IXS 1.0 RTF Avatar
  1. OMG Issue

IXS — Error in specification document and in machine-consumable files

  • Key: IXS-9
  • Legacy Issue Number: 16300
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: INVITALIA ( Stefano Lotti)
  • Summary:

    1. The content of the specification doc is the IXS specification and not RLUS. Nothing of the RLUS spec (beta1 and 2) is in the document except some titles.

    Solution: make use of beta 2 specification doc (if a new document does not exist)

    2. The machine-consumable files are the same as in beta 2 version. In this version there are some serious inconsistences:

    • The wsdl element "RLUSXMLSearch" does not exist in RLUSTypes.xsd. The correct element should be "RLUSSearchStruct" (or the RLUSTypes.xsd file uploaded is wrong). The issue affects get() list() and locate() operations.
    • The RLUSTypes is declared as xmlns:RLUStypes="urn:RLUStypes.hssp.intel.com" and xmlns:xsd="http://www.omg.org/spec/RLUS/201012/RLUStypes" consequently some inconsistences arises in wsdls
    • RLUSExpression.xsd is declared, in RLUSType.xsd, with the old intel namespace

    Solution: correct wsdls

    3. The "generic" wsdl (present in beta1) is missed. The generic wsdl should be the normative file. The specialized wsdls (order and patient) should be only examples

    Solution: Reintroduce generic wsdl

    4. There are misalignments among specification document and the wsdls:

    • The specification document (obviously I'm referring to beta 1/2 version) consider only the operation specified in beta 1 wsdls. However the beta2 wsdls includes new operations (findDuplicateDefinitions(), linkRecords(), unlinkRecords(), mergeRecords(), unMergeRecords(), inactivateRecord(), reactivateRecord(), cancelOrder(), detectDuplicateOrder() ). For the new operations there is some minor issue of naming style, it's not consistent with the originals operations from beta 1.
    • Note: some new operations refer to a specific scenario (cancelOrder(), detectDuplicateOrder() ). However in RLUS is very relevant the separation of concerns between operations and Semantic Signifier. This aspect it’s relevant in RTF work. In general I think that the semantic aspects should be conveyed only in the Semantic Signifier and not in in other elements of the wsdl (this consideration is not an element of the urgent fix).

    Solution: The normative "generic" wsdl must be consistent with the specification document. The new operations can be considered (and documented in wsdls) as “experimental” and included only in wsdls specific example (order, patient).
    Some of the new interesting feature, possibly, will be included the new HL7 SFM in the meantime.

  • Reported: IXS 1.0 — Mon, 30 May 2011 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — IXS 1.0.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    Disposition: See issues 17121, 17122, 17123, 17124, 17125, 17126 for disposition

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 03:45 GMT