This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here

INM Transmission and Transport Action Items

From HL7Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Open Action Items. Each item may be edited individually.

New General item numbers are in the 1xxx range
New Transport item numbers (this page) are in the 2xxx range

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 McCay: 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.
  • 20070501: Charlie suggests we use URI definition as used in ebXML specification. See appendix C of the ebXML specification. Rene: does this in any conflict with the new features of II in datatypes R2?
  • Charlie/Doug motion: where a URI is required for referecing an II, the URI definition as used in ebXML specification should be used. 15-0-2
  • Referencing an Attachment Act would be either: Act with new II datytype feature “ref”, or ED with an URI.
  • Rene/Mark T. motion: Referencing an Attachment class from an ED datatype uses URIs. The Attachment class SHALL be part of the same Transmission as the attribute that references it. 4-3-10.
  • Action item re-assigned to Charlie which details a solution for all known use-cases related to attachments.

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
  • 20070501 WGM: Definitions have been on the Wiki for a while now, Roberto has been unable to review up to now. Remains open as a reminder to add it to the Wrappers R2 glossary.

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]

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


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 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.
  • 20070501 WGM: Still need to do this for R1, also for R2 once published.

ITEM: 2017


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.
  • 20070501: WGM: Open, item that is part of Wrappers R2

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 McCay
  • 2006-01-08 - 'Paul Knapp and Charlie McCay - Harmonize the use of the word transport in InM documents

ITEM: 2029


Reword Constrain Transmission Wrapper to suit new thinking on SOA/MCCI progress [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
  • Remains open, add definition to Wrappers R2 material.

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 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.
  • 20070501: Are ReceiverResponsibilities of an interaction bound to (id of the logical endpoint) ? Requires resolution of the Transmission addressing issue first.

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.
  • 20070501: Part of Wrappers R2.

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
  • 20070501: available on a wiki page.

ITEM 2040

create discussion paper on the reuse of the IHE Actor principle

opened:  2007-05-03
assigned: Mark T, Rene
  • 20070503 InM WGM Köln: to create a discussion paper that explores the adoption of the concept of Actor (as defined by IHE) as part of the dynamic model to describe the semantics of Receiver Responsibilities (the Interface Contract).
    • “Actor” is confusing because of UML, redefine “Application Role”:
    • Application Role = set of supported Interactions, plus their respective Receiver Responsibilities (i.e. direct receiver responsibility, not conversation style). The set of supported interactions may include optionally supported interactions. is uniquely linked to a set of Application Roles. There may be no overlap in terms of supported interactions by the ARs.

  • 20070604 INm Telcon: Rene: no update.

ITEM 2041

create a discussion paper related to replacement of InteractionId by other attributes

opened:  2007-05-03
assigned: Joe W, Mark T
  • 20070503 InM WGM Köln: to create a discussion paper that explores the option of introducing StaticModelID and TriggerEventID as explicit mandatory components in our message structure. This would replace the mandatory InteractionId as present in current messages.
  • 20070523: Joe:
    • The Trigger Event should be decoupled from the Interaction Id. To successfully create a SOA (re-usable service) the following evolution of a Service should be anticipated and encouraged:
      1. Locate a requirement / use case.
      2. Create the service to fulfil the requirement using flexible SOA technologies in an decoupled manner.
      3. The service is now de-coupled from the requirement allowing it to be used in new and unpredicted ways.
    • Therefore the label given to that service (the Interaction ID) should not be tightly coupled to the trigger event as this restricts it's use or invalidates the interactions ID. The Trigger Event should be an optional attribute of the interaction. This should also apply to conversation data.
  • 20070604 INM telcon: need a discussion of pros and cons, the bove isn't quite what we're looking for.

ITEM 2042

create a discussion paper related to pattern binding at conformance time

opened:  2007-05-03
assigned: Grahame, Andrew, Joe W
  • 20070503 InM WGM Köln: to create a discussion paper that explores the idea that CPMs be consider interaction patterns that can be bound to static model content within the scope allowed by committees at conformance time. We currently allow binding by committees only.
  • 20070604: Grahame: no update.

ITEM 2043

Document end-of-query mechanism, CACT/Wrappers R2

opened:  2007-05-03
assigned: Rene
  • 20070502 InM WGM Köln: Document the v3 motion “an error (either AR or AE) reported the AcknowledgementTypeCode attribute in the transmission wrapper (in the query response interaction) when doing query continuations ends the query continuation, i.e. one may send no further query continuations. In the absence of an error the query ends when resultRemainingQuantity equals 0.
  • 20070604: assigned to the Wrappers R2 taskforce for inclusion in Wrappers R2.

ITEM 2044

Determine how to publish Wrappers R1 and R2 in parallel, CACT/Wrappers R2

opened:  2007-05-01
assigned: Andrew Hinchley
  • 20070501 InM WGM Köln: Wrappers R2 project must provide expectation and advice for R1 implementers as to whether R2 is a replacement or alternative. Charlie believes we should position as an alternative. Once DSTU is in place then we can look at sun setting R1, but not before then. Rene wants radical replacement, knowing that wrappers R2 is not going to be backwards compatible with R1. Lloyd: indicate intention to deprecate R1. Vassil: IHE will expect 5-10 year life for R1 wrappers, and expect support for them (technical corrections).

Action Item: Andrew to talk to Pubs to see how this would work.