|X||Anthony Julian||Mayo Clinic|
|X||Jonathan Whitby||Vital (Canon)|
|Christopher Lindop||GE Healthcare|
Meeting Minutes from Discussion
|Decision Link(if not child)|
|Methodology||Davinci Notifications block vote 5||3-0-1|
|Methodology||Update FHIRcast PSS||4-0-0|
Craig Newman will make recommendation on removing original mode.. Tony will check out the trackers, and make recommendations.
|Methodology||Guidance for data sharing||There is discussion in the FHIR spec. defining use cases of messages, rest, documents, etc.|
|Minute Approval||2020-04-23 InM WG Agenda/Minutes|
|Da Vinci Notifications Block Vote 5|
Issue key Summary (Reporter) Resolution
|Update FHIRcast PSS|
(Original word doc version - may not be exactly the same as published PSS)
Does the Next Milestone need to be manually kept up-to-date?
Deliver draft specification for connectathon testing - Target: December, 2017
Submit for Normative Ballot - Target: Feb 2022 BallotReconcile Normative Ballot - Target: Feb 2022 WGM
not Forwarding Ralf's response regarding the ACK Choreography.
I will be out this week - I had an unfortunate encounter with a 2x6, courtesy of my horse :( and am nursing aome broken ribs and facial bones.
Hope to be back next week.
I am not sure if I understood your question correctly, but I try to answer what I understand:
You want to know if there exists a use case for application level Acknowledge in response to an application level Acknowledge - do you mean an App Ack as answer to an App Ack which was the answer to a Request?
In Chapter 13 yes - the question here is IMHO if this is a good and correct use case.
I would argue that the correct way (based on how I understand the HL7 Ack idea) would be the following:
BUT the the standard allows also an Application Acknowledge to an Application acknowledge. Here the message flow:
All the best
|Guidance for data sharing|
Matrix: Data Sharing matrix
Anthony Julian Agenda reminder