Harmonization: Batch.contentProcessingMode

Editing of harmonisation proposals prior to a harmonization meeting is restricted to the proposal submitter and the co-chairs of the steward comittee. Other changes will be undone. Please add comments to the "discussion" page associated with this proposal.

Recommendation for HL7 RIM Change	RECOMMENDATION ID:
Submitted by: INM	Revision (# and date): 20060219
Date submitted:	Committee status: Approved (WGM Jan06)
Submitted by: Rene Spronk
NAME: create new Batch.contentProcessingMode attribute

Stewards Position

REQUIRED - This table should contain one row for each Steward Committee affected by the recommendation.

TC	RECOMMENDATION APPROVAL STATUS	AFFECTED ENTITIES OF INTEREST TO TC (responsibility level: S=Steward; I=Interested)
INM	Approved	S

Issue

Upon receipt of a Batch (a Transmission with a Batch-class entry point) the receiver doesn't know whether it should process its contents in a sequential fashion, or whether the contents can be processed in a paralel (or even random) fashion.

Recommendation(s)

• Add an optional contentProcessingModeCode attribute to the RIM Batch class (data type CS CNE) to indicate the type of content processing that the receiver of the batch is expected to undertake, i.e., sequential or parallel. Default value is sequential.
• Create a new ContentProcessingMode vocabulary (with definition: Identifies the order in which content should be processed) with 2 values:
  • sequential: the content should be processed in a sequential fashion
  • unordered: the content may be processed in an any order

Rationale

The behaviour of receivers when processing Batches was "subject to site agreement" in HL7 v2. Various proposals will be (and have been) made to allow a sender to specify the behaviour of the receiver in an explicit manner.

Note: a boolean would suffice at the moment (sequential or not), there may however be use cases for other content processing modes.

Recommended Action Items

• Implement the proposed solution

Resolution

20060718 Harmonization meeting:

Description of vocab table was missing; not paralel, but unordered.

Gunther: blue classes should not even have been used for this, but normal rim classes. More fundamental issue.

Motion 10-0-0