INM Transmission and Transport Action Items
Open Action Items. Each item may be edited individually.
New General item numbers are in the 1xxx range New Transport item numbers (this page) are in the 2xxx range
- Back to Infrastructure and Messaging TC
- Switch to
Guidelines for Attachments proposal status [MCCI]
Opened: 10-Jan-05 Old Item: 945 Assigned to: Charlie McCay
- 20050329 INM Telcon: This is being followed by the Attachments Task force.
- 20060412, Paul Knapp, Open
- Charlie McCay: Paul Knapp has taken over responsibility to bring this item to a close. Create a recommendation as to how Attachments should be used. Depends on outcomes of action item 110 (IIref data type issue).
- 20060509, Miroslav Koncar, open, MCCI
- Miroslav: there are discrepancies between abstract DT spec and XML ITS that need to be solved. Need to document preferred way of doing things. THU Q1 should shed some light on the issue. Assign action item to Miroslav.
- 20060604, Still Open
- 20060912 INM WGM: Miroslav: discussed on e-mail list. ATS will state that attachments can be handled by MIL, but that HL7 discourages this (and prefers the use of the attachment class in the transmission wrapper). ATS issue closed, open issue related to reference mechanism in ED data type. (.. add link to ref proposal..)
- 20061023, Paul Knapp: answered the issue on Thursday of the May WGM. Has not been documented in MCCI (if it needs to go there).
- 20070109: WGM: Rene ísn't clear what should be added to MCCI. Miroslav reports that as part of the ATS ballot reconciliation, we got a neg from KP, on the attachment recommendations. Need to revisit the statement as made on 20060509 above.
- 20070501: Charlie suggests we use URI definition as used in ebXML specification. See appendix C of the ebXML specification. Rene: does this in any conflict with the new features of II in datatypes R2?
- Charlie/Doug motion: where a URI is required for referecing an II, the URI definition as used in ebXML specification should be used. 15-0-2
- Referencing an Attachment Act would be either: Act with new II datytype feature “ref”, or ED with an URI.
- Rene/Mark T. motion: Referencing an Attachment class from an ED datatype uses URIs. The Attachment class SHALL be part of the same Transmission as the attribute that references it. 4-3-10.
- Action item re-assigned to Charlie which details a solution for all known use-cases related to attachments.
- 20060702 Telcon Charlie will be contacted
- 20070918 WGM Tues Q1 – Charlie: some resolutions. “how to use Attachment class” Charlie will review to determine current status
Inquire of Pubs and MNM as to the proper name for WSnnn [Webservices]
Opened: 03-Oct-05 Assigned to: Scott
- 20051003: INM Telcon: Reconciliation of negative line item 5 in WSP September 2005 ballot. Agreement reached that the WSnnn things (Implementation Guidelines) will be changed to a name that is consistent with similar instances in other domains. Need to follow-up with Pubs and MNM as to the proper name.
- 20060410: Larson: This item remains open. Itis unclear which committee (Pubs, HDF or Conformance)should address the issue. I brought this issue to the attention of all 3 groups via a negative line item in their respective ballots last fall. It appeared that Pubs was going to include new language in the PFG, but that seems to have diappeared. KP will resubmit the negative line item on informative ballots in ballot in the May 2006 cycle which purport to provide requirements or guidance in this area. We will push for resolution of this At the San Antonio meeting.
- 20060605: Still Open
- 20060702 Telcon Scott will query Alan Honey and Ken Rubin
- 20070726 Scott: email sent to Alan & Ken
- 200707?? response from Alan ... recalls the context of the question but not a resolution
- 20070917 Scott sent message/request to Pub
Opened: 24-Oct-05 Assigned to: Charlie (as of 2007-09-18)
- 20051024, René Spronk, New, Work with pubs to add definitions to the glossary. MCCI R2 C1 Ballot reconcillation, database Items 4 and 5
- 20060329, René Spronk, Open, *The committee (after reviewing the definitions on the Wiki) should request pubs to add these definitions to the glossary. Pubs to add these definitions to the glossary.
