This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here
INM Transmission and Transport Action Items
Open Action Items. Each item may be edited individually.
- Back to Infrastructure and Messaging TC
- Switch to Other Action Items or INM Closed Action Items
Contents
ITEM: 178
Guidelines for Attachments proposal status [MCCI]
Opened: 10-Jan-05 Old Item: 945 Assigned to: Rene, Miroslav
- 20050329 INM Telcon: This is being followed by the Attachments Task force.
- 20060412, Paul Knapp, Open
- Charlie McKay: Paul Knapp has taken over responsibility to bring this item to a close. Create a recommendation as to how Attachments should be used. Depends on outcomes of action item 110 (IIref data type issue).
- 20060509, Miroslav Koncar, open, MCCI
- Miroslav: there are discrepancies between abstract DT spec and XML ITS that need to be solved. Need to document preferred way of doing things. THU Q1 should shed some light on the issue. Assign action item to Miroslav.
- 20060604, Still Open
- 20060912 INM WGM: Miroslav: discussed on e-mail list. ATS will state that attachments can be handled by MIL, but that HL7 discourages this (and prefers the use of the attachment class in the transmission wrapper). ATS issue closed, open issue related to reference mechanism in ED data type. (.. add link to ref proposal..)
- 20061023, Paul Knapp: answered the issue on Thursday of the May WGM. Has not been documented in MCCI (if it needs to go there).
- 20070109: WGM: Rene ísn't clear what should be added to MCCI. Miroslav reports that as part of the ATS ballot reconciliation, we got a neg from KP, on the attachment recommendations. Need to revisit the statement as made on 20060509 above.
ITEM: 1012
Inquire of Pubs and MNM as to the proper name for WSnnn [Webservices]
Opened: 03-Oct-05 Assigned to: Joann larson
- 20051003: INM Telcon: Reconciliation of negative line item 5 in WSP September 2005 ballot. Agreement reached that the WSnnn things (Implementation Guidelines) will be changed to a name that is consistent with similar instances in other domains. Need to follow-up with Pubs and MNM as to the proper name.
- 20060410: Larson: This item remains open. Itis unclear which committee (Pubs, HDF or Conformance)should address the issue. I brought this issue to the attention of all 3 groups via a negative line item in their respective ballots last fall. It appeared that Pubs was going to include new language in the PFG, but that seems to have diappeared. KP will resubmit the negative line item on informative ballots in ballot in the May 2006 cycle which purport to provide requirements or guidance in this area. We will push for resolution of this At the San Antonio meeting.
- 20060605: Still Open
ITEM: 1018
Seek harmonization of definitions in glossary for Sender and Receiver. [Webservices]
Opened: 10-Oct-05 Assigned to: Miroslav
- 20051010: INM Telcon: Seek harmonization of definitions in glossary for Sender and Receiver. Specifically need to follow-up with Pubs. Roberto will send info to Joann.
- 20060110: Phoenix WGM: Still open as above. Roberto will harmonize the definition within Transports. Joann will submit to HQ glossary keeper.
- 20060605: Still open
- 20060913 WGM: Miroslav to talk with Roberto, make sure the usage of these terms is harmonized
ITEM: 1019
Add Messaging Adapter and Interaction Patterns as used in MCCI to the Glossary [MCCI]
Opened: 24-Oct-05 Assigned to: Miroslav
- 20051024, René Spronk, New, Work with pubs to add definitions to the glossary. MCCI R2 C1 Ballot reconcillation, database Items 4 and 5
- 20060329, René Spronk, Open, *The committee (after reviewing the definitions on the Wiki) should request pubs to add these definitions to the glossary. Pubs to add these definitions to the glossary.
- 20060509, Miroslav, open, *Definitions needs updating with INM out of cycle results
- 20060605: surprise to Miroslav - will work on it as he works on ATS issues
- 20060912: INM WGM: work in progress, will be included in next release
ITEM: 2010
Reconcile discrepancy between ATS and WSP regarding Reliable Messaging, ATS/Webservices profile [Webservices]
Opened: 20060110 Assigned to: Roberto
- 20060110, Roberto Ruggeri, New, Webservices/ATS, Phoenix WGM: Item added to reconcile decision to make Reliable Messaging non-mandatory with the Abstract Transport Spec which requires “all” transports to be reliable.
