 |
 |
In article <[log in to unmask]>, Ahmad Risk <[log in to unmask]> writes >2. I am aware that if you want to send 'structured messages' you >need 'edifact'. > >3. My question is: *why* do you need to send structured messages in >the first place? To date, no one has come up with a convincing >answer. There are very convincing arguments for use of structured messages - it is just that apparently no one has succeeded in convincing you. :-) Your argument past this point would be fine assuming that one accepted your premise that structured messages are unnecessary. It seems that we agree at least for now that EDIFACT is a reasonable choice for sending structured messages (if they are in fact needed!). What I don't want to lose is the idea that right now (as opposed to say, a couple of years down the road) we may need to use X400 to transport those EDIFACT messages reliably. So can we keep this issue separate from the argument about whether or not 'structured messages' are necessary? I really would like to have views on the first issue as it is of immediate practical importance. Some people may still wish to be allowed to implement clinical EDI in the limited way that is currently planned. Others may prefer to do nothing for the moment and wait until web based records have been 'sorted out'.... -- John Williams, Senior User GP / Provider Links Project Email: [log in to unmask] Fax: 01483 440928 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%