Difference between revisions of "Reference - Informational"
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
'''Reference - Informational''' | '''Reference - Informational''' | ||
*''Patrick Loyd'' | *''Patrick Loyd'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''Summary''' | ||
* Artifacts that can be used as reference for information viewpoint artifacts in subsequent conformance levels. | * Artifacts that can be used as reference for information viewpoint artifacts in subsequent conformance levels. | ||
| − | + | ||
| + | '''Detail - Computational Semantics at the Conceptual Level''' | ||
| + | Capturing semantics at the Conceptual 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-independent levels. This is done by focusing on TODO | ||
| + | |||
| + | =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. | ||
| + | |||
| + | =Best Practices / Templates= | ||
| + | TODO | ||
| + | |||
| + | =Quality Criteria= | ||
| + | TODO | ||
| + | |||
| + | =Conformance Statement= | ||
| + | TODO | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Guidance on format of Conformance Statement== | ||
| + | TODO | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | =Relationship to and Consistency with other Viewpoints= | ||
| + | At the Conceptual level, the Computational constructs may reflect a level of analysis without undue 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. | ||
| + | |||
| + | =Candidate Artifacts= | ||
** HL7 Reference Information Model (RIM) | ** HL7 Reference Information Model (RIM) | ||
** HL7 Abstract Data Types (ADT) | ** HL7 Abstract Data Types (ADT) | ||
| Line 15: | Line 40: | ||
| − | Back to [[ | + | =Examples= |
| + | The following examples are full specifications. Following the link, the appropriate sections of the specifications that support the Computational Viewpoints are in brackets. | ||
| + | * Example 1 - TODO | ||
| + | * Example 2 - TODO | ||
| + | * Example 3 - TODO | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | Back to [[Saeaf_specification_stack | SAEAF Specification Stack]] | ||
Revision as of 01:22, 10 May 2009
Reference - Informational
- Patrick Loyd
Summary
- Artifacts that can be used as reference for information viewpoint artifacts in subsequent conformance levels.
Detail - Computational Semantics at the Conceptual Level Capturing semantics at the Conceptual 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-independent levels. This is done by focusing on TODO
Contents
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.
Best Practices / Templates
TODO
Quality Criteria
TODO
Conformance Statement
TODO
Guidance on format of Conformance Statement
TODO
Relationship to and Consistency with other Viewpoints
At the Conceptual level, the Computational constructs may reflect a level of analysis without undue 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.
Candidate Artifacts
- HL7 Reference Information Model (RIM)
- HL7 Abstract Data Types (ADT)
- HL7 Vocabulary References
- TermInfo Guides
- Clinical Document Architecture Model (CDA)
- Clinical Statement Model
- Orders and Requests Pattern Model
- Implementable Tech Specification (ITS)
- HL7 Foundation and Core Principles
- HL7 Development Framework (belong here or elsewhere)?
Examples
The following examples are full specifications. Following the link, the appropriate sections of the specifications that support the Computational Viewpoints are in brackets.
- Example 1 - TODO
- Example 2 - TODO
- Example 3 - TODO
Back to SAEAF Specification Stack
