This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here
Difference between revisions of "INM wrappers requirements"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Rene spronk (talk | contribs) |
|||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
*a tendency to move all participants that are "contextual" to the controlAct wrapper (from the payload), where one is even allowed to not send them in the wrapper itself, but as a separate parameter in an operation (i.e. as if the wrapper inherits them from the set of operation parameters). | *a tendency to move all participants that are "contextual" to the controlAct wrapper (from the payload), where one is even allowed to not send them in the wrapper itself, but as a separate parameter in an operation (i.e. as if the wrapper inherits them from the set of operation parameters). | ||
*and there's the standing requirement that the new wrappers be suitable for use in both services as well as messages. | *and there's the standing requirement that the new wrappers be suitable for use in both services as well as messages. | ||
| − | *The work at NCI, which will probably be presented by John Koisch during the May2011 WGM appears to be a | + | *The work at NCI, which will probably be presented by John Koisch during the May2011 WGM appears to be a good starting point for discussion. Their work is pragmatic and doable and can be extended to both messages as well as services (probably even documents if you wish to stretch it into the CDA header space). |
| + | [[User:Alexander.henket@enovation.nl|Alexander Henket]] It would seem vital to get the requirements documented properly before anything. | ||
Revision as of 16:38, 15 May 2011
InM Wrappers Requirements
This page is the "home page" for the InM project to develop the requirements for a new wrappers specification.
HL7 GFORGE will be the place for formal documents, while this wiki will be used for discussion/collaboration.
Tony Julian 14:48, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Alexander Henket Considering the GForge pages are currently empty: are there no initial requirements gathered yet? A few things that have come up at Nictiz over time:
- Formal way to carry a patient in the ControlAct. Currently there's R_AssignedPerson, which just works employees of some sort. e.g. add R_Patient. See InM List discussion
- Additional requirement: formal way to carry a patients legal representative in the ControlAct, e.g. parent, or a guardian.
- A solution for publish/subscribe, that includes the ability to query for subscriptions. @modifyCode just a allows subscribe en unsubscribe -- maybe this goes a little beyond just wrappers
- ProfileId in Batch wrapper
- Updated explanation of QueryAck.queryId which now reads as if the querying system determines that instead of the responding system. The querying system just determines QueryByParameter.queryId
Rene spronk Many requirements are known, without them being explicitely documented. In general there's
- a tendency to move all participants that are "contextual" to the controlAct wrapper (from the payload), where one is even allowed to not send them in the wrapper itself, but as a separate parameter in an operation (i.e. as if the wrapper inherits them from the set of operation parameters).
- and there's the standing requirement that the new wrappers be suitable for use in both services as well as messages.
- The work at NCI, which will probably be presented by John Koisch during the May2011 WGM appears to be a good starting point for discussion. Their work is pragmatic and doable and can be extended to both messages as well as services (probably even documents if you wish to stretch it into the CDA header space).
Alexander Henket It would seem vital to get the requirements documented properly before anything.