- 20060605: Still open
- 20060510: SAT WGM: Lengthy discussion, outcome: In the overall HL7 implementation, there needs to be reliability at all levels, up to and including the application level. Transport can handle reliability only up to the point of delivery (DESTINATION). Motion approved to craft language for the ATS to address this item.
ITEM: 2015
Opened:
Clarify how to use the Transmission and Control Act Wrappers [MCCI]
Opened: 20060412 Assigned to: Scott
- 20060412, co-chairs, new, MCCI, Added by J Larson following v3 Pubs Telcon. Pubs is asking InM to clarify the Transmission and Control Act wrappers so that authors/editors in other domains can properly use them. Specifically, they would like the following:
- 1. An instance example of a transmisssion wrapper with fields populated that other committees can pick up and use (20060509: examples are on hl7.org website, search for “NE2005” in the library; there are initiatived to create a toll that creates examples)
- 2. An instance example of Control Act with clear delineation of the fields that are domain specific
- 3. Clear definition of attributes the next time we go to ballot (20060509: check if at least we have a description for all attributes)
- 4. Maybe develop a Quick Start Guide like that developed by Structured Documents TC (20060509: Discussion: – scenario based description (with examples) of how MCCI is actually used, apply 80/20 rule)
- I did mention that the InM co-chairs would be available for a breakfast meeting Tuesday morning at San Antonio with any persons seeking clarification on wrappers and other InM artifacts.
- 20060912: INM WGM: because of INMs attempt to increase support for implementers, re-assign to Rene to write up a document.
- 20060912, Rene, open, MCCI
- 20070109: WGM: Scott will create a guide based on R1 of the wrappers, and not on the latest unstable status of things.
ITEM: 2017
Opened:
Get hold of CCOW abstract specification related to HL7 Messaging Architecture [MCCI]
Opened: 20060508 Assigned to: Doug, Miroslav
- 20060508, co-chairs, new, MCCI
- 20070109, Miroslav, has sent e-mail to CCOW co-chairs, no reply. Doug will put Miroslav in contact with Barry Royer.
ITEM: 2020
Create glossary definition for Messaging Protocol and Session [ATS]
Opened: 20060510 Assigned to: Miroslav
- 20060510, Miroslav, new, ATS
- 20060912, Miroslav - new language has been added to the Wiki. Need feedback for the content before the items are put forward for the Glossary.
- 20060913 INM: Definition is on wiki, “Messaging Protocol refers to the rules, formats, and functions implemented by the Messaging Infrastructure Layer for exchanging HL7 messages. Messaging Protocol examples include Web Services, ebMS and MLLP.”, to be forwarded to pubs for inclusion in v3 edition publications.
ITEM: 2024
to create definitions for logical sender/logical receiver as the enxt step to resolve Transmission Addressing issues [MCCI]
Opened: 20060912 Assigned to: Paul, Miroslav
- 20060912, new, MCCI
- 20061023, e.g. Dr.X to a hospital Y, (assume Dr.X and hospital Y have a unique ID)
- ControlAct would identify Dr.x author of the trigger event, the person causing the message to be sent.
- Transmission wrapper: id all computers and applications within an organization? Not relevant for receiver. The more we move from abstract addressing to specific addressing.
- 20061023: Paul Knapp to review Transmission Addressing.
- 20070109: WGM: Miroslav: not that much of a abstract issue. MCCI issue related to addressing of departments/applications "beyond" a central gateway.
ITEM: 2025
Need completed Ws Reconciliation Db for September 2005 ballot cycle [WS]
Opened: 20060912 Assigned to: Doug
- 20060912 Larson, new
- 20060913 WGM: Scott to get hold of latest ballot rec package from Roberto
- 20060922 Scott: request sent to Roberto
- 20070108 WGM: Roberto: needs to post document with ballot resolutions. Will get it out in time for the next balot cycle in Cologne. Will publish within 60 days.
