Stream: workflow
Topic: PlanDefinition and ExampleScenario
Jose Costa Teixeira (Mar 20 2019 at 06:12):
For the scope I am considering, PlanDefinition and ExampleScenario are actually a Definition and an Instance of a sequence of events and exchanges.
If this is true, should we align naming, review/revise scopes to reflect this?
For example, ExampleScenario could be a ScenarioInstance or a PlanInstance (sounds bad) or a WorkflowInstance or a CaseInstance...
Lloyd McKenzie (Mar 20 2019 at 14:01):
Highlighting the fact it's just an example flow is important.
Jose Costa Teixeira (Mar 28 2019 at 19:54):
I took some notes this monday about the use of PlanDefinition to support workflow conformance. Still wip and next week i want to prototype something, but should I keep these notes in a wiki page somewhere?
Lloyd McKenzie (Mar 28 2019 at 19:56):
My leaning is to put useful documentation into the core spec or an IG rather than on a wiki page. We can add your notes to workflow call minutes if you like
Jose Costa Teixeira (Mar 28 2019 at 20:04):
ok i will use the minutes to capture the topics discussed.
Jose Costa Teixeira (May 09 2019 at 22:50):
http://www.mock-server.com/
could this be used to mock some our workflows?
Jose Costa Teixeira (Jun 07 2019 at 20:15):
@Bryn Rhodes any chance to look at #20825 and 20826 for continuing the mockup?
Jose Costa Teixeira (Jun 07 2019 at 20:15):
some changes to planDefinition proposed from an early workflow call, so that we can use it to define "workflow conformance".
Jose Costa Teixeira (Jun 07 2019 at 20:16):
we can discuss in the workflow call or i could join one of your calls.
Jose Costa Teixeira (Jul 08 2019 at 19:35):
hi @Bryn Rhodes . For some reason I cannot see the tracker items above. do you know their status?
Jose Costa Teixeira (Jul 08 2019 at 19:36):
We currently have some magic that renders an exampleScenario into a sequence diagram. The example I have available is here:
http://blog.zeora.net/mma/examplescenario-mma1-scenario.html
I would like to expolore the same for planDefinition - for example to display the use of PlanDefinition as a "workflow conformance" in such a diagram (think IHE transaction diagrams - PlanDefinition is the profile transaction diagram , ExampleScenario is one instance or one use case)
Jose Costa Teixeira (Jul 08 2019 at 19:37):
do you know if those issues are approved?
Bryn Rhodes (Jul 09 2019 at 02:18):
Hi @Jose Costa Teixeira , apologies for the delay, we are behind on trackers. On GF#20825, does a PractitionerRole support identifying the "function"? Is it because we need to identify the function regardless of whether it is a practitioner?
Bryn Rhodes (Jul 09 2019 at 02:19):
And I have to admit I'm not following GF#20826. How is CapabilityStatement used?
Bryn Rhodes (Jul 09 2019 at 02:33):
So it would be saying that the actor is a system that conforms to the given CapabilityStatement?
Jose Costa Teixeira (Jul 09 2019 at 07:09):
On GF#20825, does a PractitionerRole support identifying the "function"? Is it because we need to identify the function regardless of whether it is a practitioner?
Yes, these cases are to support the definition of actors (IHE style), so it is usually the system and its role in a transaction that we want to document. For 20286 yes, it is intended to describe "where is this actor defined" which is a CapStatement or perhaps a concrete DeviceDefinition.
Bryn Rhodes (Jul 25 2019 at 21:28):
I've added a participantCapabilityStatement extension to a cpg-workflowdefinition profile. Is this in line with what you are thinking?
Jose Costa Teixeira (Mar 23 2020 at 19:24):
Catching up on this:
Jose Costa Teixeira (Mar 23 2020 at 19:29):
I need help in instanciating PlanDefinition to say
When Step 1 (description="...") is a GET /MedicationRequest (and these optional parameters are supported, but this parameter is mandatory), Step 2 is a Bundle where the entries are MedicationRequest and they must all comply with profile XXXXX
Jose Costa Teixeira (Mar 23 2020 at 19:29):
basically continuing this https://confluence.hl7.org/display/FHIRI/Workflow+Conformance+example
Jose Costa Teixeira (Mar 31 2020 at 16:52):
As per yesterday's discussion, we want to see what resources to use to define dynamic behaviour of a system (from a conformance perspective).
Jose Costa Teixeira (Mar 31 2020 at 16:52):
In short, how do we define a modular sequence of data exchange e.g. "to achieve this goal, systems must first do a GET with parameters {X}, and the response shall comply with te profile Y.
Jose Costa Teixeira (Mar 31 2020 at 16:53):
The same concept as an IHE Transaction.
Jose Costa Teixeira (Mar 31 2020 at 16:53):
pinging @Keith Boone
Jose Costa Teixeira (Mar 31 2020 at 16:55):
As discussed, when we first looked at this, there were different starting points, but we converged on trying out PlanDefinition - seemed better to bend that resource first and from there see if it is fully adequate or if we need something custom or if another resource could be used.
Jose Costa Teixeira (Mar 31 2020 at 16:57):
So, questions:
- what do people feel should be used to express dynamic behaviour constraints? Is PlanDefinition worth trying?
- We do have some questions open from PlanDefinitions, we will hopefully discuss them when @Bryn Rhodes can join a call
- Are we missing something major?
Bryn Rhodes (Mar 31 2020 at 17:52):
I would be supportive of trying that approach. We've used it with success to define what should happen, seems like a reasonable use case to support describing what must happen.
Keith Boone (Mar 31 2020 at 19:57):
Thanks for the ping, and would be interested in persuing this, but at a later date
Last updated: Apr 12 2022 at 19:14 UTC
