From: Chris Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>Quoted text is from <008e01c0b656$6ff5db40$d141d03f@0q69u>, by Rachel
>Foerster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>Automated Mapping Tools
>>Functional Requirements Checklist
>>
..
>>Capability to map native application formats directly to standards
>>no intermediate formatting or programming
>I am no longer sure that this is necessarily such a desirable feature.
I have to disagree with you here Chris. While in your case it makes more
sense to map to an intermediary format, in many others it does not. The HMO
where I used to hang my hat was (and still is) an AMISYS shop. Claims were
mapped to BCP0210 and fed directly into the gaping maw of the adjudication
system. There was no business sense to using an intermediary format. The
distinction here is that the tool you use must offer you the flexibility to
handle your mapping needs in a manner that works best for you, whether it is
your proprietary application format like an AMISYS MPE file or to the
tagged, delimited format used by FACETS, or to a variation of the NSF 3.01,
or communicating directly with an queueing solution like MQSeries or MSMQ,
or even to any combination of the above.
The solution you select should offer you the flexibility to meet your
current needs plus adapt to any changes in those needs in the future. Buy
into a low end solution that limits the output format and you get to go
through the buying process all over again and all too soon! Flexibility in
selecting the proprietary format is highly desireable.
Best regards,
John Murray
New Era of Networks Inc. (NEON)
703-847-6405 Office
703-847-8882 Fax
571-212-1894 Mobile
www.neonsoft.com
=======================================================================
To contact the list owner: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archives at http://www.mail-archive.com/edi-l%40listserv.ucop.edu/
