Difference between revisions of "Transmission.id"
Rene spronk (talk | contribs) (new page) |
Rene spronk (talk | contribs) (→Gateway Transformation: add pattern link) |
||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
"From the HL7 perspective two interactions are judged to be the same if they have the exact same effect (in terms of semantic content) on a receiving application. There are a small number of transformations of an interaction (e.g. the removal of non-relevant whitespace characters from an XML message or adding simple code translations) that don't require the use of a new identification for the transformed interaction." | "From the HL7 perspective two interactions are judged to be the same if they have the exact same effect (in terms of semantic content) on a receiving application. There are a small number of transformations of an interaction (e.g. the removal of non-relevant whitespace characters from an XML message or adding simple code translations) that don't require the use of a new identification for the transformed interaction." | ||
| − | (Miroslav Koncar) Question - if an HL7 application transforms an HL7v2.x message to the HL7v3 message with the *same* content, does it require to assign a new Message.id to the final message? | + | (Miroslav Koncar) Question - if an HL7 application transforms an HL7v2.x message to the HL7v3 message with the *same* content, does it require to assign a new Message.id to the final message? |
| + | |||
| + | (Rene Spronk) The Transmission class is defined as (RIM): Represents information about a specific transmission of information from one application to another. The attributes of Transmission aren't documented in the RIM, so we haven't got any text to go by. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Given that v2 was peer-to-peer only, we have yet to establish whether the id is a business-level id, or a transmission-level id. | ||
| + | |||
| + | See the defintion of [[Interaction Pattern]]s and [[Transmission Pattern]]s. A consequence of such models is that Transmission.id is NOT a business-level id, and that we'll have to revisit the "adding code translations do not require a new identification" motion. | ||
| + | |||
| + | It raises a question whether or not we'd need a business-level-id to link all transmissions in an interaction pattern. | ||
=== Duplication detection === | === Duplication detection === | ||
By definition, two Transmission which have the same id are the same. Therefore if a Transmission is received which has the same id as a previous Transmission, it shall be considered a duplicate and appropriate action for duplicates (which may be to ignore the duplicate) will be taken. | By definition, two Transmission which have the same id are the same. Therefore if a Transmission is received which has the same id as a previous Transmission, it shall be considered a duplicate and appropriate action for duplicates (which may be to ignore the duplicate) will be taken. | ||
Revision as of 22:08, 6 January 2006
A unique identifier for this transmission (mandatory). It will never be reused in time, nor will it be used by another sending application. As such, it can serve to reliably allow an acknowledgment transmission to refer to the transmission that it acknowledges, and can be used as a bookkeeping index to keep track of transmissions that have been sent and handled. Version 2 mapping: MSH-10 Message Control ID and BHS-10 Batch Control ID. (description from the MCCI domain)
Known Issues
Gateway Transformation
On the MnM teleconference of June 24, 2005 there has been a discussion regarding the "sameness" of two interactions. Based on the resulting motion, we now have the following statement in the ATS document:
"From the HL7 perspective two interactions are judged to be the same if they have the exact same effect (in terms of semantic content) on a receiving application. There are a small number of transformations of an interaction (e.g. the removal of non-relevant whitespace characters from an XML message or adding simple code translations) that don't require the use of a new identification for the transformed interaction."
(Miroslav Koncar) Question - if an HL7 application transforms an HL7v2.x message to the HL7v3 message with the *same* content, does it require to assign a new Message.id to the final message?
(Rene Spronk) The Transmission class is defined as (RIM): Represents information about a specific transmission of information from one application to another. The attributes of Transmission aren't documented in the RIM, so we haven't got any text to go by.
Given that v2 was peer-to-peer only, we have yet to establish whether the id is a business-level id, or a transmission-level id.
See the defintion of Interaction Patterns and Transmission Patterns. A consequence of such models is that Transmission.id is NOT a business-level id, and that we'll have to revisit the "adding code translations do not require a new identification" motion.
It raises a question whether or not we'd need a business-level-id to link all transmissions in an interaction pattern.
Duplication detection
By definition, two Transmission which have the same id are the same. Therefore if a Transmission is received which has the same id as a previous Transmission, it shall be considered a duplicate and appropriate action for duplicates (which may be to ignore the duplicate) will be taken.
