New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
SDPi Actor Renaming Evaluation (from DCC discussion) #110
Comments
Factor in:
|
From the 2023.06.01 CA & Tooling discussion ... per the question #'s above:
Question: Why prefer one over the other?
Next Steps: Evaluate "options" & close issue on SDPi Friday call 01.06.2023. |
From the 2023.06.02 SDPi Friday discussion:
DECISION: Keep actor names as published in SDPi 1.0. |
Reopening issue per discussion in the SDPi Friday 2023.06.23 meeting |
Discussion Notes from SDPi Friday 2023.06.23 Meeting: After yet another review of the topic, the group agreed that the actor names could be made more "user friendly" - user being those in healthcare IT who will be reviewing and acquiring products implementing the SDPi specifications. Specific plans include:
@ToddCooper will prepare a proposal for the Lübeck Workshop in July, with updates / finalization planned for release 1.2. |
We should be consistent concerning whether we use "Device" or "Medical
Device".
It was never an issue for the DEC profile where we have DOR and DOC and not
MDOR and MDOC.
Personally I have no preference.
…On Fri, Jun 23, 2023 at 11:21 AM ToddCooper ***@***.***> wrote:
Discussion Notes from SDPi Friday 2023.06.23 Meeting
<https://confluence.hl7.org/display/GP/Gemini+2023-06-23+SDPi+Friday>:
After yet another review of the topic, the group agreed that the actor
names could be made more "user friendly" - user being those in healthcare
IT who will be reviewing and acquiring products implementing the SDPi
specifications. Specific plans include:
1. Remove "SOMDS" and consider spelling out alternatives, for example:
- Device Content Creator / Consumer
- Device Service Provider / Consumer
- Medical Device Alert Gateway
1. To simplify "gateway" actors, one alternative might be to include
Device Service Gateway or Device Alert Gateway and then utilize actor
OPTIONS to indicate whether it is FHIR or ACM or DEC etc. Thus the profiles
would have a single "gateway" actor between the SOMDS / SDPi ecosystem and
the rest of the world
2. Consider reducing the number of actors - to reduce complexity,
though not necessary
@ToddCooper <https://github.com/ToddCooper> will prepare a proposal for
the Lübeck Workshop in July, with updates / finalization planned for
release 1.2.
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#110 (comment)>, or
unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ARWCJB3CWIWYJC5WNYQUN73XMWYAVANCNFSM6AAAAAAWK4CZDQ>
.
You are receiving this because you were assigned.Message ID: <IHE/DEV.
***@***.***>
|
I agree, but along the lines of how simple we should get - keeping "Device" has value (e.g., Device Alert Provider or Device Alert Service Provider) since if we just say Alert Source or Alert Provider etc. there is all sorts of confusion as to the differentiation between general clinical alerts (your lab result is ready, or Mr. Fuchs is waiting in Room 3B). And personally I like keeping "Service" in the name vs. reusing something like "Observation" because generally speaking, we mean more than devices saying what data they have. I'd be OK with dropping the "Medical" part of the actor names but keeping that on the transaction names, since the PKP requirements will mostly be attached to transactions. QUESTION: What about leveraging "actor names" in the use case descriptions? Currently those are written with generic actors and then we correlate them as appropriate in the profile specific use case sections. |
See notes from Developer's Workshop 2023.07.18 (Tuesday) |
Section Number
TF-0 Appendix A: Actors + TF-1 profile actor sections, figures and tables.
Priority
Issue
IHE DCC review of the SDPi 1.0 Public Comment draft on 2023.03.28 included the question of whether inclusion of "SOMDS" or "BICEPS" in the actor names was too profile-specific, included profile tech content in an intentionally generalized actor name and thus they should be generalized with the differentiation being assigned when they are used in a specific profile. In other words, when they are realized as an "AIPO" tuple.
See the attached Word document that captures comments / considerations from Kevin O'Donnell. SDPi-Suggestions-20230326 KOD1 THC2.docx
Proposed Change
The results of the DCC review on 2023.03.28 was to update the descriptions - making them much simpler and clearer - but to defer consideration and finalization of any actor renaming until after publication of the Trial Implementation version. Primarily due to the need to have the TI published and announced and demonstrated at the HIMSS'23 Interoperability Showcase mid-April (in a couple weeks).
To advance this discussion, the following resolution actions are proposed:
See Kevin O'Donnell's proposals and comments in ... SDPi-Suggestions-20230326 KOD1 THC2.docx
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: