This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here
Difference between revisions of "InM fhir messaging"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(2 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown) | |||
Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
**#'''force''' each of the resources to declare events. So far the committees have been recalcitrant to do so. | **#'''force''' each of the resources to declare events. So far the committees have been recalcitrant to do so. | ||
**#Add events that the v2 folks would recognize | **#Add events that the v2 folks would recognize | ||
+ | **We only need to define events at the international level where there's interest in the community to do that. Work Groups shouldn't define events until/unless someone asks them to. A great deal of messaging to date has been in "closed" communities where they're happy to define their own events. | ||
===GF#13849 change event element in messagedefinition to URI, and make optional.=== | ===GF#13849 change event element in messagedefinition to URI, and make optional.=== | ||
*This allows the sender to link to the formal event definition | *This allows the sender to link to the formal event definition | ||
− | |||
**Lloyd: I don't understand how a message definition could ever not identify an event. | **Lloyd: I don't understand how a message definition could ever not identify an event. | ||
+ | **Tony: I will defer to Grahame - it was his thought to make this optional. | ||
===GF#13850 add messagedefinition element to messageheader=== | ===GF#13850 add messagedefinition element to messageheader=== | ||
Line 38: | Line 39: | ||
===GF#13852 Change messagedefinition maturity level to 1, and ballot status to STU=== | ===GF#13852 Change messagedefinition maturity level to 1, and ballot status to STU=== | ||
− | ===GF#13853 Change Maturity level on Messageheader to FMM4 | + | ===GF#13853 Change Maturity level on Messageheader to FMM4=== |
Latest revision as of 17:17, 18 September 2017
Contents
- 1 Topics for FHIR
- 1.1 Introduced in Sept.2017 San Diego
- 1.1.1 GF#13848 Change messageheader.event data type from code to URI
- 1.1.2 GF#13849 change event element in messagedefinition to URI, and make optional.
- 1.1.3 GF#13850 add messagedefinition element to messageheader
- 1.1.4 GF#13851 align messageheader.extension-messageheader-response-request with MessageDefinition.responserequired
- 1.1.5 GF#13852 Change messagedefinition maturity level to 1, and ballot status to STU
- 1.1.6 GF#13853 Change Maturity level on Messageheader to FMM4
- 1.1 Introduced in Sept.2017 San Diego
Topics for FHIR
Introduced in Sept.2017 San Diego
GF#13848 Change messageheader.event data type from code to URI
- This allows the sender to link to the formal event definition
- Lloyd: This seems way too heavy. It prevents just pointing to a code - with its accompanying standard display or any definition. It's far from intuitive for someone familiar with v2 or v3 messaging to have any clue how to fill out EventDefinition.
- Tony: The alternative is to
- force each of the resources to declare events. So far the committees have been recalcitrant to do so.
- Add events that the v2 folks would recognize
- We only need to define events at the international level where there's interest in the community to do that. Work Groups shouldn't define events until/unless someone asks them to. A great deal of messaging to date has been in "closed" communities where they're happy to define their own events.
GF#13849 change event element in messagedefinition to URI, and make optional.
- This allows the sender to link to the formal event definition
- Lloyd: I don't understand how a message definition could ever not identify an event.
- Tony: I will defer to Grahame - it was his thought to make this optional.
GF#13850 add messagedefinition element to messageheader
This allows the message to contain a link to the appropriate definition.
GF#13851 align messageheader.extension-messageheader-response-request with MessageDefinition.responserequired
- messageheader.messageheader.extension-messageheader-response-request has the following codes
Code | Id | System | Parent | Display | Definition |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
always | Always | initiator expects a response for this message | |||
on-error | Error/reject conditions only | initiator expects a response only if in error | |||
never | Never | initiator does not expect a response | |||
on-success | Successful completion only | initiator expects a response only if successful |
- messageDefinition.responserequired
- Boolean
- MessageDefinition.response-code has the following codes
Code | Id | System | Parent | Display | Definition |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
ok | 1 | OK | The message was accepted and processed without error. | ||
transient-error | 2 | Transient Error | Some internal unexpected error occurred - wait and try again. Note - this is usually used for things like database unavailable, which may be expected to resolve, though human intervention may be required. | ||
fatal-error | 3 | Fatal Error | The message was rejected because of some content in it. There is no point in re-sending without change. The response narrative SHALL describe the issue. | ||