Home » Archived » OHF » MESA test 11350 bridge problem
|
| Re: MESA test 11350 bridge problem [message #34710 is a reply to message #34675] |
Wed, 10 October 2007 20:34   |
 Sondra Renly
Messages: 39
Registered: July 2009 |
Member |
|
|
Hi Jesse,
Please reference this bugzilla report:
https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=204190
The quick summary is that MESA last year was inconsistent and that there
is a CP this year to help clarify the language. One needs to be precise
when multiple subcomponents exist, as applies in last name and dob.
Sondra
Jesse Pangburn wrote:
> Hi,
> I'm having trouble with MESA test 11350 using the bridge. It's a
> patient demographics query where you're supposed to query on the
> patient's last name and their date of birth. In the web service request
> I send to the bridge, here's the relevant portions:
>
> <tns2:patientDateOfBirth>19380224</tns2:patientDateOfBirth >
> and
> <tns2:patientName>
> <tns2:familyName>MOORE</tns2:familyName>
>
> In the QPD-3 "demographics field" of the HL7 message the bridge sends,
> there is the value:
> @PID.5.1^MOORE~@PID.7.1^19380224
> The MESA eval script says this is wrong, that the value should be:
> @PID.5.1^MOORE~@PID.7^19380224
>
> In the HL7 2.5 spec, the PID segment's Date Of Birth field has two
> subcomponents. The time and the precision. So I think the message the
> bridge is sending is correct, but I think you could also write it as the
> MESA test does since the second subcomponent is not specified. I'm not
> very knowledgeable about HL7 though, so does anyone know if one or both
> are correct?
>
> thanks,
> Jesse
>
|
|
|
| Re: MESA test 11350 bridge problem [message #34777 is a reply to message #34710] |
Wed, 10 October 2007 23:09 |
Jesse Pangburn
Messages: 166
Registered: July 2009 |
Senior Member |
|
|
Hi Sondra,
I knew enough to know that the bridge message was correct because it was
precise, but not enough to tell whether the MESA version was acceptable
too or not.
So what are you guys doing for the MESA test? Is Steve going to fix this
in the test itself? Do you just submit the grade_11350.txt showing that
it's incorrect and add the comment that the test is wrong?
thanks,
Jesse
Sondra Renly wrote:
> Hi Jesse,
> Please reference this bugzilla report:
> https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=204190
> The quick summary is that MESA last year was inconsistent and that there
> is a CP this year to help clarify the language. One needs to be precise
> when multiple subcomponents exist, as applies in last name and dob.
> Sondra
> Jesse Pangburn wrote:
>> Hi,
>> I'm having trouble with MESA test 11350 using the bridge. It's a
>> patient demographics query where you're supposed to query on the
>> patient's last name and their date of birth. In the web service request
>> I send to the bridge, here's the relevant portions:
>>
>> <tns2:patientDateOfBirth>19380224</tns2:patientDateOfBirth >
>> and
>> <tns2:patientName>
>> <tns2:familyName>MOORE</tns2:familyName>
>>
>> In the QPD-3 "demographics field" of the HL7 message the bridge sends,
>> there is the value:
>> @PID.5.1^MOORE~@PID.7.1^19380224
>> The MESA eval script says this is wrong, that the value should be:
>> @PID.5.1^MOORE~@PID.7^19380224
>>
>> In the HL7 2.5 spec, the PID segment's Date Of Birth field has two
>> subcomponents. The time and the precision. So I think the message the
>> bridge is sending is correct, but I think you could also write it as the
>> MESA test does since the second subcomponent is not specified. I'm not
>> very knowledgeable about HL7 though, so does anyone know if one or both
>> are correct?
>>
>> thanks,
>> Jesse
>>
|
|
|
| Re: MESA test 11350 bridge problem [message #34811 is a reply to message #34777] |
Wed, 10 October 2007 23:41 |
Sondra Renly
Messages: 39
Registered: July 2009 |
Member |
|
|
Hey,
First, its not common to hit problems in MESA. When you do hit a
problem, it's good to hit the newsgroup to see what others have done.
Once we get agreement on a difference, we submit our results with
comments about the difference. Steve is very good about working through
any issues that do arise. It may not result in changing MESA, but
accepting the differences. And the follow-up is likely a CP that
improves the language for consistency - like the PID-7-1 issue.
