Difference between revisions of "Extend usage of ExecutionAndDeliveryTime"
m |
m |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{INM Workitem}} | {{INM Workitem}} | ||
| − | {{InM | + | {{InM Closed Action Items}} |
| + | * 20100120: Closed - already in the RIM: Rene. | ||
*Working group: InM | *Working group: InM | ||
*Author: René Spronk, on behalf of [[NICTIZ]], the Netherlands. | *Author: René Spronk, on behalf of [[NICTIZ]], the Netherlands. | ||
Latest revision as of 19:13, 19 January 2010
This page documents an INM Workitem, i.e. an issue within scope of the INM Committee that either is still being discussed, or the resolution of which has not yet been included in an INM ballot.
This is a page of type Category:InM Closed Action Items.
- 20100120: Closed - already in the RIM: Rene.
- Working group: InM
- Author: René Spronk, on behalf of NICTIZ, the Netherlands.
- Status: Harmonization the change has been made in the RIM description of the attribute. Open issues for InM are
- to make updates to the query wrapper domain if and when R2 is being published.
- to make the necessary changes to the v2.x material
Contents
Summary
This proposal seeks to extend the use of the (v3) QueryByParameter.executionAndDeliveryTime attribute and the equivalent (v2) RCP-4 field. The HL7 standard only specifies how executionAndDeliveryTime is to be interpreted if the query priority (RCP-1 or responsePriorityCode) is D (Deferred).
This proposal adds a definition for the interpretation of QueryByParameter.executionAndDeliveryTime/RCP-4 in case the query priority is I (Immediate).
Use-case
For Immediate queries: to specify a point in time before which the responding system should have send a response. This to avoid waiting for an undefined period of length by a system that has just sent a query.
The responding system may elect to send a query-response with zero results in it, forcing the querying system to send a 'query continuation interaction' to get hold of a next part of the result set.
Proposal
Current situation
From the current specifications (see quotes below) I conclude that:
- If the query priority is D, then executionAndDeliveryTime/RCP-4 should be interpreted as the point in time when the response should be sent.
The current definitions (especially in v3) are somewhat vague/incomplete:
Definition of RCP-4:
5.5.6.4 RCP-4 Execution and Delivery Time (DTM) 01441 Definition: Specifies the time the response is to be returned. This field is only valued when RCP-1-Query priority contains the value D (Deferred).
The RIM specifies:
3.6.10.7 QuerySpec.executionAndDeliveryTime:: TS (0..1) Definition:Specifies the time the response is to be returned.
Proposed extension
Proposed addition:
- If the query priority is I, then the responding system should send a response as soon as possible, but no later than the time specified executionAndDeliveryTime/RCP-4.
Impact
- v2: description of RCP-4.
- Definition: Specifies the timing of the response. If RCP-1-Query priority contains the value I this field should be interpreted as 'the latest point in time the response SHOULD be returned'. If RCP-1-Query priority contains the value D this field should be interpreted as 'the exact point in time the response should be returned'.
- v3: (needs a harmonization proposal) QuerySpec.executionAndDeliveryTime
- Definition: Specifies the timing of the response. If responsePriorityCode contains the value I this field SHOULD be interpreted as 'the latest point in time the response should be returned'. If responsePriorityCode contains the value D this field should be interpreted as 'the exact point in time the response should be returned'.
Discussion
20080917, WGM, Vancouver, Motion to adopt (Rene/Address, 9-0-1)
