Chris and Bruce, I would recommend that we at least get working definitions for these terms agreed to for purposes of advancing the work of this Work Group. They can they be added to the WEDi Glossary as needed, etc.
Rachel -----Original Message----- From: Christopher J. Feahr, OD [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2002 3:18 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Christopher J. Feahr OD Subject: RE: Requirements Gathering - Information Flows Bruce, I dont think any of the terms I'm proposing to define for this paper are in the existing WEDI glossary, but if they are, I agree that we should adhere to the established definition. We may want to propose adding out new terms to the WEDI glossary when we are finished, but in either case, I would strongly recommend including a "definition of terms" section inside the white paper... just for convenience. Here's my current working list of terms that need definitions: o EDI Address (including definitions of each hierarchical segment of the address?) o Interchange Sender o Interchange Receiver o Interchange Route o Transaction Sender o Transaction Receiver o EDI Server o DNS Server o MX Record o Transport Protocol o Authentication Protocol o Dial-up Settings (is there a better term for this? ..."baud", parity, flow control) o Submitter (I think this term is inherently ambiguous.. so we may not need to use it, but it is used in the IG) -Chris At 01:01 PM 2/13/02 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >To complicate the issue further, I >would assume the Routing white paper would use some terms that already >exist in the WEDI glossary -- and if so are you proposing we "re-define" >them in a Routing glossary or reference them in the WEDI glossary? Neither >option is really desirable if we try to have a WEDI glossary and a Routing >glossary. Christopher J. Feahr, OD http://visiondatastandard.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cell/Pager: 707-529-2268