The bridge (and plugins) both support a pix/pdq "other" option that
allow you to directly specify a segment-field to give you full
opportunity to add beyond the "english-translated-api". For example:
pdq plugin: msg.addOptionalDemographicSearch(path, data);
pix plugin: msg.setField("PID-19", "444-70-9999");
bridge: see org.eclipse.ohf.bridge.ws > src_tests >
org.eclipse.ohf.bridge.ws.tests.mesa > MesaUtils.java
Sondra
Jesse Pangburn wrote:
> Hi Sondra,
> I knew enough to know that the bridge message was correct because it was
> precise, but not enough to tell whether the MESA version was acceptable
> too or not.
>
> So what are you guys doing for the MESA test? Is Steve going to fix
> this in the test itself? Do you just submit the grade_11350.txt showing
> that it's incorrect and add the comment that the test is wrong?
>
> thanks,
> Jesse
>
> Sondra Renly wrote:
>
>> Hi Jesse,
>
>> Please reference this bugzilla report:
>
>> https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=204190
>
>> The quick summary is that MESA last year was inconsistent and that
>> there is a CP this year to help clarify the language. One needs to be
>> precise when multiple subcomponents exist, as applies in last name and
>> dob.
>
>> Sondra
>
>
>> Jesse Pangburn wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> I'm having trouble with MESA test 11350 using the bridge. It's a
>>> patient demographics query where you're supposed to query on the
>>> patient's last name and their date of birth. In the web service
>>> request I send to the bridge, here's the relevant portions:
>>>
>>> <tns2:patientDateOfBirth>19380224</tns2:patientDateOfBirth >
>>> and
>>> <tns2:patientName>
>>> <tns2:familyName>MOORE</tns2:familyName>
>>>
>>> In the QPD-3 "demographics field" of the HL7 message the bridge
>>> sends, there is the value:
>>> @PID.5.1^MOORE~@PID.7.1^19380224
>>> The MESA eval script says this is wrong, that the value should be:
>>> @PID.5.1^MOORE~@PID.7^19380224
>>>
>>> In the HL7 2.5 spec, the PID segment's Date Of Birth field has two
>>> subcomponents. The time and the precision. So I think the message
>>> the bridge is sending is correct, but I think you could also write it
>>> as the MESA test does since the second subcomponent is not
>>> specified. I'm not very knowledgeable about HL7 though, so does
>>> anyone know if one or both are correct?
>>>
>>> thanks,
>>> Jesse
>>>
>
>
|
|
|
| Re: MESA test 11350 bridge problem [message #34878 is a reply to message #34811] |
Thu, 11 October 2007 19:25 |
Jesse Pangburn
Messages: 166
Registered: July 2009 |
Senior Member |
|
|
Hi,
OK, then I'm going to submit mine as-is and let Steve know that I believe
it to be correct. I have used the "other" option, it's called
genericAdtValues or something. I used that to pass another test that
required a parameter the bridge didn't have, but in this case the bridge
has the parameter and MESA is incorrectly saying it's wrong. So I'd
rather not use that mechanism to get my results in with no hassle only to
leave others to run into the same thing.
This bridge is a lifesaver, if I can spend a little time making to make a
MESA test or two easier on its users, it's good to be able to help a bit.
thanks,
Jesse
Sondra Renly wrote:
> Hey,
> First, its not common to hit problems in MESA. When you do hit a
> problem, it's good to hit the newsgroup to see what others have done.
> Once we get agreement on a difference, we submit our results with
> comments about the difference. Steve is very good about working through
> any issues that do arise. It may not result in changing MESA, but
> accepting the differences. And the follow-up is likely a CP that
> improves the language for consistency - like the PID-7-1 issue.
> The bridge (and plugins) both support a pix/pdq "other" option that
> allow you to directly specify a segment-field to give you full
> opportunity to add beyond the "english-translated-api". For example:
> pdq plugin: msg.addOptionalDemographicSearch(path, data);
> pix plugin: msg.setField("PID-19", "444-70-9999");
> bridge: see org.eclipse.ohf.bridge.ws > src_tests >
> org.eclipse.ohf.bridge.ws.tests.mesa > MesaUtils.java
> Sondra
> Jesse Pangburn wrote:
>> Hi Sondra,
>> I knew enough to know that the bridge message was correct because it was
>> precise, but not enough to tell whether the MESA version was acceptable
>> too or not.
