This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here

Difference between revisions of "Conformance SIG"

From HL7Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 
(19 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
 +
#REDIRECT [[Implementation and Conformance TC]]
 +
 +
 +
''Note: during the May2007 WGM the [[Implementation Committee]] and the [[Conformance SIG]] will jointly petition the TSC to become a new TC. See draft [[ImpConf Mission and Charter]].''
 +
 
This is the main page of the Conformance SIG.
 
This is the main page of the Conformance SIG.
  
 
The Conformance Special Interest Group is working on creating conformance criteria for HL7 2.x and V3.  
 
The Conformance Special Interest Group is working on creating conformance criteria for HL7 2.x and V3.  
  
The following collaborative documents are edited by the INM co-chairs:
+
The following collaborative documents are edited by the Conformance co-chairs:
 +
*[[ICTC Sept 2007 WGM agenda]] Atlanta
 
* [[Conformance San Antonio Agenda]]
 
* [[Conformance San Antonio Agenda]]
 +
** [[Notes from Implementation Committee and Conformance Jan2007|Notes from joint meeting with Implementation TC]]
 +
* [[Conformance Tel.Conf.]]
 +
* [[Conformance Tel.Conf. Minutes]]
  
Here we should add documentation and FAQs.
+
These documents are open documents for editing by any interested party:
 
+
* [[Conformance User Guide]]
One of the key HL7 v3 conformance artefacts is the [[Application Role]], a core element of a [[Conformance Claim]].
+
* [[Conformance Implementation Manual]]
 
+
* [[Conformance Discussion]]
During the Phoenix (January 2006) WGM the Conformance SIG (and MnM/INM) had a look at the proposed Feature Discovery Interactiona s described in the
+
* [[Conformance Datatype Specialization Constraints]]
[http://www.hl7.org/Library/Committees/cq/20040827%5FHL7%5Fprop%5F908%2Edoc Ping and Feature Discovery proposal document]. The Conformance SIG expressed it would be useful to have such an interaction, and approved a motion to work with INM to progress the proposal in San Antonio. It was however unclear if a new HL7 interaction should be developed, or whether we should re-use an existing industry standard.
+
* [[Conformance FAQ]]
 
+
* [[Conformance Glossary]]
== Discussion ==
+
* [[Conformance Statement]]
 
+
* [[Eclipse OHF Conformance Questions]]
<h3>Mandatory vs. required vs. null-flavors</h3>
+
* [[Constraint Language]]
Another issue comes up with the definiton of what "mandatory" and "required" means. Mandatory means the a value must be present and a null-value is not allowed. Unfortunately, that is the same as what required means in v2. Due to the fact that we do have the same issues in v2 as well as in V3 we should find a way to use the same terminology.
+
* [[CWE]]
This becomes terribly strange if it is combined with other attributes like cardinality. Doesn't it sounds reasonable to talk about presence/required and null-flavour-types (allowed, emtpy, non-empty, no-nulls).
 
 
 
Here we have to distinguish an element's presence in an XML instance from the presence with a no-null-value. The latter is meant by mandatory.
 
 
 
This leads to something like a null-flavor-indicator in a conformance statement.
 
  
 +
NICTIZ have created an implementation oriented discussion document related to conformance and artefact versioning:
 +
* [[Interaction Conformance and Versioning - Implementation Issues]]
  
<h3>publication of specifications</h3>
 
In DICOM it is required to publish a conformance statement, i.e. is clear definition of what a system supports.
 
In HL7 currently everyone can implement what (s)he wants without such a requirement.
 
  
This leads to two issues:
+
{{SIG Category}}
a) whether the publication of a conformance statement/claim should be made required?
 
b) how such a specification should be made available?
 

Latest revision as of 15:11, 24 August 2007

Note: during the May2007 WGM the Implementation Committee and the Conformance SIG will jointly petition the TSC to become a new TC. See draft ImpConf Mission and Charter.

This is the main page of the Conformance SIG.

The Conformance Special Interest Group is working on creating conformance criteria for HL7 2.x and V3.

The following collaborative documents are edited by the Conformance co-chairs:

These documents are open documents for editing by any interested party:

NICTIZ have created an implementation oriented discussion document related to conformance and artefact versioning: