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

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