>>
>> So what are you guys doing for the MESA test? Is Steve going to fix
>> this in the test itself? Do you just submit the grade_11350.txt showing
>> that it's incorrect and add the comment that the test is wrong?
>>
>> thanks,
>> Jesse
>>
>> Sondra Renly wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Jesse,
>>
>>> Please reference this bugzilla report:
>>
>>> https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=204190
>>
>>> The quick summary is that MESA last year was inconsistent and that
>>> there is a CP this year to help clarify the language. One needs to be
>>> precise when multiple subcomponents exist, as applies in last name and
>>> dob.
>>
>>> Sondra
>>
>>
>>> Jesse Pangburn wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>> I'm having trouble with MESA test 11350 using the bridge. It's a
>>>> patient demographics query where you're supposed to query on the
>>>> patient's last name and their date of birth. In the web service
>>>> request I send to the bridge, here's the relevant portions:
>>>>
>>>> <tns2:patientDateOfBirth>19380224</tns2:patientDateOfBirth >
>>>> and
>>>> <tns2:patientName>
>>>> <tns2:familyName>MOORE</tns2:familyName>
>>>>
>>>> In the QPD-3 "demographics field" of the HL7 message the bridge
>>>> sends, there is the value:
>>>> @PID.5.1^MOORE~@PID.7.1^19380224
>>>> The MESA eval script says this is wrong, that the value should be:
>>>> @PID.5.1^MOORE~@PID.7^19380224
>>>>
>>>> In the HL7 2.5 spec, the PID segment's Date Of Birth field has two
>>>> subcomponents. The time and the precision. So I think the message
>>>> the bridge is sending is correct, but I think you could also write it
>>>> as the MESA test does since the second subcomponent is not
>>>> specified. I'm not very knowledgeable about HL7 though, so does
>>>> anyone know if one or both are correct?
>>>>
>>>> thanks,
>>>> Jesse
>>>>
>>
>>
|
|
|
| Re: MESA test 11350 bridge problem [message #34912 is a reply to message #34811] |
Fri, 12 October 2007 18:17 |
No real name
Messages: 292
Registered: July 2009 |
Senior Member |
|
|
Mesa Tests have a bug tracking system to communicate problems to. The
links to this can be found on our OHF Connectathon 2008 Wiki.
http://wiki.eclipse.org/IHE_Connectathon_2008#MESA_Tests
This is the best way to communicate problems to the Mesa test officials.
- Sarah
Sondra Renly wrote:
> Hey,
>
> First, its not common to hit problems in MESA. When you do hit a
> problem, it's good to hit the newsgroup to see what others have done.
> Once we get agreement on a difference, we submit our results with
> comments about the difference. Steve is very good about working through
> any issues that do arise. It may not result in changing MESA, but
> accepting the differences. And the follow-up is likely a CP that
> improves the language for consistency - like the PID-7-1 issue.
>
> The bridge (and plugins) both support a pix/pdq "other" option that
> allow you to directly specify a segment-field to give you full
> opportunity to add beyond the "english-translated-api". For example:
>
> pdq plugin: msg.addOptionalDemographicSearch(path, data);
> pix plugin: msg.setField("PID-19", "444-70-9999");
>
> bridge: see org.eclipse.ohf.bridge.ws > src_tests >
> org.eclipse.ohf.bridge.ws.tests.mesa > MesaUtils.java
>
>
> Sondra
>
>
> Jesse Pangburn wrote:
>
>> Hi Sondra,
>> I knew enough to know that the bridge message was correct because it
>> was precise, but not enough to tell whether the MESA version was
>> acceptable too or not.
>>
>> So what are you guys doing for the MESA test? Is Steve going to fix
>> this in the test itself? Do you just submit the grade_11350.txt
>> showing that it's incorrect and add the comment that the test is wrong?
>>
>> thanks,
>> Jesse
>>
>> Sondra Renly wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Jesse,
>>
>>
>>> Please reference this bugzilla report:
>>
>>
>>> https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=204190
>>
>>
>>> The quick summary is that MESA last year was inconsistent and that
>>> there is a CP this year to help clarify the language. One needs to be
>>> precise when multiple subcomponents exist, as applies in last name
>>> and dob.
