At 00:03 29/12/96 +0100, Gerard wrote:
>Nothing is wrong with EDIFACT. It works, there are standards!
>
>And the general free text standard for EDIFACT is a perfect wrapper for
>SGML enhanced messages. No ugly duck thing at all!
>
>But..
>Did you ever thought how difficult it was to get at an EDIFACT standard?
>How difficult it is to change it?
>How many dialects there will be? (In Holland there are to many. One area
>cannot exchange information with the next one, because they use a slightly
>different one. In general we are very disapointed about the general
>usefullness of EDIFACT in medicine. It will work perfectly in small very
>restricted communities for very restricted purposes, but not generaly)
>How unforgiving EDIFACT is?
>How rigid EDIFACT is?
Have you considered that if the two messages differ, it may be because there
is a real difference between the semantics of the two messages? If the two
communities haven't got together and thrashed out a common standard, then
there may be assumptions in one of the messages which would make it useless
in the other community?
Only when the two have got together and agreed a common message that is
valid in both communities may you be sure that such possibilities have been
considered. Standards have never been easy!
So I would argue this aspect of EDIFACT use as a positive benefit!
There are no short cuts to defining standards - however you implement them.
The fact that nothing stops one system interpreting the Quantity tag in your
SGML prescription as the number of items to dispense, and another interprets
it as the quantity of the drug in each dose isn't important of course,
because at last we can send those on line prescriptions. Until someone dies
taking 50mg of warfarin.
Pete
---
Peter Johnson
[log in to unmask]
(+44) 1525 261432
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|