- 20060509, Miroslav, open, *Definitions needs updating with INM out of cycle results
- 20060605: surprise to Miroslav - will work on it as he works on ATS issues
- 20060912: INM WGM: work in progress, will be included in next release
- 20060702 Telcon Scott will send e-mail to ITS Sig
- 20070726 Scott understood this was to be followed-up with Miroslav. email sent
- 20070918 Tues Q1 – no response from Miroslav. Charlie would like to add-on to the item. Several “glossary entries” on the wiki. It would be good/better to have a process for adding to the glossary. Doug: how does Pubs do the glossary? Based on PubDB entries, we would need to create a dummy PubDB for general entries (e.g., message adaptor, interaction patterns), or added to specific PubDB. Charlie agrees to take this on.
Clarify how to use the Transmission and Control Act Wrappers [MCCI]
Opened: 20060412 Assigned to: Scott
- 20060412, co-chairs, new, MCCI, Added by J Larson following v3 Pubs Telcon. Pubs is asking InM to clarify the Transmission and Control Act wrappers so that authors/editors in other domains can properly use them. Specifically, they would like the following:
- 1. An instance example of a transmisssion wrapper with fields populated that other committees can pick up and use (20060509: examples are on hl7.org website, search for “NE2005” in the library; there are initiatived to create a toll that creates examples)
- 2. An instance example of Control Act with clear delineation of the fields that are domain specific
- 3. Clear definition of attributes the next time we go to ballot (20060509: check if at least we have a description for all attributes)
- 4. Maybe develop a Quick Start Guide like that developed by Structured Documents TC (20060509: Discussion: – scenario based description (with examples) of how MCCI is actually used, apply 80/20 rule)
- I did mention that the InM co-chairs would be available for a breakfast meeting Tuesday morning at San Antonio with any persons seeking clarification on wrappers and other InM artifacts.
- 20060912: INM WGM: because of INMs attempt to increase support for implementers, re-assign to Rene to write up a document.
- 20060912, Rene, open, MCCI
- 20070109: WGM: Scott will create a guide based on R1 of the wrappers, and not on the latest unstable status of things.
- 20070501 WGM: Still need to do this for R1, also for R2 once published.
- 20060702 Telcon Open with Regret
- 2007-09-18 WGM Tues Q1 – Scott: open with extreme regret
Opened: 20060510 Assigned to: Tony (as of 2007-09-18)
- 20060510, Miroslav, new, ATS
- 20060912, Miroslav - new language has been added to the Wiki. Need feedback for the content before the items are put forward for the Glossary.
- 20060913 INM: Definition is on wiki, “Messaging Protocol refers to the rules, formats, and functions implemented by the Messaging Infrastructure Layer for exchanging HL7 messages. Messaging Protocol examples include Web Services, ebMS and MLLP.”, to be forwarded to pubs for inclusion in v3 edition publications.
- 20060702 Telcon Tony will add to Shared Messages
- 20070918 WGM Tues Q2 – probably not in Shared Messages. Suggestion that this should be the general glossary. Tony will discuss with Helen.
to create definitions for logical sender/logical receiver as the next step to resolve Transmission Addressing issues [MCCI]
Opened: 20060912 Assigned to: Charlie (as of 2007-09-18)
- 20060912, new, MCCI
- 20061023, e.g. Dr.X to a hospital Y, (assume Dr.X and hospital Y have a unique ID)
- ControlAct would identify Dr.x author of the trigger event, the person causing the message to be sent.
- Transmission wrapper: id all computers and applications within an organization? Not relevant for receiver. The more we move from abstract addressing to specific addressing.
- 20061023: Paul Knapp to review Transmission Addressing.
- 20070109: WGM: Miroslav: not that much of a abstract issue. MCCI issue related to addressing of departments/applications "beyond" a central gateway.
- 20070501: WGM: Open, item that is part of Wrappers R2
- 20060702 Telcon: Scott will add Miroslav
- 20070918 WGM Tues Q1 – Charlie: this may be done in a separate heading. An action element he is aware of, documented on wiki, needs to be moved to draft document. Charlie will follow up
Need completed Ws Reconciliation Db for September 2005 ballot cycle [WS]
Opened: 20060912 Assigned to: Scott
- 20060912 Larson, new
- 20060913 WGM: Scott to get hold of latest ballot rec package from Roberto
- 20060922 Scott: request sent to Roberto
- 20070108 WGM: Roberto: needs to post document with ballot resolutions. Will get it out in time for the next balot cycle in Cologne. Will publish within 60 days.
- 20070112 WGM Database has been mailed to Doug
- 20070702 Telcon: Scott will Query Doug.
