Thank you Andrew! I appreciate you taking the time to shed some light on the topic.
I can see why providing a consistent way to describe how a health system has partitioned their domains would be a difficult thing to include in the ontology of the endpoints JSON. I'll look forward to Cerner's improved methods of describing provider domains. In the mean time, I'm sure I'll come up with some work around way to disambiguate these servers for our users.
While I appreciate your suggestion to work directly with health systems to better understand the differences in the domains, with the current information provided today that's nearly impossible. The address information provided in the endpoints list is certainly a welcomed addition, but I suspect more often than not the address is either the main office location for a provider, or the front door to a large facility for health care and provides the consumer only with a sense of where the facility is located. It's not likely a good jumping off point to find a human, or help service, behind the server... or an avenue for working with the provider when clarity is needed on the system. Even the login screens for the system are generally no help in this regard, since they only offer the login inputs and usually no other links to guide user's attempting to access the system. Perhaps a future version of Cerner login screens and/or endpoints JSON can provide improved contact details for the managing organization, giving the user's of these systems a way to reach out when help is needed, or servers are down, etc.
Thanks for again for the insights.