Difference between revisions of "Extend usage of ExecutionAndDeliveryTime"
Rene spronk (talk | contribs) |
m |
||
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{INM Workitem}} | {{INM Workitem}} | ||
− | {{InM | + | {{InM Closed Action Items}} |
+ | * 20100120: Closed - already in the RIM: Rene. | ||
*Working group: InM | *Working group: InM | ||
*Author: René Spronk, on behalf of [[NICTIZ]], the Netherlands. | *Author: René Spronk, on behalf of [[NICTIZ]], the Netherlands. | ||
+ | * Status:[[Update_RIM_description_of_ExecutionAndDeliveryTime| Harmonization]] the change has been made in the RIM description of the attribute. Open issues for InM are | ||
+ | #to make updates to the query wrapper domain if and when R2 is being published. | ||
+ | #to make the necessary changes to the v2.x material | ||
+ | |||
==Summary== | ==Summary== |
Latest revision as of 19:13, 19 January 2010
This is a page of type Category:InM Closed Action Items.
- 20100120: Closed - already in the RIM: Rene.
- Working group: InM
- Author: René Spronk, on behalf of NICTIZ, the Netherlands.
- Status: Harmonization the change has been made in the RIM description of the attribute. Open issues for InM are
- to make updates to the query wrapper domain if and when R2 is being published.
- to make the necessary changes to the v2.x material
Contents
Summary
This proposal seeks to extend the use of the (v3) QueryByParameter.executionAndDeliveryTime attribute and the equivalent (v2) RCP-4 field. The HL7 standard only specifies how executionAndDeliveryTime is to be interpreted if the query priority (RCP-1 or responsePriorityCode) is D (Deferred).
This proposal adds a definition for the interpretation of QueryByParameter.executionAndDeliveryTime/RCP-4 in case the query priority is I (Immediate).
Use-case
For Immediate queries: to specify a point in time before which the responding system should have send a response. This to avoid waiting for an undefined period of length by a system that has just sent a query.
The responding system may elect to send a query-response with zero results in it, forcing the querying system to send a 'query continuation interaction' to get hold of a next part of the result set.
Proposal
Current situation
From the current specifications (see quotes below) I conclude that:
- If the query priority is D, then executionAndDeliveryTime/RCP-4 should be interpreted as the point in time when the response should be sent.
The current definitions (especially in v3) are somewhat vague/incomplete:
Definition of RCP-4:
5.5.6.4 RCP-4 Execution and Delivery Time (DTM) 01441 Definition: Specifies the time the response is to be returned. This field is only valued when RCP-1-Query priority contains the value D (Deferred).
The RIM specifies:
3.6.10.7 QuerySpec.executionAndDeliveryTime:: TS (0..1) Definition:Specifies the time the response is to be returned.
Proposed extension
Proposed addition:
- If the query priority is I, then the responding system should send a response as soon as possible, but no later than the time specified executionAndDeliveryTime/RCP-4.
Impact
- v2: description of RCP-4.
- Definition: Specifies the timing of the response. If RCP-1-Query priority contains the value I this field should be interpreted as 'the latest point in time the response SHOULD be returned'. If RCP-1-Query priority contains the value D this field should be interpreted as 'the exact point in time the response should be returned'.
- v3: (needs a harmonization proposal) QuerySpec.executionAndDeliveryTime
- Definition: Specifies the timing of the response. If responsePriorityCode contains the value I this field SHOULD be interpreted as 'the latest point in time the response should be returned'. If responsePriorityCode contains the value D this field should be interpreted as 'the exact point in time the response should be returned'.
Discussion
20080917, WGM, Vancouver, Motion to adopt (Rene/Address, 9-0-1)