- 20070726 Scott: email sent
- 20070730 Doug responded, uploaded to ballot site
- 20070917 Scott: confirmed recon package is on the ballot site. Still have 6 negative votes, sent message requesting them to withdraw their negatives. Will continue to follow up on withdrawal of negatives
Removable Media line-tem 34: needs research to create a draft motion [Removable Media]
Opened: 20060913 Assigned to: Doug
- 20060913 WGM, Doug, new, Removable Media
- Probably needs to be taken up with an IHE-knowledgeable resource, e.g. Mike Henderson
- 20061023: open, will need to be taken care of this week.
- 20060702 Telcon: Scott will query Doug.
- 20070726 Scott: email sent
- 20070730 Doug responded, looking for a new owner in ITS SIG. Suggestion that Michio Kumura might be interested
Document use of Bolus and other query responseModalityCodes [MCCI]
Opened: 20070109 Assigned to: Mark Tucker/Doug
- 20070109 WGM, Document that options in the table above (which shows combinations of the allowable values of the QueryByParameter.responseModalityCode and query timing attributes –Now and Continuous-) are bound at contract time, not at run time
- See minutes of 20070109 Q1 for background
- Remains open, add definition to Wrappers R2 material.
- 20070918 WGM Tues Q1 – Mark/Doug: Bolus has been defined on wiki. But no v3 behavior described (should be equivalent to v2). Mark will write up a paragraph on the wiki, and to be included in Query (QUQI) document (Charlie will add to open edit requirement) in next editing round (after CACT). (This is in v2 and is desired [by someone] for v3.) Will close this item when “paragraph” is posted to wiki.
Document UK and NL batch use cases [MCCI]
Opened: 20070109 Assigned to: Andrew Hinchley
- 20070109 WGM, Document UK and Dutch use-cases for Batching, as input of requirements for Behavioral Contract class and lightweight Batch transmission wrapper.
- 20070109 (Rene) Dutch use-case: Batches are used for the grouping of query-responses. A query is sent (by application A) to a centralized broker. The broker forwards the query to a number of other systems, collects the response interactions into a batch and sends it to A. Aim is to avoid a lengthy to-and-fro of continuation queries between A and the broker. There is no use-case for batches in notification interactions. See AORTA for background details of the use-case.
- 20070918 WGM Tues Q1 – Andrew: fell off radar for UK use case. Initially both cases will be documented on the wiki. May create a Wrappers R2 User Guide for this and other Wrapper R2 supplemental content.
Determine whether or not Receiving Device (as used in Transmission wrapper) implies the receiving Application Role. [MCCI]
Opened: 20070109 Assigned to: Charlie McCay
- 20070109 WGM, If this is the case, receiver responsibilities don’t need to be explicitly conveyed in the Behavioral Wrapper. The receiver would know what the implicit CPM was by looking at the Receiving Device combined with the Sending device.
- If Device.id identifies a software application which “contains” a whole collection of application roles, then this won’t work.
- Need definition of Logical Receiver as well to resolve this.
- Note SOA moves to a ESB approach, and inferences where the transmission payload needs to go.
- 20070501: Are ReceiverResponsibilities of an interaction bound to Device.id (id of the logical endpoint) ? Requires resolution of the Transmission_Addressing issue first.
- 2007-09-18 WGM Tues Q1 – Charlie: have resolved the Transmission Addressing in Cologne, then this is resolved. Need to locate that resolution.
- If, as above, the receiver supports multiple roles, then the message must include the specific receiver role … the contract must be included in the wrapper
- Mark T holds that the contract is independent of the message. The same message may have different receiver responsibilities when sent to different receivers.
- In MCAI: receiver, interaction type (static model. Interaction.id), trigger event (triggerEventCode), conversation ID (a broader, more complex interaction concept).
- Extended discussion:
- Interaction ID in the “old days” was a tuple of trigger event, static model, reciever responsibilites (implied sender and receiver as well, but those are not part of this conversation)
- Mark: consider: for a given trigger event and static model, the conformance statement published (declared?) by the receiving application will determine the receiver responsibilities
- Does Device ID actually specify the responsibility as described? If a device implies a contract, then yes. Others think that such addressing is actually an application role. Does the “application handle” then need both device id and application role?
- If the application role is part of the content (with the trigger event and the static model), then the content needs to be different when sent to different applications. E.g., order message + manage to a system that will be manageing the order, order message + fill to a system that will perform the order.
