I'm going to take a stab at answering my own question: Could we define "EDI Server" to be the "front door" or "inbox" for each entity generating transactions? Not sure where we would actually put "EDI Server Name" for the doctor who wants to receive messeges in this EDI Server, but who uses a BA to SEND his messages. But it seems like the inbox concept I was talking about here would be the same as the designated [incoming] EDI Message Server. Do I have this right?
-Chris At 07:48 PM 2/12/02 -0800, Christopher J. Feahr, OD wrote: >Ok, now I recall what I was thinking with "Transport Agent "... this would >essentially be the identification of the entity functioning as the >Interchange Receiver's "front door"... analogous to my "incoming mail >server" for email. Everyone will have to designate one or more "front >doors" or "in-boxes" for stuff to get to them, whether or not they employ >a "Business Agent" as defined in HIPAA. > >In one "little provider" scenario, we considered the doctor's software >vendor acting as his Inbox-agent (prompting me to invent the term >"transport agent"). But the world doesn't really care if they are sending >stuff to the doctor's PC or to a computer in his vendor's office... so we >may not need a term for the inbox-agent... just for the inbox. > >Tieing this back to Peter's comments about the unfairness of senders >leaving stuff in receiver-designated sections of their own "out-boxes"... >and thereby considering it "sent"... I think the fairness issue really >depends on the wishes of the receiver. Using the email example, I DO have >to poll my ISP's mail server to see if anything came in for me. The >reason I agree this "pull" model is that I don't want the headaches of >maintaining my own 24/7 incoming mail server. So if I don't want to >maintain my own incoming EDI-message server (that has an address that the >world is able to discover and understand) then I will have to elect a >"transport agent" to do it for me. But if don't want to do that either... >I can still play with the big boys by asking them to create a little >mailbox space for me in their outbox... and I have my staff check it >regularly. This would probably have the lowest transaction cost for the >doctor. > >So I envision a Lilliputian Provider (can we just call them LPs?) having >several types of "inboxes/agents": direct (ancient dialup modem) >connections, some traffic being handled by his PMS vendor, and maybe a >couple "go check their outbox" arrangements... all created in the interest >of [perceived] economy. Eventually (unless his vendor figures out what a >cash-cow the EDI-transaction business can be) the doctor's software may be >able to receive messages directly. > >So what do we call each entity's incoming mailbox(es)? >-Chris > >Christopher J. Feahr, OD >http://visiondatastandard.org >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Cell/Pager: 707-529-2268 Christopher J. Feahr, OD http://visiondatastandard.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cell/Pager: 707-529-2268