- 20070112 WGM Database has been mailed to Doug
ITEM: 2027
Removable Media line-tem 34: needs research to create a draft motion [Removable Media]
Opened: 20060913 Assigned to: Doug
- 20060913 WGM, Doug, new, Removable Media
- Probably needs to be taken up with an IHE-knowledgeable resource, e.g. Mike Henderson
- 20061023: open, will need to be taken care of this week.
ITEM: 2028
Opened 20060108, was action item 1024
Harmonize the use of Transport in documents [?]
Opened: 20060108 Old Action Item: 1024 Assigned to: Paul Knapp, Charlie McKay
- 2006-01-08 - 'Paul Knapp and Charlie McKay - Harmonize the use of the word transport in InM documents
ITEM: 2029
Opened
Reword Constrain Transmission Wrapper to suit new thinking on SOA/MCCI progress, MCCI [MCCI]
Opened: 20070108 Assigned to: Miroslav
- 20070108 WGM, Added as a result of discussions during the joint MnM/INM meeting. Miroslav to add wording.
ITEM: 2030
Document use of Bolus and other query responseModalityCodes [MCCI]
Opened: 20070109 Assigned to: Mark Tucker/Doug
- 20070109 WGM, Document that options in the table above (which shows combinations of the allowable values of the QueryByParameter.responseModalityCode and query timing attributes –Now and Continuous-) are bound at contract time, not at run time
- See minutes of 20070109 Q1 for background
ITEM: 2031
Document UK and NL batch use cases [MCCI]
Opened: 20070109 Assigned to: Rene/Andrew Hinchley
- 20070109 WGM, Document UK and Dutch use-cases for Batching, as input of requirements for Behavioral Contract class and lightweight Batch transmission wrapper.
- 20070109 (Rene) Dutch use-case: Batches are used for the grouping of query-responses. A query is sent (by application A) to a centralized broker. The broker forwards the query to a number of other systems, collects the response interactions into a batch and sends it to A. Aim is to avoid a lengthy to-and-fro of continuation queries between A and the broker. There is no use-case for batches in notification interactions. See AORTA for background details of the use-case.
ITEM: 2032
Determine whether or not Receiving Device (as used in Transmission wrapper) implies the receiving Application Role. [MCCI]
Opened: 20070109 Assigned to: ?
- 20070109 WGM, If this is the case, receiver responsibilities don’t need to be explicitly conveyed in the Behavioral Wrapper. The receiver would know what the implicit CPM was by looking at the Receiving Device combined with the Sending device.
- If Device.id identifies a software application which “contains” a whole collection of application roles, then this won’t work.
- Need definition of Logical Receiver as well to resolve this.
- Note SOA moves to a ESB approach, and inferences where the transmission payload needs to go.
ITEM: 2033
Opened 20070111
Include RealmCode in root classes of interactions [MCCI R2]
Opened: 20070111 Assigned to:
- 20070111 MnM adopted a motion (shown here with comments, copied from Constraints on infrastructureRoot attributes) on
- 2006-08-04: RealmCode should be an element which remains within the control of committees. InM should include it for message types rooted in Transmission classes and CDA should include it in the root Document class. Other committees should only expose it if they have an explicit use-case realmCode must be specifically asserted by the committee. We recommend that INM include this for transmission.
- In the context of the new Wrappers R2 work, this probably means including it in the "Conversation" Act, part of the new ControlAct wrapper.
ITEM: 2034
Create/update Wrapper Issues document [MCCI]
Opened: 20070110 Assigned to: Rene
ITEM: 2035
Refine definition or Transmission Wrapper attributes [MCCI]
Opened: 20070110 Assigned to: Miroslav, Alan, Charlie, JD
- 20070110 - San Diego WGM, InM TC Wed Q1 - New action item to refine defintion of Transmission Wrapper attributes, particularly relative to transmission versus message process versus payload. Task group to report at Cologne WGM
