Platform-Specific - Computational

From HL7Wiki
Revision as of 09:36, 9 May 2009 by Danelson (talk | contribs) (New page: Platform Specific - Computational From HL7Wiki Jump to: navigation, search Owner Dale Nelson, John Koisch will review Summary Platform Specific artifacts representing analysis and requir...)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Platform Specific - Computational From HL7Wiki Jump to: navigation, search

Owner Dale Nelson, John Koisch will review

Summary Platform Specific artifacts representing analysis and requirements for communicating between applications to support a particular business purpose for a particular healthcare domain or topic.

Detail - Computational Semantics at the Platform Specific level. Capturing semantics at the Platform Specific level using the Computational Viewpoint is done to provide both consistency to the rest of the specification and to lay the foundation for a more rigorous discussion of computational semantics at the platform-specific levels. This is done by focusing on TODO Contents [hide]

   * 1 Traceability to Reference Material
   * 2 Best Practices / Templates
   * 3 Quality Criteria
   * 4 Conformance Statement
         o 4.1 Guidance on format of Conformance Statement
   * 5 Relationship to and Consistency with other Viewpoints
   * 6 Candidate Artifacts
   * 7 Examples

[edit] Traceability to Reference Material

Should formally be expressed using the Behavioral Framework schema. May also reference other analysis artifacts from other sources, such as the EHRs-FM or Clinical Statements. [edit] Best Practices / Templates

TODO [edit] Quality Criteria

TODO [edit] Conformance Statement

TODO [edit] Guidance on format of Conformance Statement

TODO


[edit] Relationship to and Consistency with other Viewpoints

At the Platform Specific level, the Computational constructs reflect a level of analysis with concern for engineering the components into appropriate primitives or worrying about intersections with other viewpoints. However, if those connections can be made, they should be made. For example, if an appropriate Domain Analysis Model exists, then it a Conceptual specification should call that model out, and concepts from it may be used in describing the functional and collaborative behaviors for distributed systems at this level. However, these are not always available. [edit] Candidate Artifacts

   * Analysis Activity Diagram - These activity diagrams should contain business roles and responsibilities partitioned across swimlanes. They should reference domain objects of significance, but should not provide details past what would be found in the domain analysis model (whether real or notional).
   * Collaboration Analysis - Collaborations (defined in the Behavioral Framework) may be defined in some detail here, including descriptions, business milestones, and broad sequencing of communications between elements. These collaborations should re-use, where available, Service Roles, and should define the relationships between those roles and other actors in the collaborations (broken down by Commissioning and Responsible Agents).
   * EHR-FM Profile(s)
   * Service Roles and Relationships - Service Roles may be defined at the Conceptual level, providing foundational elements such as 

[edit] Examples

The following examples are full specifications. Following the link, the appropriate sections of the specifications that support the Computational Viewpoints are in brackets.

   * EIS Service Functional Model
   * RLUS Service Functional Model
   * NCI Person Service SPecification