2. Share and get comments on the initial draft of the evaluation tool for the HIM and SHR
If time permits:
3. Should an interoperability layer perform mediation/orchestration
functions or just interface between different service providers?
4. Should security and logging be a function that the HIM performs?
5. Should an interoperability layer perform transformation
services?
Best regards,
Linda
** Call In details:**
Access
Code 61489468#
·
US: 800-220-9875
·
Canada: 800-221-8656
·
South Africa
0-800-982-555
·
International (Not
Toll-free) 1-302-709-8332
·
For additional toll
free country numbers click here.
Apologies for the late notice, but the call that was originally planned for today has been re-scheduled for tomorrow TUESDAY 26TH MARCH at 4pm CAT / 10am EDT.
I’d like to discuss the evaluation tools (spreadsheets) that we have started to develop on the call today. Here are the links to the Google docs for these:
On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 12:56 PM, Linda Taylor linda@jembi.org wrote:
Hi All
Apologies for the late notice, but the call that was originally planned for today has been re-scheduled for tomorrow TUESDAY 26TH MARCH at 4pm CAT / 10am EDT.
On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 3:14 PM, Ryan ryan@jembi.org wrote:
Hi all,
I’d like to discuss the evaluation tools (spreadsheets) that we have started to develop on the call today. Here are the links to the Google docs for these:
On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 12:56 PM, Linda Taylor linda@jembi.org wrote:
Hi All
Apologies for the late notice, but the call that was originally planned for today has been re-scheduled for tomorrow TUESDAY 26TH MARCH at 4pm CAT / 10am EDT.
Here are some comments and questions. Note, I did not have the access needed to insert directly into the Google document.
In GA02, it was not clear to me what the requirement was driving at when it asked whether the license supported a country wide SHR.
Does GA14, internationalization support include the ability to easily change languages? To support multiple languages? (is this last important?)
I think allowing interfaces for interoperability (GA17) is an absolute requirement, so I would make this a 5.
I think supporting data export for reporting (GA18) is an absolute requirement, so I would make this a 5.
If a system could store documents (FR01), and if it supported interfaces, (GA17), how could it not include interfacing for documents, so FR03 seems superfluous.
I feel the same way for FR04.
I don’t understand “storing data in a discrete/document hybrid form? If the idea is whether a system could both store documents, and store discrete data, I think FR05 is superfluous. (note it seems to me that if a system can store discrete data, it ought to be able to store a document.)
I suggest merging FR06, and FR06 – can the system support queries that return data associated with a patient.
I think keeping an audit log is another absolute requirement, I suggest a 5.
What is meant by “record and version updates”? Is this storing a history of all values of a data item?
FR11 seems already covered by GA18. I still think it is a 5.
In both FR07, and FR12, it seems there will be some queries that are supported and some that are not. How does one grade a system here?
What is intended by “make use of health exchange standards”? I can think of many possible interpretations.
What is “facilitating data warehousing” (NON01) in addition to the capability to export data?
On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 8:35 PM, Mead Walker dmead@comcast.net wrote:
Ryan, and SHR parties,
Here are some comments and questions. Note, I did not have the access needed to insert directly into the Google document.
In GA02, it was not clear to me what the requirement was driving at when it asked whether the license supported a country wide SHR.
Does GA14, internationalization support include the ability to easily change languages? To support multiple languages? (is this last important?)
I think allowing interfaces for interoperability (GA17) is an absolute requirement, so I would make this a 5.
I think supporting data export for reporting (GA18) is an absolute requirement, so I would make this a 5.
If a system could store documents (FR01), and if it supported interfaces, (GA17), how could it not include interfacing for documents, so FR03 seems superfluous.
I feel the same way for FR04.
I don’t understand “storing data in a discrete/document hybrid form? If the idea is whether a system could both store documents, and store discrete data, I think FR05 is superfluous. (note it seems to me that if a system can store discrete data, it ought to be able to store a document.)
I suggest merging FR06, and FR06 – can the system support queries that return data associated with a patient.
I think keeping an audit log is another absolute requirement, I suggest a 5.
What is meant by “record and version updates”? Is this storing a history of all values of a data item?
FR11 seems already covered by GA18. I still think it is a 5.
In both FR07, and FR12, it seems there will be some queries that are supported and some that are not. How does one grade a system here?
What is intended by “make use of health exchange standards”? I can think of many possible interpretations.
What is “facilitating data warehousing” (NON01) in addition to the capability to export data?
Mead
–
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “OpenHIM-Dev” group.
(GA5) What kinds of bad licensing would constrain a country wide system?
(GA10) If the system did not provide interfaces for interoperability, could it be called an interoperability layer at all? What is being thought of here?
(GA12) Why would an interoperability layer export data at all? This seems misplaced.
(FR01) I think logging messages is absolutely required. It should be a 5.
(FR02) What is intended by “secure interfaces”?
(FR05) I assume logging errors means keeping a record of failures to transmit messages received. This seems absolutely necessary. Note, there will also be error messages sent through the interoperability layer, and error messages sent by the layer when received transactions fail parsing rules. I think logging these falls under FR01.
