I have made some changes to the workflows that affect both the IL and SHR communities. These changes are to add formal support for on-demand document generation and to enable an option for PoC system communicate using the MHD standard as opposed to XDS.b (it is a simpler more modern approach). We spoke about these change on the last IL call, so watch out for the recording if you want to hear more.
I would like to get your comment on these changes and an indication of the communities agreement on them. They are largely related to what we have spoken about previously on the community calls.
The changes made are colour coded for easy review:
Red is for on-demand documents (ODD) related changes
Green is mobile health documents (MHD) related changes
The two workflows that I would like you to review are as follows:
The one outstanding issue that we need to figure out is what format the generated on-demand documents should take. In the workflow as it stands I’ve specified a CCD document, but on the calls we have spoken of creating a CCD**+** specification. We will need to formalise a specification so that we can reference something and this, I think, will take us some time. We can update this once we have something to link to.
Let me know if you have any thoughts on this or the changes.
Thanks,
Ryan
···
Ryan Crichton
Lead Developer, Jembi Health Systems | SOUTH AFRICA
Thanks for the comments. I agree with you addition to the workflow pages, that does make it clearer.
You make a good point, supporting different ways of implementing MHD could be challenging for us. I would recommend that we choose one and test only that one in our reference applications. I have also now marked one of the options as recommended so that this is more clear in the workflows.
Ryan,
Hello. I agree with the content. I think we can be more clear when we communicate the option. I’ve tried a revision. That may or may not work to clarify the option. We can roll back to the original if you don’t agree.
Also, in reality, there may be many ways to implement different permutations of workflows. In this description It appears we are providing an option to use MHD and two different ways that it will can be supported. For the sake of simplicity, do we suggest one way that we recommend and will test and deliver or do we want to support multiple ways to handle a message? When I think about all of the future permutations for other workflows, I am wondering if we are more wise to support and test the MHD option in one way. This may be a question for the architecture team.
On Aug 5, 2015, at 12:22 AM, Ryan Crichton ryan@jembi.org wrote:
Hi all,
I have made some changes to the workflows that affect both the IL and SHR communities. These changes are to add formal support for on-demand document generation and to enable an option for PoC system communicate using the MHD standard as opposed to XDS.b (it is a simpler more modern approach). We spoke about these change on the last IL call, so watch out for the recording if you want to hear more.
I would like to get your comment on these changes and an indication of the communities agreement on them. They are largely related to what we have spoken about previously on the community calls.
The changes made are colour coded for easy review:
Red is for on-demand documents (ODD) related changes
Green is mobile health documents (MHD) related changes
The two workflows that I would like you to review are as follows:
The one outstanding issue that we need to figure out is what format the generated on-demand documents should take. In the workflow as it stands I’ve specified a CCD document, but on the calls we have spoken of creating a CCD**+** specification. We will need to formalise a specification so that we can reference something and this, I think, will take us some time. We can update this once we have something to link to.
Let me know if you have any thoughts on this or the changes.
Thanks,
Ryan
–
Ryan Crichton
Lead Developer, Jembi Health Systems | SOUTH AFRICA