This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here
<meta name="googlebot" content="noindex">

Difference between revisions of "Reference - Informational"

From HL7Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 
(5 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
 
'''Reference - Informational'''
 
'''Reference - Informational'''
*''Patrick Loyd''
+
'''Owner'''
 +
PEL will do, ?? will review
  
 
'''Summary'''
 
'''Summary'''
 
* Artifacts that can be used as reference for information viewpoint artifacts in subsequent conformance levels.
 
* Artifacts that can be used as reference for information viewpoint artifacts in subsequent conformance levels.
  
'''Detail - Computational Semantics at the Conceptual Level'''
+
'''Detail - Reference Semantics at the Informational 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
+
TODO
  
 
=Traceability to Reference Material=
 
=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.
+
NA
  
 
=Best Practices / Templates=
 
=Best Practices / Templates=
Line 25: Line 26:
  
 
=Relationship to and Consistency with other Viewpoints=
 
=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.
+
TODO
  
 
=Candidate Artifacts=
 
=Candidate Artifacts=
** HL7 Reference Information Model (RIM)
+
* HL7 Reference Information Model (RIM)
** HL7 Abstract Data Types (ADT)
+
* HL7 Abstract Data Types (ADT)
** HL7 Vocabulary References
+
* HL7 Vocabulary References
** TermInfo Guides
+
* TermInfo Guides
** Clinical Document Architecture Model (CDA)
+
* Clinical Document Architecture Model (CDA)
** Clinical Statement Model
+
* Clinical Statement Model
** Orders and Requests Pattern Model
+
* Orders and Requests Pattern Model
** Implementable Tech Specification (ITS)
+
* Implementable Tech Specification (ITS)
** HL7 Foundation and Core Principles
+
* HL7 Foundation and Core Principles
** HL7 Development Framework (belong here or elsewhere)?
+
* HL7 Development Framework (belong here or elsewhere)?
 
+
* WC3 (for ITS)
 +
* OMG (for ITS?)
  
 
=Examples=
 
=Examples=

Latest revision as of 03:20, 10 May 2009

Reference - Informational Owner PEL will do, ?? will review

Summary

  • Artifacts that can be used as reference for information viewpoint artifacts in subsequent conformance levels.

Detail - Reference Semantics at the Informational Level TODO

Traceability to Reference Material

NA

Best Practices / Templates

TODO

Quality Criteria

TODO

Conformance Statement

TODO

Guidance on format of Conformance Statement

TODO


Relationship to and Consistency with other Viewpoints

TODO

Candidate Artifacts

  • HL7 Reference Information Model (RIM)
  • HL7 Abstract Data Types (ADT)
  • HL7 Vocabulary References
  • TermInfo Guides
  • Clinical Document Architecture Model (CDA)
  • Clinical Statement Model
  • Orders and Requests Pattern Model
  • Implementable Tech Specification (ITS)
  • HL7 Foundation and Core Principles
  • HL7 Development Framework (belong here or elsewhere)?
  • WC3 (for ITS)
  • OMG (for ITS?)

Examples

The following examples are full specifications. Following the link, the appropriate sections of the specifications that support the Computational Viewpoints are in brackets.

  • Example 1 - TODO
  • Example 2 - TODO
  • Example 3 - TODO


Back to SAEAF Specification Stack