RE: [ebxml-dev] HIPPA related transactions

[Ed Dodds <dodds@e-dodds.com>]

Shameless plug for the Medical Banking Project [ www.mbproject.org ]. Good 
resource site for this area. <ed/>

---- Original message ----
>Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2004 10:35:42 -0400 
>From: Edward Lipski <ELipski@p21.com>  
>Subject: RE: [ebxml-dev] ebXML core components derivation by restriction  
>To: "'sggould@oic.org'" <sggould@oic.org>, ebxml-dev@lists.ebxml.org
>Cc: Australian Senator <61bacgl1@oic.org>, OIC Management Committee 
<a2eacml2@oic.org>
>
>On Tuesday, August 03, 2004 11:15 AM Stephen Gould wrote:
>
>>1	the US negotiated a Treaty while not disclosing in the treaty 
>>	with a major ally (Australia) that the US had passed legislation 
>>	that proved the US was implementing non-ISO standards so
>>	that US companies could generate income from acting as 
>>	Agents for"Document re-formating and re-routing"
>>     http://www.oic.org/z/FZIG/A/ds/611BACE1.htm
>>
>>2	The US is using the Fear Factor of "Defence against Terrorism"
>>	to co-erce allies into signing these agreements
>>
>>3	while at the same time aiding and assisting the Zionist 
>>	Government to provoke Terrorism
>
>1. The legislation pointed to by your link above - HIPA (Health Insurance
>Portability and Accountability act) was passed in 1996 (under the Clinton
>Administration), and as the name suggests only legislates health and medical
>information. From my personal meetings with US legislators I can assure you
>that they have no concept of X12, EDIFACT, or XML, and their Staffers who do
>understand the differences wouldn't want either legislated (they want it
>decided by the market). HIPA was meant only to address US-domestic health
>privacy, and healthcare cost concerns, and it is still under some
>controversy today.
>Also, there are so many highly paid lobbyist in Washington DC (Many openly
>employed by other Nations like China, and Australia) that I doubt that the
>companies who could make money from "Document re-formatting and re-routing"
>could possibly compete for the attention of the US Federal Government. 
>The US has many times in the past modified previous legislation that has
>been in conflict with recent Treaty obligations. 
>
>2. and 3. I really don't see how this blind anti-American rubbish belongs on
>a technology standards list. 
>
>Moreover, the points made by Stephen Gould rely on a false premise. That
>either the Australian government (and all non-US governments by implication)
>is too incompetent to negotiate their own treaties, or that the US
>government is much smarter, and more clever than other governments. Do you
>really believe either to be true? 
>
>Thank you.
>Ed Lipski
>Manager of Integration Technology
>Prophet 21, Inc.
>
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Stephen GOULD [mailto:sggould@oic.org]
>Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2004 11:15 AM
>To: ebxml-dev@lists.ebxml.org
>Cc: Australian Senator; OIC Management Committee
>Subject: RE: [ebxml-dev] ebXML core components derivation by restriction
>
>
>Ron -  I agree with you that there needs to be a global non-profit
>organisation "The UDEF tree structures need to be managed by a 
>global non-profit"
>
>The key issue is that the rest of the world cannot afford for "the 
>global non-profit organisation" to be US based.
>
>The recent deceitful behaviour by the US with the Australia-USA Free 
>Trade Agreement [Aus-USA-FTA] has shown that the US intentions
>are about electronic imperialism and the US uses Standards
>to generate revenue for US companies and US companies only
>
>The deceitful behaviour is that:
>
>1	the US negotiated a Treaty while not disclosing in the treaty 
>	with a major ally (Australia) that the US had passed legislation 
>	that proved the US was implementing non-ISO standards so
>	that US companies could generate income from acting as 
>	Agents for"Document re-formating and re-routing"
>http://www.oic.org/z/FZIG/A/ds/611BACE1.htm
>
>2	The US is using the Fear Factor of "Defence against Terrorism"
>	to co-erce allies into signing these agreements
>
>3	while at the same time aiding and assisting the Zionist 
>	Government to provoke Terrorism
>
>BACKGROUND
>
>In 1991 I spent 3 months with the European Aerospace Association
>[AECMA] discussing how to facilitate the exchange of information
>between stake-holders in the Eurofighter Collaboration
>http://www.halisa.net/9/9EAECFD1.gif
>
>These meetings were supported by the Australian Trade
>Commission with discussions on CALS
>http://www.halisa.net/C1/Austr91.jpg
>
>15 years down the track the US is legislating for the US ANSI-X12
>Standards while the rest of the world moves towards ISO Standards