(FR05) Is this, can the system be debugged? Is it not absolutely necessary?
(FR07) I think the kinds of orchestration to be supported needs to be pulled out. I think some of these are more essential than others.
(NR03) What is meant be “support of international standards”? I would prefer to see a requirement that the system be able to be loaded with multiple specifications for transactions. I don’t see why it should matter to the system whether or not these have been approved by a standards body. Being able to apply a specification to a transaction should be a 5.
(NR04) Being able to process transactions appropriately in the face of power losses and network failures is an absolute requirement. That is true, I think, for deploying in any environment. Since these failures will occur routinely in low resource requirements, this should be a 6.
On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 8:35 PM, Mead Walker dmead@comcast.net wrote:
Ryan, and SHR parties,
Here are some comments and questions. Note, I did not have the access needed to insert directly into the Google document.
In GA02, it was not clear to me what the requirement was driving at when it asked whether the license supported a country wide SHR.
Does GA14, internationalization support include the ability to easily change languages? To support multiple languages? (is this last important?)
I think allowing interfaces for interoperability (GA17) is an absolute requirement, so I would make this a 5.
I think supporting data export for reporting (GA18) is an absolute requirement, so I would make this a 5.
If a system could store documents (FR01), and if it supported interfaces, (GA17), how could it not include interfacing for documents, so FR03 seems superfluous.
I feel the same way for FR04.
I don’t understand “storing data in a discrete/document hybrid form? If the idea is whether a system could both store documents, and store discrete data, I think FR05 is superfluous. (note it seems to me that if a system can store discrete data, it ought to be able to store a document.)
I suggest merging FR06, and FR06 – can the system support queries that return data associated with a patient.
I think keeping an audit log is another absolute requirement, I suggest a 5.
What is meant by “record and version updates”? Is this storing a history of all values of a data item?
FR11 seems already covered by GA18. I still think it is a 5.
In both FR07, and FR12, it seems there will be some queries that are supported and some that are not. How does one grade a system here?
What is intended by “make use of health exchange standards”? I can think of many possible interpretations.
What is “facilitating data warehousing” (NON01) in addition to the capability to export data?
Thanks Mead for all the feedback! Here are some replies inline. I’ve also edited the spreadsheets with your comments:
Interoperability Layer
···
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 3:41 PM, Mead Walker dmead@comcast.net wrote:
Sure,
And here are some thoughts:
(GA5) What kinds of bad licensing would constrain a country wide system?
(GA10) If the system did not provide interfaces for interoperability, could it be called an interoperability layer at all? What is being thought of here?
(GA12) Why would an interoperability layer export data at all? This seems misplaced.
(FR01) I think logging messages is absolutely required. It should be a 5.
(FR02) What is intended by “secure interfaces”?
(FR05) I assume logging errors means keeping a record of failures to transmit messages received. This seems absolutely necessary. Note, there will also be error messages sent through the interoperability layer, and error messages sent by the layer when received transactions fail parsing rules. I think logging these falls under FR01.
(FR05) Is this, can the system be debugged? Is it not absolutely necessary?
(FR07) I think the kinds of orchestration to be supported needs to be pulled out. I think some of these are more essential than others.
(NR03) What is meant be “support of international standards”? I would prefer to see a requirement that the system be able to be loaded with multiple specifications for transactions. I don’t see why it should matter to the system whether or not these have been approved by a standards body. Being able to apply a specification to a transaction should be a 5.
(NR04) Being able to process transactions appropriately in the face of power losses and network failures is an absolute requirement. That is true, I think, for deploying in any environment. Since these failures will occur routinely in low resource requirements, this should be a 6.
On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 8:35 PM, Mead Walker dmead@comcast.net wrote:
Ryan, and SHR parties,
Here are some comments and questions. Note, I did not have the access needed to insert directly into the Google document.
In GA02, it was not clear to me what the requirement was driving at when it asked whether the license supported a country wide SHR.
Does GA14, internationalization support include the ability to easily change languages? To support multiple languages? (is this last important?)
I think allowing interfaces for interoperability (GA17) is an absolute requirement, so I would make this a 5.
I think supporting data export for reporting (GA18) is an absolute requirement, so I would make this a 5.
If a system could store documents (FR01), and if it supported interfaces, (GA17), how could it not include interfacing for documents, so FR03 seems superfluous.
I feel the same way for FR04.
I don’t understand “storing data in a discrete/document hybrid form? If the idea is whether a system could both store documents, and store discrete data, I think FR05 is superfluous. (note it seems to me that if a system can store discrete data, it ought to be able to store a document.)
I suggest merging FR06, and FR06 – can the system support queries that return data associated with a patient.
I think keeping an audit log is another absolute requirement, I suggest a 5.
What is meant by “record and version updates”? Is this storing a history of all values of a data item?
FR11 seems already covered by GA18. I still think it is a 5.
In both FR07, and FR12, it seems there will be some queries that are supported and some that are not. How does one grade a system here?
What is intended by “make use of health exchange standards”? I can think of many possible interpretations.
What is “facilitating data warehousing” (NON01) in addition to the capability to export data?