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

Difference between revisions of "MCCI R2"

From HL7Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 
(11 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
 +
{{INM Workitem}}
 +
 
MCCI R2 refers to Release 2 of the MCCI domain. The MCCI domain describes the [[Transmission Wrapper]], the [[Trigger Event]], and core [[CPM]]s.
 
MCCI R2 refers to Release 2 of the MCCI domain. The MCCI domain describes the [[Transmission Wrapper]], the [[Trigger Event]], and core [[CPM]]s.
  
−
==Scope of R2==
+
*See [[MCCI/CACT R2 Project]] for the project plan and scope of MCCI R2, which will be committee balloted in January 2008.
−
Why do we need R2? What are the major issues we would like to see resolved in R2?
+
 
−
*Transmission wrapper split (INM/SOA work item)
+
==Open Issues (non Batch)==
−
*[[Batch Topic DSTU R1 Issues|Transmission Batch topic]]
+
 
−
*"ControlAct Batching" (although under a different name)  
+
*Open issue: information related to [[Transmission SLA]], details of [[Transmission Addressing]].
−
*sort out issue of "addressing" in abstract static v3 models. Logical endpoints, system receivers, informationRecipients, etc. Be inspired by established transport frameworks.
+
*[[Behavioral Contract Wrapper (new wrapper mechanism)]]
−
*de-blue (nice to have, secundary)
+
*[[Bolus]] in v3 Closed in sydney for non-action.
−
*Scope down dynamic model assumptions (these have static model consequences, e.g. in terms of use of the Acknowledgement class)
+
*Referencing attachments, [[Use of ID/IDREF]], [[Transmission Attachment]]
−
**get MnM to approve motion akin to "drop notion of Receiver Responsibilities, will work on new dynamic model. Current documented RR will be textual constraints." 
+
*[[Composite Message Type (new wrapper mechanism)]]
 +
*[[Transmission Wrapper (new wrapper mechanism)]], [[Constrain Transmission Wrapper]], [[SOA versus Message Transmission]] - Miroslav/SOA
 +
*[[De-blue MessageCommunicationsControl]]
 +
*[[Interaction (new dynamic model)]], [[Transmission Pattern]]
 +
*[[Transmission Addressing]]
 +
*[[Harmonization: Add ManifestItem class to Transmission]] in the context of the new Wrappers
 +
*Include RealmCode in root classes of interactions (see InM action item 2033)
 +
*InM's position is 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.
 +
 
 +
==Prior Decisions==
 +
 
 +
See [[Batch Topic DSTU R1 Issues]] for all issues/motions related to Batch Wrappers.
  
−
What are issues that should/can wait for R3?
+
*MCCI R2 C1 reconciliation package contains agreed upon changes.
−
*Orchestration. Dynamic model details. R2 will have to deal with fact that there are major open issues with the current dynamic model, so it needs to cover [[Receiver responsibilities]] as well as something akin to [[CPM]].
+
*[[Accept Level Acknowledgement]]
 +
*[[Error Location]]
 +
*[[Harmonization: add priorTransmission to support Transmission Sequencing]], [[Sequence Number Protocol]]
 +
*[[Transmission.id]]
 +
*(closed) There is an action item for INM from Vocab: "Vocab TC recommends to INM and MnM that Trigger Events and Interation IDs become coded attributes with INM to determine what the datatype should be for them."
 +
**20070109 WGM: INM realizes that it could be either, but doesn't feel the need to move away away from II.
 +
*(closed, for next release) Editorial: MCCI artefacts labeled as "deprecated" should probably be labeled "for backwards compatibility only". Once they have had that status for 2 normative releases of v3, their status will change to "deprecated".
 +
*(closed, for next release) AcknowledgementDetail.typeCode is optional - should this be mandatory instead ? Contains E, W, or I, a categorization of the acknowledgement code/text.
 +
**Motion to make AcknowledgementDetail.typeCode required (not mandatory), Rene/Andrew, 11-0-0. WGM 2007-01-09
 +
*add wording to MCCI Preface to explain rationale for fixing acceptAckCode to ER. Needs more wording for this is a sunstantive change.
 +
*HQ needs for us to include the previously balloted name in the preface of MCCI R2. This document was originally balloted as a component of the Infrastructure Management document
 +
*For the MCCI R2 preface related to batches: to replace “HL7 Query” with “'HL7 queries' in general” at the earliest convenient time, if the existing wording is used in the preface of the next ballot.
  
−
==Project plan for R2==
+
  [[Category:SAIF_AP_Projects]]
−
*Aim is to have stable publication for January 2008 (for committee ballot), Normative by Sept 2008.
 
−
*May2007: editors draft
 
−
**Assemble all content
 
−
**determine scope for R2. Scope freeze.
 
−
**resolve remaining (in scope) issues for R2
 
−
*Sept2007: first draft with fixed scope (informative ballot)
 
−
*Jan2008: committee ballot
 
−
*May2008: membership ballot
 

Latest revision as of 14:22, 6 January 2012

INM workitem.gif

This page documents an INM Workitem, i.e. an issue within scope of the INM Committee that either is still being discussed, or the resolution of which has not yet been included in an INM ballot.

MCCI R2 refers to Release 2 of the MCCI domain. The MCCI domain describes the Transmission Wrapper, the Trigger Event, and core CPMs.

  • See MCCI/CACT R2 Project for the project plan and scope of MCCI R2, which will be committee balloted in January 2008.

Open Issues (non Batch)

Prior Decisions

See Batch Topic DSTU R1 Issues for all issues/motions related to Batch Wrappers.

  • MCCI R2 C1 reconciliation package contains agreed upon changes.
  • Accept Level Acknowledgement
  • Error Location
  • Harmonization: add priorTransmission to support Transmission Sequencing, Sequence Number Protocol
  • Transmission.id
  • (closed) There is an action item for INM from Vocab: "Vocab TC recommends to INM and MnM that Trigger Events and Interation IDs become coded attributes with INM to determine what the datatype should be for them."
    • 20070109 WGM: INM realizes that it could be either, but doesn't feel the need to move away away from II.
  • (closed, for next release) Editorial: MCCI artefacts labeled as "deprecated" should probably be labeled "for backwards compatibility only". Once they have had that status for 2 normative releases of v3, their status will change to "deprecated".
  • (closed, for next release) AcknowledgementDetail.typeCode is optional - should this be mandatory instead ? Contains E, W, or I, a categorization of the acknowledgement code/text.
    • Motion to make AcknowledgementDetail.typeCode required (not mandatory), Rene/Andrew, 11-0-0. WGM 2007-01-09
  • add wording to MCCI Preface to explain rationale for fixing acceptAckCode to ER. Needs more wording for this is a sunstantive change.
  • HQ needs for us to include the previously balloted name in the preface of MCCI R2. This document was originally balloted as a component of the Infrastructure Management document
  • For the MCCI R2 preface related to batches: to replace “HL7 Query” with “'HL7 queries' in general” at the earliest convenient time, if the existing wording is used in the preface of the next ballot.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.hl7.org/w/index.php?title=MCCI_R2&oldid=57187"