- If the application role is a feature (implied characteristic) of the receiver, then the same content can be sent to different apps and achieve different results. e.g., one order message sent to order filler and order manager
- Much discussion … motion (get from minutes) … content will be added to MCAI wrapper r2 document. Work Items will be followed up by Mark and Charlie.
- Close this action item by creating wiki document of this conversation. Scott will email this text to Charlie and Mark and they will create the wiki document for Wrapper discussion on Thursday.
create a discussion paper related to pattern binding at conformance time
opened: 2007-05-03 assigned: Grahame, Andrew, Joe Waller closed: 20070918
- 20070503 InM WGM Köln: to create a discussion paper that explores the idea that CPMs be consider interaction patterns that can be bound to static model content within the scope allowed by committees at conformance time. We currently allow binding by committees only.
- 20070604: Grahame: no update.
- 20070918 WGM Tues Q2 – Open with regret. Can Conversation.code expressed/created locally? For R2 will be open. Discussed in another session yesterday. Motion by Charlie/Tony to not create discussion paper, take position that Conversation.code be a CS, containing an HL7 artifact code which can therefore have values defined by HL7 committees and, potentially, locally generated values. Further discussion on the use of this would be in the Wrappers R2 guide. Added to MCCI R2 open items list. CLOSE
Document end-of-query mechanism, CACT/Wrappers R2
opened: 2007-05-03 assigned: Charlie McCay
- 20070502 InM WGM Köln: Document the v3 motion “an error (either AR or AE) reported the AcknowledgementTypeCode attribute in the transmission wrapper (in the query response interaction) when doing query continuations ends the query continuation, i.e. one may send no further query continuations. In the absence of an error the query ends when resultRemainingQuantity equals 0.”
- 20070604: assigned to the Wrappers R2 taskforce for inclusion in Wrappers R2.
Determine how to publish Wrappers R1 and R2 in parallel, CACT/Wrappers R2
opened: 2007-05-01 assigned: Andrew Hinchley
- 20070501 InM WGM Köln: Wrappers R2 project must provide expectation and advice for R1 implementers as to whether R2 is a replacement or alternative. Charlie believes we should position as an alternative. Once DSTU is in place then we can look at sun setting R1, but not before then. Rene wants radical replacement, knowing that wrappers R2 is not going to be backwards compatible with R1. Lloyd: indicate intention to deprecate R1. Vassil: IHE will expect 5-10 year life for R1 wrappers, and expect support for them (technical corrections).
Action Item: Andrew to talk to Pubs to see how this would work.
Update ATS terms on the WIKI, ATS
opened: 2007-05-02 assigned: Miroslav Koncar
- 20070502 InM WGM Köln: Open ATS Issues: Most of the issues have not been fully resolved. Miroslav expects most of the foundation issues to be resolved within the Wrappers R2 project. Miroslav takes an action item to update the ATS terms on the WIKI.
Update ATS based on discussion about transforming routers, ATS
opened: 2007-05-02 assigned: Miroslav Koncar
- 20070502 InM WGM Köln: Miroslav will also update ATS based on discussion that we had about transforming routers; i.e., an agent node that may perform translation or inter-version transformations.
Define Transport for the HL7 Glossary , ATS
opened: 2007-09-19 assigned: Roberto Ruggeri
- 20070919 InM WGM ATL: On the Open ATS Issues items pages, Miroslav proposed a definition for transport, and one for transport protocol. Roberto to research industry accepted definitions to try and find a better one.
Research Message.id "sameness" discussion after transformation by a Gateway. , ATS
opened: 2007-09-19 assigned: Doug Pratt
- 20070502 InM WGM ATL: On the Open ATS Issues items pages, there is a discussion about "sameness". Nobody in this WGM knew where it came from, or if it is relevant, and if any action is requested. Doug to try and find out who put this in and contact the person wrt these questions.
Research Translations: add "derived from .. ID" attribute ?, much like acknowledgementOf. See also MCCI line-item 157. , ATS
opened: 2007-09-19 assigned: Doug Pratt
- 20070502 InM WGM ATL: On the Open ATS Issues items pages, there is a discussion about "Translations". Nobody in this WGM knew where it came from, or if it is relevant, and if any action is requested. Doug to try and find out who put this in and contact the person wrt these questions.