This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here
Difference between revisions of "Open ATS Issues"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| (12 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| + | {{INM Workitem}} | ||
*Translations: add "derived from .. ID" attribute ?, much like acknowledgementOf. See also MCCI line-item 157. | *Translations: add "derived from .. ID" attribute ?, much like acknowledgementOf. See also MCCI line-item 157. | ||
*[[Message.id]] "sameness" discussion after transformation by a Gateway. | *[[Message.id]] "sameness" discussion after transformation by a Gateway. | ||
| Line 4: | Line 5: | ||
**This has the consequence that the sameness of Transmission.id is not linked to the wider topic of semantic-transmission sameness. | **This has the consequence that the sameness of Transmission.id is not linked to the wider topic of semantic-transmission sameness. | ||
*Use of the AttentionLine class to add route-tracing information in a Transmission that's being routed/gatewayed to its destination. Are Gateways/Bridges able to add their own information to the Transmission Wrapper in the form of an additional AttentionLine? | *Use of the AttentionLine class to add route-tracing information in a Transmission that's being routed/gatewayed to its destination. Are Gateways/Bridges able to add their own information to the Transmission Wrapper in the form of an additional AttentionLine? | ||
| + | **20070919 WGM The specific use case calls for an item to consider route-tracing: This is only relevant when an HL7 Application is involved. The opinion of the committee is that the use of the AttentionLine is inappropriate. An explicit means should be derived. | ||
| − | + | == ATS Concepts and Definitions == | |
| − | + | The items and concepts that are listed below represent some of the major challenges for the ATS document. They are addressed within the Wrappers R2 project plus many Action Items with the InM as well. | |
| − | * | + | *[[Transport]] |
| − | * | + | *[[Message Exchange Pattern]] |
| − | * | + | *[[Message Infrastructure Fault]] |
| − | * | + | *[[HL7 Application]] |
| − | + | *[[Sender]] | |
| + | *[[Receiver]] | ||
| + | *[[Source]] | ||
| + | *[[Destination]] (unified glossary definition from both ATS as well as webservices perspective) | ||
| + | *Intermediaries Roles | ||
| + | **[[Gateway]] | ||
| + | **[[Bridge]] | ||
| + | **[[Interface Engine]] | ||
| + | **[[Transformer Bridge]] | ||
| + | **[[Message Broker]] | ||
| + | |||
| + | Last change: --[[User:Miroslav|Miroslav Koncar]] 06:21, 2 May 2007 (CDT) | ||
Latest revision as of 13:43, 19 September 2007
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.
- Translations: add "derived from .. ID" attribute ?, much like acknowledgementOf. See also MCCI line-item 157.
- Message.id "sameness" discussion after transformation by a Gateway.
- New motion of MnM: 20060113: "At the semantic (or: business process level) the contents of the Transmission wrapper, with the exception of InteractionID, are not relevant when determining if 2 interactions are the same. At the transmission-level 2 Transmissions are the same if they have the same Transmission.id."
- This has the consequence that the sameness of Transmission.id is not linked to the wider topic of semantic-transmission sameness.
- Use of the AttentionLine class to add route-tracing information in a Transmission that's being routed/gatewayed to its destination. Are Gateways/Bridges able to add their own information to the Transmission Wrapper in the form of an additional AttentionLine?
- 20070919 WGM The specific use case calls for an item to consider route-tracing: This is only relevant when an HL7 Application is involved. The opinion of the committee is that the use of the AttentionLine is inappropriate. An explicit means should be derived.
ATS Concepts and Definitions
The items and concepts that are listed below represent some of the major challenges for the ATS document. They are addressed within the Wrappers R2 project plus many Action Items with the InM as well.
- Transport
- Message Exchange Pattern
- Message Infrastructure Fault
- HL7 Application
- Sender
- Receiver
- Source
- Destination (unified glossary definition from both ATS as well as webservices perspective)
- Intermediaries Roles
Last change: --Miroslav Koncar 06:21, 2 May 2007 (CDT)
