This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here
Difference between revisions of "Conceptual - Computational"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| (4 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
'''Owner''' | '''Owner''' | ||
AMS will do, John Koisch will review | AMS will do, John Koisch will review | ||
| + | |||
'''Summary''' | '''Summary''' | ||
Conceptual artifacts representing analysis and requirements for communicating between applications to support a particular business purpose for a particular healthcare domain or topic. | Conceptual artifacts representing analysis and requirements for communicating between applications to support a particular business purpose for a particular healthcare domain or topic. | ||
| − | '''Detail - Computational Semantics at the Conceptual Level'' | + | '''Detail - Computational Semantics at the Conceptual Level''' |
Capturing semantics at the Conceptual level using the Computational Viewpoint is done to provide both consistency to the rest of the specification and to lay the foundation for a more rigorous discussion of computational semantics at the platform-independent levels. This is done by focusing on TODO | Capturing semantics at the Conceptual level using the Computational Viewpoint is done to provide both consistency to the rest of the specification and to lay the foundation for a more rigorous discussion of computational semantics at the platform-independent levels. This is done by focusing on TODO | ||
| − | + | =Traceability to Reference Material= | |
Should formally be expressed using the Behavioral Framework schema. May also reference other analysis artifacts from other sources, such as the EHRs-FM or Clinical Statements. | Should formally be expressed using the Behavioral Framework schema. May also reference other analysis artifacts from other sources, such as the EHRs-FM or Clinical Statements. | ||
| − | + | =Best Practices / Templates= | |
| − | At the Conceptual level, the Computational constructs may reflect a level of analysis without undue concern for engineering the components into appropriate primitives or worrying about intersections with other viewpoints. For example, if an appropriate Domain Analysis Model exists, then it a Conceptual specification should call that model out, and concepts from it may be used in describing the functional and collaborative behaviors for distributed systems at this level. However, these are not always available. | + | TODO |
| + | |||
| + | =Quality Criteria= | ||
| + | TODO | ||
| + | |||
| + | =Conformance Statement= | ||
| + | TODO | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Guidance on format of Conformance Statement== | ||
| + | TODO | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | =Relationship to and Consistency with other Viewpoints= | ||
| + | At the Conceptual level, the Computational constructs may reflect a level of analysis without undue concern for engineering the components into appropriate primitives or worrying about intersections with other viewpoints. However, if those connections can be made, they should be made. For example, if an appropriate Domain Analysis Model exists, then it a Conceptual specification should call that model out, and concepts from it may be used in describing the functional and collaborative behaviors for distributed systems at this level. However, these are not always available. | ||
| − | + | =Candidate Artifacts= | |
* Analysis Activity Diagram - These activity diagrams should contain business roles and responsibilities partitioned across swimlanes. They should reference domain objects of significance, but should not provide details past what would be found in the domain analysis model (whether real or notional). | * Analysis Activity Diagram - These activity diagrams should contain business roles and responsibilities partitioned across swimlanes. They should reference domain objects of significance, but should not provide details past what would be found in the domain analysis model (whether real or notional). | ||
* Collaboration Analysis - Collaborations (defined in the Behavioral Framework) may be defined in some detail here, including descriptions, business milestones, and broad sequencing of communications between elements. These collaborations should re-use, where available, Service Roles, and should define the relationships between those roles and other actors in the collaborations (broken down by Commissioning and Responsible Agents). | * Collaboration Analysis - Collaborations (defined in the Behavioral Framework) may be defined in some detail here, including descriptions, business milestones, and broad sequencing of communications between elements. These collaborations should re-use, where available, Service Roles, and should define the relationships between those roles and other actors in the collaborations (broken down by Commissioning and Responsible Agents). | ||
| Line 20: | Line 34: | ||
* Service Roles and Relationships - Service Roles may be defined at the Conceptual level, providing foundational elements such as | * Service Roles and Relationships - Service Roles may be defined at the Conceptual level, providing foundational elements such as | ||
| − | + | =Examples= | |
| − | + | The following examples are full specifications. Following the link, the appropriate sections of the specifications that support the Computational Viewpoints are in brackets. | |
| + | * EIS Service Functional Model | ||
| + | * RLUS Service Functional Model | ||
| + | * NCI Person Service SPecification | ||
| + | |||
Back to [[Saeaf_specification_stack | SAEAF Specification Stack]] | Back to [[Saeaf_specification_stack | SAEAF Specification Stack]] | ||
Latest revision as of 23:01, 16 April 2009
Conceptual - Computational Owner AMS will do, John Koisch will review
Summary Conceptual artifacts representing analysis and requirements for communicating between applications to support a particular business purpose for a particular healthcare domain or topic.
Detail - Computational Semantics at the Conceptual Level Capturing semantics at the Conceptual level using the Computational Viewpoint is done to provide both consistency to the rest of the specification and to lay the foundation for a more rigorous discussion of computational semantics at the platform-independent levels. This is done by focusing on TODO
Contents
Traceability to Reference Material
Should formally be expressed using the Behavioral Framework schema. May also reference other analysis artifacts from other sources, such as the EHRs-FM or Clinical Statements.
Best Practices / Templates
TODO
Quality Criteria
TODO
Conformance Statement
TODO
Guidance on format of Conformance Statement
TODO
Relationship to and Consistency with other Viewpoints
At the Conceptual level, the Computational constructs may reflect a level of analysis without undue concern for engineering the components into appropriate primitives or worrying about intersections with other viewpoints. However, if those connections can be made, they should be made. For example, if an appropriate Domain Analysis Model exists, then it a Conceptual specification should call that model out, and concepts from it may be used in describing the functional and collaborative behaviors for distributed systems at this level. However, these are not always available.
Candidate Artifacts
- Analysis Activity Diagram - These activity diagrams should contain business roles and responsibilities partitioned across swimlanes. They should reference domain objects of significance, but should not provide details past what would be found in the domain analysis model (whether real or notional).
- Collaboration Analysis - Collaborations (defined in the Behavioral Framework) may be defined in some detail here, including descriptions, business milestones, and broad sequencing of communications between elements. These collaborations should re-use, where available, Service Roles, and should define the relationships between those roles and other actors in the collaborations (broken down by Commissioning and Responsible Agents).
- EHR-FM Profile(s)
- Service Roles and Relationships - Service Roles may be defined at the Conceptual level, providing foundational elements such as
Examples
The following examples are full specifications. Following the link, the appropriate sections of the specifications that support the Computational Viewpoints are in brackets.
- EIS Service Functional Model
- RLUS Service Functional Model
- NCI Person Service SPecification
Back to SAEAF Specification Stack
