|
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | | + | #REDIRECT [[201801 Automated Profiling From Domain Models]] |
| − | [[Category:201801_FHIR_Connectathon_Track_Proposals|Jan 2018 Proposals]] | |
| − | __NOTOC__
| |
| − | =Track Name=
| |
| − | Domain Analysis Model to FHIR Profiles and Implementation Guide | |
| − | ==Submitting WG/Project/Implementer Group==
| |
| − | <!-- Who is asking for this track? -->
| |
| − | Clinical Interoperability Council, Cancer Interoperability Group
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==Justification==
| |
| − | <!--Why is this an important track to include in the connectathon - include implementer need, impact on ballot, FMM readiness of the resources, etc. -->
| |
| − | There is a practical gap between documenting the clinical content in a healthcare domain via a domain analysis model, and the ability to deliver a corresponding FHIR implementation. While it is possible with existing manual tools to create FHIR Profiles in small numbers, when a domain requires 20, 50, or 100 profiles, efficient specification and automation is required. This track will to test a proposed methodology for creating FHIR profiles that should make it possible to convert a domain analysis model to a set of FHIR profiles in a relatively simple, efficient manner.
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==Proposed Track Lead==
| |
| − | <!-- Name, email and Skype id of individual who will coordinate the track at the connectathon -->
| |
| − | Mark Kramer, mkramer@mitre.org<br>
| |
| − | Michael O'Keefe, mokeefe@mitre.org<br>
| |
| − | See [[Connectathon_Track_Lead_Responsibilities]]
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==Expected participants==
| |
| − | <!-- List of the individuals and/or organizations that have indicated a desire to attend the connectathon and implement this track -->
| |
| − | TBD
| |
| − | ==Roles==
| |
| − | Please include information here regarding how much advance preparation will be required if creating a client and/or server.
| |
| − | <!-- Roles are sets of functionality (generally defined by a Conformance resource) that a single system can take on -->
| |
| − | ===Role 1 Name===
| |
| − | <!-- Provide a description of the capabilities this role will have within the connectathon -->
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==Scenarios==
| |
| − | <!-- What will be the actions performed by participants? -->
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===Scenario Step 1 Name===
| |
| − | :Action: <!--Who does what? (Use the role names listed above when referring to the participants -->
| |
| − | :Precondition: <!-- What setup is required prior to executing this step? -->
| |
| − | :Success Criteria: <!-- How will the participants know if the test was successful? -->
| |
| − | :Bonus point: <!-- Any additional complexity to make the scenario more challenging -->
| |
| − | | |
| − | <!-- Provide a description of each task -->
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==TestScript(s)==
| |
| − | <!-- Optional (for initial proposal): Provide links to the TestScript instance(s) that define the behavior to be tested.
| |
| − | These should be committed to SVN under trunk/connectathons/[connectathon]
| |
| − | -->
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==Security and Privacy Considerations==
| |
| − | <!-- Optional (for initial proposal): Address the topic of Privacy and Security.
| |
| − | * What Authentication/Authorization will be used (e.g. SMART on FHIR (OAuth), HEART (UMA/OAuth), IHE IUA (OAuth), generic OAuth, generic SAML, mutual-Auth-TLS), or explicitly indicate that it is out of scope and left to implementations.
| |
| − | * What Privacy Consent management will be used? When the Consent Resource is used, define how.
| |
| − | * What Audit Logging will be used? When the AuditEvent Resource is used, define expectations of what events will be logged and what each AuditEvent will contain.
| |
| − | * How will Provenance be used? Provenance use should be mandated when data is imported from other systems, so as to track that source of that data. Provenance should be used when data is authored by unusual sources, such as the Patient themselves or devices.
| |
| − | * How will security-labels be used? Security-labels are meta tags used to classify the data into various confidentiality, sensitivity, and integrity classifications. These security-labels are then available for use and available for access control decisions.
| |
| − | I am happy to help: JohnMoehrke@gmail.com -- security co-chair
| |
| − | -->
| |
| − | none
| |
