Chris, Yes....that's what I'm saying. UBL is focusing on the business documents, not the rules of engagement for getting the business documents from point A to point B or other information contained within a CPP.
Again, note that they are focusing on purchase orders, invoices, etc. And, I just learned from another list that the first draft business document is completed, but I can quickly put my hands on the URL to take a look at it. Rachel -----Original Message----- From: Christopher J. Feahr, OD [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, April 22, 2002 3:31 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Data Elements for the WEDI-SNIP-CPP Rachel, I assume that our HIPAA transactions would also be on that list of "basic business documents" that would/should be interesting to the UB Liaison committee. But I think I also see your point about it not being germane to this workgroup. Are you saying that the UBL committee is NOT interested in the standardization/harmonization of "basic connectivity profile" information (i.e., the meat of the CPP record)? ... that they are essentially focused on the business transactions that would take place AFTER the trading partners had established solid, 2-way connection? Thanks, Chris At 12:06 PM 4/21/02 -0500, Rachel Foerster wrote: >Chris, > >The "left field" I was referring to was the UBL reference, etc. since UBL's >focus is "to define a common XML library for basic business documents like >purchase orders, invoices, and advance shipping notices." (Ref "UBL and >Industry XML Standards, 2 April 2002") > >Rachel > >-----Original Message----- >From: Christopher J. Feahr, OD [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2002 5:43 PM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: RE: Data Elements for the WEDI-SNIP-CPP > > >Rachel, >Thanks for clarifying the relationship between the CPP specification and >the separate CPP registry-structure specification. If I understand the >immediate task assigned to me, Dave, and Marcallee, however, it is to >propose a list of data elements that we consider important in the >"WEDI-SNIP CPP". I'm not sure I understand how am I getting off into "left >field" with this? I'm sure it's buried in the email archive, but can you >point me again to the draft "CPP/A specification"? I think what we are >after here is just a list of data elements, but I would welcome any further >light you can shed on the task I volunteered to help with a few weeks ago. > >William: Given the unwieldy nature of this email-narrative type knowledge >we've accumulated over the last few months, what format would you suggest >for group collaboration on some draft documents? I'm just now installing >Adobe Acrobat 5.0 and I believe that it allows many people to mark up .pdf >documents posted on a web site, using signed notes, etc. Is something like >this feasible? The free .pdf reader would allow the whole group to read >the document and the notes, but I think you'd have to have the full version >of Acrobat to actually mark up the draft copy. > >I see a need to move this effort to a more organized level, starting with >drafts of: > >1. Mission and requirements list >2. Definitions of terms used in "addressing and routing" >3. Proposed data elements for the CPP record > >Thanks, >-Chris > >At 04:42 PM 4/20/02 -0500, Rachel Foerster wrote: > >Chris, it's very important that you get the most current specs (draft) on > >the CPP/A specification to see what it specifies. I fear (no pun intended!) > >that you may be moving way off into left field where you may not want to > >be....perhaps yet. Let's get the core of the CPP done first. > > > >Rachel Foerster > >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
