > 205-250-8053
> > > > > Fax: 205-250-8057
> > > > > http://www.8760.com/
> > > > >
> > > > > InsideAgent - Empowering e-commerce solutions
> > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: Rishel,Wes [mailto:wes.rishel@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> > > > > > Sent: Friday, November 17, 2000 8:32 PM
> > > > > > To: 'dick@xxxxxxxx'; Gunther Schadow
> > > > > > Cc: Rik Drummond; Kepa Zubeldia; CLEM; Gary Crough;
> > Beth Morrow;
> > > > > > David@Drummondgroup. Com; GISB1@xxxxxxx; ietf-ediint@xxxxxxx
> > > > > > 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
> > indapps@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > > > wes.rishel@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > > > 510 522 8135
> > > > > > 510 521 2423 (fax)
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > From: Dick Brooks [mailto:dick@xxxxxxxx]
> > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2000 10:27 AM
> > > > > > > To: Gunther Schadow
> > > > > > > Cc: Rik Drummond; Kepa Zubeldia; CLEM; Gary Crough;
> > Beth Morrow;
> > > > > > > David@Drummondgroup. Com; GISB1@xxxxxxx;
> > ietf-ediint@xxxxxxx; 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: kit@xxxxxxxxx
Worse than an unanswered question is an unquestioned answer.