Difference between revisions of "Composite Order"
| Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
==Characteristics of a Composite Order== | ==Characteristics of a Composite Order== | ||
| − | The current design thinking for Composite Order is to move from an entirely constraint-based approach to a building-blocks approach. Meaning we're moving from a big DMIM, from which all RMIMs are properly derived to an approach where the DMIM is a representation of the RIM. | + | The current design thinking for Composite Order is to move from an entirely constraint-based approach to a building-blocks approach. Meaning we're moving from a big DMIM, from which all RMIMs are properly derived to an approach where the DMIM is a representation of the RIM and templates are applied to define constraints. |
*with order constraints? (some like this approach) | *with order constraints? (some like this approach) | ||
*without order constraints? (others like this approach) | *without order constraints? (others like this approach) | ||
| Line 31: | Line 31: | ||
What does it mean to use the RIM or a barely constrained version of the RIM as the composite order as a DMIM? | What does it mean to use the RIM or a barely constrained version of the RIM as the composite order as a DMIM? | ||
| − | OO asserts that Composite Order is a template. In this case, we define template as a set of definitions which are constraints on the parent model for the core data. | + | OO asserts that Composite Order is a template. In this case, we define template as a set of definitions which are constraints on the parent model for the core data. However, the 'edge' of the template (scope) of the template at this level is up for discussion. In composite order template, do we use any CMETs? What is the edge or scope (can that be implied by the need for a CMET)? |
| + | |||
| + | For example, there is a DMIM model for common product model. CPM is then constrained and used by Pharmacy, for example. So for composite order, do we 'reference' the CPM? do we put in a CPM 'stub'? | ||
| + | |||
| + | Further to this approach, the domain-specific model/template is then used to specify and define the model exactly for that domain's usage. The domain-specific model is a properly constraint on those higher-level templates as 'joined' in a large logical model (elaborate the stubs or references). | ||
==Documentation== | ==Documentation== | ||
Revision as of 16:35, 16 September 2010
Back to Orders & Observations WG main page
Back to OO Projects page
Contents
Scope of Composite Order
The Composite Order topic includes the ability to order multiple basic healthcare services in one message; the disciplines included are request for lab services, diagnostic imaging services, and pharmacy services. This topic covers all interactions related to requesting single or combinations of healthcare services.
Note that the Composite Order project includes development of the SAIF behavioral model components. BF Alpha Project
Leadership
Co-Chair: Patrick Loyd; 415-209-0544, patrick.e.loyd@gmail.com
Project Facilitator: Patrick Loyd
Conference Calls and Minutes
Dates: Meets w/regularly scheduled OO conference calls. Weekly on Thursdays.
Time: 13:00 - 14:00 EST
Phone Number: +1 (770) 657 9270
Participant Passcode: 653212
Characteristics of a Composite Order
The current design thinking for Composite Order is to move from an entirely constraint-based approach to a building-blocks approach. Meaning we're moving from a big DMIM, from which all RMIMs are properly derived to an approach where the DMIM is a representation of the RIM and templates are applied to define constraints.
- with order constraints? (some like this approach)
- without order constraints? (others like this approach)
What does it mean to use the RIM or a barely constrained version of the RIM as the composite order as a DMIM?
OO asserts that Composite Order is a template. In this case, we define template as a set of definitions which are constraints on the parent model for the core data. However, the 'edge' of the template (scope) of the template at this level is up for discussion. In composite order template, do we use any CMETs? What is the edge or scope (can that be implied by the need for a CMET)?
For example, there is a DMIM model for common product model. CPM is then constrained and used by Pharmacy, for example. So for composite order, do we 'reference' the CPM? do we put in a CPM 'stub'?
Further to this approach, the domain-specific model/template is then used to specify and define the model exactly for that domain's usage. The domain-specific model is a properly constraint on those higher-level templates as 'joined' in a large logical model (elaborate the stubs or references).
