Thanks Mike, We held a diagnostic messaging workshop which affirmed that we need to move to add application level ack to the transport level ack now used.
This is being done in the context of a messaging integration profile, rather than just looking at the messaging layer. Will look at this Vista document and the version 2.5 Peter -----Original Message----- From: Mike Henderson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, 24 March 2007 10:24 PM To: Peter MacIsaac; 'General Practice Computing Group Talk' Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [GPCG_TALK] Messaging Responsibilities - HL7 workshop outcomes. The HL7 V2.x standard is minimally constraining, but it's right to say that it doesn't get in the way. Indeed, with the introduction of an outline for conformance artifacts in V2.5 (see Chapter 2, Section 2.12), it's possible to constrain dynamic behavior as well as static structures in the context of a briefly stated use case. An HL7 conformance profile for PACS behavior has been issued by the US Federal Government and is available at http://www1.va.gov/imaging/docs/VistA_PACS_HL7_Profile_1_1.pdf. As to negative ACKs specifically, the expanded ERR structure in Chapter 2 of the V2.5 standard allows precise specification of the nature and location of errors. The circumstances under which errors are to be raised and the specific behavior (if any) of sender and receiver in exceptional circumstances is what falls under the purview of HL7 conformance. Regards, Mike Henderson On Sat Mar 24 00:24:29 PDT 2007, Peter MacIsaac <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Tim, > > The HL7 workshop on diagnostic messaging, extensively considered > the issue > of NACK (negative application and transport acknowledgements) > and the > requirement for such and suggested sender and receiver > responsibilities will > be published in the proceedings and will form one layer of the > 'implementation profile". It may need a more general round table, > however > that could wait until we have response to our work of last week. > > It was clear that many vendors currently do not generally support > NACK > management. Any that do are welcome to contribute their approach > for > consideration as part of the interoperability profile. > > If you are aware of standards for NACK we would be pleased to > see them. > > > Regards > > Peter > > Please note: due to increasing problems with SPAM, I am using > SPAM > ARREST - http://www.spamarrest.com/affl?4034505 - a relatively > inexpensive service which extends my current email service and > prevents > automated SPAM attacks by checking with email senders that they > are bonefide > people needing to communicate with me. If you are not already in > my > address book and reply to this, you may receive a confirmation > email asking > you to respond. Once you answer, the email is on the way and will > receive my > attention. I am evaluating this service and would appreciate any > feedback > on it. I also have information on the corporate configuration of > the > service. Peter Macisaac > MacIsaac Informatics > Consulting in health informatics, HL7 and terminology > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > peter_macisaac (skype) > 61 2 61611327 (landline) > 61 411403462 (mobile/cell) > www.macisaacinformatics.org > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Behalf Of Tom Bowden > Sent: Friday, 23 March 2007 11:16 AM > To: General Practice Computing Group Talk > Subject: RE: [GPCG_TALK] Messaging Responsibilities > > > > Thanks Tim, useful suggestion, I am corresponding with Ian > Reinecke on > messaging and security related issues and will put it to him that > this > is a good way for NEHTA to reconnect with these vitally important > down-to-earth issues, confirm their interest in HL7 v2 and add > some > value. If it's OK with you I'll quote your comments below? > > I'll let you know what kind of response I get in any event. > > Cheers, > > Tom Tom Bowden <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Chief > Executive > Tel: +64 9 638 0670 > Mobile: +64 21 874 154 > Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Web: www.healthlink.net > <http://www.healthlink.net/> <http://www.healthlink.net/> > Connecting The Health Sector -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tim Churches > Sent: Friday, 23 March 2007 10:47 a.m. > To: General Practice Computing Group Talk > Subject: Re: [GPCG_TALK] Messaging Responsibilities > > Osborne, Steve wrote: >> Geoff >> I'm finding it difficult to understand how this works. My >> understanding has always been the ack is generated when the >> result is imported to the clinical application. Please correct >> me if I'm mistaken in the following. > > ... > > It seems to me that many useful points have been raised in this > thread, > and that there is a fairly urgent need to define standards, even > just > widely agreed de facto standards in the interim, for the syntax > and > semantics of application-level ACKs and NACKs. As they stand, the > HL7 > 2.x specs and AS4700.2 and 4700.6 and the handbooks associated > with them > provide a minimal framework for ACKs, but lack sufficient detail > to be > actually useful in this respect. But they don't get in the way, > which is > good. > > Now, if NEHTA could just sponsor a two-day roundtable for key > stakeholders, then I dare say a draft standard for > application-level > ACKs could be assembled, put out for comment and we'd have useful > common > ground within a few months. Pats on the back for NEHTA would > result Then > that de facto standard could be put on Standards Australia's > agenda so > that it can wave its wand over it, if it so chooses. > > Tim C > _______________________________________________ > Gpcg_talk mailing list > [email protected] > http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk > _______________________________________________ > Gpcg_talk mailing list > [email protected] > http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk > > > -- No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.441 / Virus Database: 268.18.13/725 - Release Date: > 17/03/2007 > 12:33 PM > -- Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.441 / Virus Database: 268.18.13/725 - Release Date: > 17/03/2007 > 12:33 PM > -- Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.441 / Virus Database: 268.18.13/725 - Release Date: 17/03/2007 12:33 PM -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.17/732 - Release Date: 24/03/2007 4:36 PM _______________________________________________ Gpcg_talk mailing list [email protected] http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