>>
>>
>>> Sondra
>>
>>
>>
>>> Jesse Pangburn wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>> I'm having trouble with MESA test 11350 using the bridge. It's a
>>>> patient demographics query where you're supposed to query on the
>>>> patient's last name and their date of birth. In the web service
>>>> request I send to the bridge, here's the relevant portions:
>>>>
>>>> <tns2:patientDateOfBirth>19380224</tns2:patientDateOfBirth >
>>>> and
>>>> <tns2:patientName>
>>>> <tns2:familyName>MOORE</tns2:familyName>
>>>>
>>>> In the QPD-3 "demographics field" of the HL7 message the bridge
>>>> sends, there is the value:
>>>> @PID.5.1^MOORE~@PID.7.1^19380224
>>>> The MESA eval script says this is wrong, that the value should be:
>>>> @PID.5.1^MOORE~@PID.7^19380224
>>>>
>>>> In the HL7 2.5 spec, the PID segment's Date Of Birth field has two
>>>> subcomponents. The time and the precision. So I think the message
>>>> the bridge is sending is correct, but I think you could also write
>>>> it as the MESA test does since the second subcomponent is not
>>>> specified. I'm not very knowledgeable about HL7 though, so does
>>>> anyone know if one or both are correct?
>>>>
>>>> thanks,
>>>> Jesse
>>>>
>>
>>
|
|
|
| Re: MESA test 11350 bridge problem [message #35117 is a reply to message #34912] |
Wed, 17 October 2007 17:26 |
Jesse Pangburn
Messages: 166
Registered: July 2009 |
Senior Member |
|
|
Steve never replied to my email, but he marked my test as correct and put
a note that said the query was ok. I don't know if he plans on fixing the
mesa tests or just eyeballing this test result and verifying on a case by
case basis.
At any rate, other folks using the bridge who get this test wrong
shouldn't worry. Just submit your result showing the error, and add a
comment if you like that you believe your query to be correct. Your test
result should show something like the following, if there are other
problems then you should correct those as this should be the only problem
on this test:
ERR: Test value: @PID.5.1^MOORE~@PID.7.1^19380224
ERR: MESA value: @PID.5.1^MOORE~@PID.7^19380224
Jesse
Sarah Knoop wrote:
> Mesa Tests have a bug tracking system to communicate problems to. The
> links to this can be found on our OHF Connectathon 2008 Wiki.
> http://wiki.eclipse.org/IHE_Connectathon_2008#MESA_Tests
> This is the best way to communicate problems to the Mesa test officials.
> - Sarah
> Sondra Renly wrote:
>> Hey,
>>
>> First, its not common to hit problems in MESA. When you do hit a
>> problem, it's good to hit the newsgroup to see what others have done.
>> Once we get agreement on a difference, we submit our results with
>> comments about the difference. Steve is very good about working through
>> any issues that do arise. It may not result in changing MESA, but
>> accepting the differences. And the follow-up is likely a CP that
>> improves the language for consistency - like the PID-7-1 issue.
>>
>> The bridge (and plugins) both support a pix/pdq "other" option that
>> allow you to directly specify a segment-field to give you full
>> opportunity to add beyond the "english-translated-api". For example:
>>
>> pdq plugin: msg.addOptionalDemographicSearch(path, data);
>> pix plugin: msg.setField("PID-19", "444-70-9999");
>>
>> bridge: see org.eclipse.ohf.bridge.ws > src_tests >
>> org.eclipse.ohf.bridge.ws.tests.mesa > MesaUtils.java
>>
>>
>> Sondra
>>
>>
>> Jesse Pangburn wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Sondra,
>>> I knew enough to know that the bridge message was correct because it
>>> was precise, but not enough to tell whether the MESA version was
>>> acceptable too or not.
>>>
>>> So what are you guys doing for the MESA test? Is Steve going to fix
>>> this in the test itself? Do you just submit the grade_11350.txt
>>> showing that it's incorrect and add the comment that the test is wrong?
