This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here
<meta name="googlebot" content="noindex">

Difference between revisions of "Conceptual - Computational"

From HL7Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 9: Line 9:
  
 
'''Traceability to Reference Material'''
 
'''Traceability to Reference Material'''
TODO
+
Should formally be expressed using the Behavioral Framework schema. May also reference other analysis artifacts from other sources, such as the EHRs-FM or Clinical Statements.
  
 
'''Relationship to and Consistency with other Viewpoints'''
 
'''Relationship to and Consistency with other Viewpoints'''
TODO
+
At the Conceptual level, the Computational constructs may reflect a level of analysis without undue concern for engineering the components into appropriate primitives or worrying about intersections with other viewpoints. For example, if an appropriate Domain Analysis Model exists, then it a Conceptual specification should call that model out, and concepts from it may be used in describing the functional and collaborative behaviors for distributed systems at this level. However, these are not always available.
  
 
'''Candidate Artifacts'''
 
'''Candidate Artifacts'''

Revision as of 17:02, 9 April 2009

Conceptual - Computational Owner AMS will do, John Koisch will review Summary Conceptual artifacts representing analysis and requirements for communicating between applications to support a particular business purpose for a particular healthcare domain or topic.

'Detail - Computational Semantics at the Conceptual Level Capturing semantics at the Conceptual level using the Computational Viewpoint is done to provide both consistency to the rest of the specification and to lay the foundation for a more rigorous discussion of computational semantics at the platform-independent levels. This is done by focusing on TODO

Traceability to Reference Material Should formally be expressed using the Behavioral Framework schema. May also reference other analysis artifacts from other sources, such as the EHRs-FM or Clinical Statements.

Relationship to and Consistency with other Viewpoints At the Conceptual level, the Computational constructs may reflect a level of analysis without undue concern for engineering the components into appropriate primitives or worrying about intersections with other viewpoints. For example, if an appropriate Domain Analysis Model exists, then it a Conceptual specification should call that model out, and concepts from it may be used in describing the functional and collaborative behaviors for distributed systems at this level. However, these are not always available.

Candidate Artifacts

  • Analysis Activity Diagram - These activity diagrams should contain business roles and responsibilities partitioned across swimlanes. They should reference domain objects of significance, but should not provide details past what would be found in the domain analysis model (whether real or notional).
  • Collaboration Analysis - Collaborations (defined in the Behavioral Framework) may be defined in some detail here, including descriptions, business milestones, and broad sequencing of communications between elements. These collaborations should re-use, where available, Service Roles, and should define the relationships between those roles and other actors in the collaborations (broken down by Commissioning and Responsible Agents).
  • EHR-FM Profile(s)
  • Service Roles and Relationships - Service Roles may be defined at the Conceptual level, providing foundational elements such as

Examples TODO

Back to SAEAF Specification Stack