This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here
Difference between revisions of "Add ControlAct to CDA Header"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Rene spronk (talk | contribs) (New page: {{CDA R3 Open Proposals}} Return to SDTC page; Return to CDA R3 Formal Proposals page. {|width=100% cellspacing=0 cellpa...) |
Rene spronk (talk | contribs) |
||
| (4 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | {{CDA R3 | + | {{CDA R3 Closed Proposals}} |
Return to [[Structured Documents TC|SDTC]] page; Return to [[:category:CDA R3 Formal Proposals|CDA R3 Formal Proposals]] page. | Return to [[Structured Documents TC|SDTC]] page; Return to [[:category:CDA R3 Formal Proposals|CDA R3 Formal Proposals]] page. | ||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
== Issue == | == Issue == | ||
| − | *CDA | + | *CDA R2 doesn't support workflow. This principle was re-enforced during a meeting of O&O and other WGs during the WGM in Orlando (January 2009). This proposal seeks to introduce a mechanism in CDA R3 whereby one could support workflow. |
== Recommendation == | == Recommendation == | ||
| − | * | + | *Add a ControlActEvent class (classCode CACT) with as its subject the Document header. |
| + | |||
| + | [[Image:CDA R3 controlAct.gif|300px|center|thumb|Proposed extension (select to enlarge view)]] | ||
| + | |||
== Rationale == | == Rationale == | ||
| − | + | *The proposed change allows for the identification whether the document contents are "for information only" or whether any acts requested in the document should actually be performed (and by whom). | |
== Discussion == | == Discussion == | ||
| Line 28: | Line 31: | ||
== Resolution == | == Resolution == | ||
| − | + | Intent of the document is to reflect the static model. Any workflow management control is outside the document. This applies only to the header. Proposal rejected. See SDWG minutes from 7/21/2009 for details: | |
| + | |||
| + | ===From the minutes=== | ||
| + | Request to add a control act to the CDA header. After some discussion, the commonly held view by participants is that the document is a static model. We assume that the dynamic behaviors are in the messages or in the web services layers used to transport the document. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Motion: Intent of the document is to reflect the static model. Any workflow management control is outside the document. This applies only to the header. | ||
| + | By: Hans, Second: Liora Abstain: 0 Against: 0 For: 16 Motion passed | ||
| + | |||
| + | Note: Based upon this committee vote, the original proposal submitted was rejected. | ||
Latest revision as of 04:24, 22 July 2009
Return to SDTC page; Return to CDA R3 Formal Proposals page.
| Submitted by: René Spronk | Revision date: <<Revision Date>> |
| Submitted date: <<Submit Date>> | Change request ID: <<Change Request ID>> |
Contents
Issue
- CDA R2 doesn't support workflow. This principle was re-enforced during a meeting of O&O and other WGs during the WGM in Orlando (January 2009). This proposal seeks to introduce a mechanism in CDA R3 whereby one could support workflow.
Recommendation
- Add a ControlActEvent class (classCode CACT) with as its subject the Document header.
Rationale
- The proposed change allows for the identification whether the document contents are "for information only" or whether any acts requested in the document should actually be performed (and by whom).
Discussion
Recommended Action Items
Resolution
Intent of the document is to reflect the static model. Any workflow management control is outside the document. This applies only to the header. Proposal rejected. See SDWG minutes from 7/21/2009 for details:
From the minutes
Request to add a control act to the CDA header. After some discussion, the commonly held view by participants is that the document is a static model. We assume that the dynamic behaviors are in the messages or in the web services layers used to transport the document.
Motion: Intent of the document is to reflect the static model. Any workflow management control is outside the document. This applies only to the header. By: Hans, Second: Liora Abstain: 0 Against: 0 For: 16 Motion passed
Note: Based upon this committee vote, the original proposal submitted was rejected.
