This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here
Harmonization: QueryRequestLimit vocabulary
Editing of harmonization proposals prior to a harmonization meeting is restricted to the proposal submitter and the co-chairs of the steward comittee. Other changes will be undone. Please add comments to the "discussion" page associated with this proposal.
Recommendation for HL7 RIM Change | RECOMMENDATION ID: |
Sponsored by: INM | Approval date by committee: 20070111 |
Revision (# and date): 20070111 | Date submitted: |
Editor/Author: Rene Spronk | |
PROPOSALNAME: QueryRequestLimit vocabulary |
Contents
Stewards Position
REQUIRED - This table should contain one row for each Steward Committee affected by the recommendation.
TC | RECOMMENDATION APPROVAL STATUS | AFFECTED ENTITIES OF INTEREST TO TC (responsibility level: S=Steward; I=Interested) |
INM | Approved | S |
Issue
The QueryRequestLimit vocabulary (to qoute the existing definition) defines the units associated with the magnitude of the maximum size limit of a query response that can be accepted by the requesting application.
The vocabulary has no values. This proposal adds 1 value: Record.
Recommendation(s)
See Vocabulary Recommendation(s) below.
RIM Recommendation(s)
- None.
Vocabulary Recommendation(s)
- Add the "Record" concept to the exiting QueryRequestLimit vocabulary, with code RD and description hits (number of focal classes). The document header class is the focal class of a document, a record would therefore be equal to a document..
Rationale
- The corresponding HL7 v2 table 00126 has four values: Characters, Lines, Pages, Records. Characters/Lines and Pages are ITS dependent and hence can't be used in v3.
Recommended Action Items
- Implement the proposed solution
Discussion
20060915, INM:
- Add "Record" (unanymous)
- Bytes is tricky, because of ITS dependent sizes. Is this a contract issue, or a run time issue? Courtesy request? Strawvote: 1-15-3