>which are supposedly supported by the US.
>
>Ron - a large number of people around the world are donating a lot
>of time, effort and resources while the US is being very deceitful.
>
>NEXT STEPS
>
>I look forward to a simple explanation as to why:
>
>1	the US is legislating for ANSI-X12 Standards while 
>
>2	participating on ISO Standard committees like UN/EDIFACT and
>
>3	negotiating Free Trade Agreements that do not reveal what 
>	standards will be used in Electronic Commerce
>
>Regards
>
>Stephen GOULD
>Chair - Management Committee
>XML & E-commerce Special Interest Group
>OPEN INTERCHANGE CONSORTIUM
>
>E:	sggould@oic.org
>T:	{61}(2) 9953-7412
>W:	http://www.oic.org/3a4a.htm
>
>
>On 30 Jul 04, at 11:05, Schuldt, Ron L wrote:
>
>> Fred,
>> 
>> <Ron>How much lag time is possible between the time an extension is 
>requested and it gets approved by TBG17? Does the TGB17 Working Group 
>meet periodically to review proposed extensions or is it an ongoing process?
>If 
>they meet periodically, what is the frequency? Are the procedures and
>decision 
>criteria published somewhere? Where is the current library of CCs and BIEs 
>published?</Ron>
>> 
>> <Fred>TBG17 now has telecons every week. As a matter of fact yesterday, 
>during our mail-conversation we had one. The group is building up its
>procedures, 
>by assessing the first (eight?) submissions from industry groups. As all
>this stuff 
>is new to everybody we must find the best way by just doing it. After next
>week 
>we'll have a full week F2F. We envisage it is ongoing work and we hope by 
>finetuning the procedures and learning from people like you who have
>experience 
>in ontology-engineering in the future to automize (or at least do an
>automatical 
>pre-assessment of) most of the work. Both the draft procedures and the first
>draft 
>list of CC's have been published in the UN/CEFACT community. Please contact 
>Alan Stitzer (Alan.Stitzer@marsh.com) who is leading the project.</Fred>
>> 
>> If a health and medical organization submits proposed extensions, does 
>TGB17 intend to consult neutral third party subject matter experts in the
>health 
>and medical field who are also knowledgeable of the total current content in
>the 
>CCs and BIEs library and therefore will assure all users that there is no
>conflict? 
>> 
>> IMHO, the task that TGB17 is beginning to undertake will soon require the 
>support of automation (software and an underlying database) and a solid 
>ontology and a commitment from neutral third party subject matter experts in
>
>order to populate the library with artifacts that do not conflict with each
>other. I 
>also believe that the library needs to have a structured ID (like a Dewey
>Decimal 
>ID) or the library will soon become useless due to its size. 
>> 
>> The UDEF is an approach that could satisfy all of the above requirements -
>an 
>ontology that is relatively simple to understand and can be easily mapped to
>
>CCTS, software (that invokes a workflow that ties in to subject matter
>experts 
>and provides an initial screening for conflicts) and a database that helps
>prevent 
>semantic collisions within the ontology, and a built-in structured ID that
>provides 
>an indexing mechanism that computers can use across the globe. The ID uses a
>
>syntax very similar to an IP address (number.number.number) that computers 
>can handle quite readily and that can leverage DNS technology to convert the
>ID 
>to a name or vice versa.
>> 
>> The UDEF tree structures need to be managed by a global non-profit. At
>this 
>point in time, the global non-profit that would take responsibility for
>managing the 
>UDEF tree structures has not been selected. Is TGB17 possibly interested in 
>becoming that global non-profit? If so, I will share the specification that
>was 
>developed by the aerospace industry that details the requirements that the
>global 
>non-profit must do in order to allow the "library" (global registry) to
>succeed.
>> 
>> Ron Schuldt
>> Senior Staff Systems Architect
>> Lockheed Martin Enterprise Information Systems
>> 11757 W. Ken Caryl Ave.
>> #F521 Mail Point DC5694
>> Littleton, CO 80127
>> 303-977-1414
>
>
>Visit our website at http://www.p21.com/visit 
>The information in this e-mail is confidential and may contain legally
>privileged information.  It is intended solely for the person or entity to
>which it is addressed.  Access to this e-mail by anyone else is
>unauthorized. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure,
>copying, distribution, action taken, or action omitted to be taken in
>reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful.  If you received this
>e-mail in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any
>computer. 
>
>