This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here
Difference between revisions of "Guidlines for Attachments"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m |
m |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
Opened: 10-Jan-05 | Opened: 10-Jan-05 | ||
Old Item: 945 | Old Item: 945 | ||
| − | Assigned to: | + | Assigned to: ????? |
was action item 178 | was action item 178 | ||
Revision as of 18:40, 12 January 2010
This is a page of type Category:InM Open Action Items.
Guidelines for Attachments proposal status
Opened: 10-Jan-05 Old Item: 945 Assigned to: ????? was action item 178
- 20050329 INM Telcon: This is being followed by the Attachments Task force.
- 20060412, Paul Knapp, Open
- Charlie McCay: Paul Knapp has taken over responsibility to bring this item to a close. Create a recommendation as to how Attachments should be used. Depends on outcomes of action item 110 (IIref data type issue).
- 20060509, Miroslav Koncar, open, MCCI
- Miroslav: there are discrepancies between abstract DT spec and XML ITS that need to be solved. Need to document preferred way of doing things. THU Q1 should shed some light on the issue. Assign action item to Miroslav.
- 20060604, Still Open
- 20060912 INM WGM: Miroslav: discussed on e-mail list. ATS will state that attachments can be handled by MIL, but that HL7 discourages this (and prefers the use of the attachment class in the transmission wrapper). ATS issue closed, open issue related to reference mechanism in ED data type. (.. add link to ref proposal..)
- 20061023, Paul Knapp: answered the issue on Thursday of the May WGM. Has not been documented in MCCI (if it needs to go there).
- 20070109: WGM: Rene ísn't clear what should be added to MCCI. Miroslav reports that as part of the ATS ballot reconciliation, we got a neg from KP, on the attachment recommendations. Need to revisit the statement as made on 20060509 above.
- 20070501: Charlie suggests we use URI definition as used in ebXML specification. See appendix C of the ebXML specification. Rene: does this in any conflict with the new features of II in datatypes R2?
- Charlie/Doug motion: where a URI is required for referecing an II, the URI definition as used in ebXML specification should be used. 15-0-2
- Referencing an Attachment Act would be either: Act with new II datytype feature “ref”, or ED with an URI.
- Rene/Mark T. motion: Referencing an Attachment class from an ED datatype uses URIs. The Attachment class SHALL be part of the same Transmission as the attribute that references it. 4-3-10.
- Action item re-assigned to Charlie which details a solution for all known use-cases related to attachments.
- 20060702 Telcon Charlie will be contacted
- 20070918 WGM Tues Q1 – Charlie: some resolutions. “how to use Attachment class” Charlie will review to determine current status
- 20080114:WGM:Scott will ping charlie for the resolution.
- 20080414 Scott: email query sent to Charlie
- 20100112: Charlie:** again abandoned with guilt – suggest that someone who has an immediate and pressing interest in specifying the use of attachments pick this up – I can see that there is something useful to be done here, but again I do not want to be a bottleneck to letting it happen. If no-one is available to pick it up now, then I suggest that the action be closed rather than maintain an expectation that I will write something up.
