Difference between revisions of "Talk:ITS Acceptance Factors"
Charliemccay (talk | contribs) (requirement for dependance upon non-optional HDF artefacts) |
Charliemccay (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
== scope of an ITS == | == scope of an ITS == | ||
| − | The scope of an ITS should not be limited to representing RIM objects "for transmission in messages" -- so I have removed that part of the criteria | + | The scope of an ITS should not be limited to representing RIM objects "for transmission in messages" -- so I have removed that part of the criteria [[User:Charliemccay|Charliemccay]] 09:50, 1 Jun 2006 (CDT) |
== requirement for dependance upon non-optional HDF artefacts == | == requirement for dependance upon non-optional HDF artefacts == | ||
Revision as of 14:50, 1 June 2006
Tooling requirement
I agree that the availability of tooling to support an ITS is crucial -- but think that requiring a beta of the tools to be available before INM accepts the workitem is too high a hurdle - I would suggest that the proposed work item should include a plan that will deliver tooling prior to a specification being brought forwards for ballot
scope of an ITS
The scope of an ITS should not be limited to representing RIM objects "for transmission in messages" -- so I have removed that part of the criteria Charliemccay 09:50, 1 Jun 2006 (CDT)
requirement for dependance upon non-optional HDF artefacts
This is a hard rule to maintain, since "non-optional" is ill defined in this context. It is possible to create HL7v3 artefacts without defining interactions (they are not needed for CDA documents) - so the definition of the interaction is an "optional" part of the HDF. A reasonable constraint would be that the ITS must be derived from artefacts that are products of the HL7 Development Framework. Charliemccay 09:50, 1 Jun 2006 (CDT)