>>>
>>> thanks,
>>> Jesse
>>>
>>> Sondra Renly wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Jesse,
>>>
>>>
>>>> Please reference this bugzilla report:
>>>
>>>
>>>> https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=204190
>>>
>>>
>>>> The quick summary is that MESA last year was inconsistent and that
>>>> there is a CP this year to help clarify the language. One needs to be
>>>> precise when multiple subcomponents exist, as applies in last name
>>>> and dob.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Sondra
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Jesse Pangburn wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>> I'm having trouble with MESA test 11350 using the bridge. It's a
>>>>> patient demographics query where you're supposed to query on the
>>>>> patient's last name and their date of birth. In the web service
>>>>> request I send to the bridge, here's the relevant portions:
>>>>>
>>>>> <tns2:patientDateOfBirth>19380224</tns2:patientDateOfBirth >
>>>>> and
>>>>> <tns2:patientName>
>>>>> <tns2:familyName>MOORE</tns2:familyName>
>>>>>
>>>>> In the QPD-3 "demographics field" of the HL7 message the bridge
>>>>> sends, there is the value:
>>>>> @PID.5.1^MOORE~@PID.7.1^19380224
>>>>> The MESA eval script says this is wrong, that the value should be:
>>>>> @PID.5.1^MOORE~@PID.7^19380224
>>>>>
>>>>> In the HL7 2.5 spec, the PID segment's Date Of Birth field has two
>>>>> subcomponents. The time and the precision. So I think the message
>>>>> the bridge is sending is correct, but I think you could also write
>>>>> it as the MESA test does since the second subcomponent is not
>>>>> specified. I'm not very knowledgeable about HL7 though, so does
>>>>> anyone know if one or both are correct?
>>>>>
>>>>> thanks,
>>>>> Jesse
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
|
|
|
| Re: MESA test 11350 bridge problem [message #35147 is a reply to message #35117] |
Wed, 17 October 2007 17:40 |
No real name
Messages: 292
Registered: July 2009 |
Senior Member |
|
|
Thanks for the update Jesse,
I think the MESA folks are still scrambling to get things set up. I'm
sure they are behind on email as well. If you can additionally submit a
bug to the MESA bug tracking system (flyspray), then I think you've done
the most you can do at this time.
Thanks for letting the community know,
- Sarah
Jesse Pangburn wrote:
> Steve never replied to my email, but he marked my test as correct and
> put a note that said the query was ok. I don't know if he plans on
> fixing the mesa tests or just eyeballing this test result and verifying
> on a case by case basis.
> At any rate, other folks using the bridge who get this test wrong
> shouldn't worry. Just submit your result showing the error, and add a
> comment if you like that you believe your query to be correct. Your
> test result should show something like the following, if there are other
> problems then you should correct those as this should be the only
> problem on this test:
> ERR: Test value: @PID.5.1^MOORE~@PID.7.1^19380224
> ERR: MESA value: @PID.5.1^MOORE~@PID.7^19380224
>
> Jesse
>
> Sarah Knoop wrote:
>
>> Mesa Tests have a bug tracking system to communicate problems to. The
>> links to this can be found on our OHF Connectathon 2008 Wiki.
>
>
>> http://wiki.eclipse.org/IHE_Connectathon_2008#MESA_Tests
>
>
>> This is the best way to communicate problems to the Mesa test officials.
>> - Sarah
>
>
>> Sondra Renly wrote:
>>
>>> Hey,
>>>
>>> First, its not common to hit problems in MESA. When you do hit a
>>> problem, it's good to hit the newsgroup to see what others have done.
>>> Once we get agreement on a difference, we submit our results with
>>> comments about the difference. Steve is very good about working
>>> through any issues that do arise. It may not result in changing MESA,
>>> but accepting the differences. And the follow-up is likely a CP that
>>> improves the language for consistency - like the PID-7-1 issue.
>>>
>>> The bridge (and plugins) both support a pix/pdq "other" option that
>>> allow you to directly specify a segment-field to give you full
>>> opportunity to add beyond the "english-translated-api". For example:
>>>
>>> pdq plugin: msg.addOptionalDemographicSearch(path, data);
>>> pix plugin: msg.setField("PID-19", "444-70-9999");
>>>
>>> bridge: see org.eclipse.ohf.bridge.ws > src_tests >
>>> org.eclipse.ohf.bridge.ws.tests.mesa > MesaUtils.java
>>>
>>>
>>> Sondra
>>>
>>>
>>> Jesse Pangburn wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Sondra,
>>>> I knew enough to know that the bridge message was correct because it
>>>> was precise, but not enough to tell whether the MESA version was
>>>> acceptable too or not.
>>>>
>>>> So what are you guys doing for the MESA test? Is Steve going to fix
>>>> this in the test itself? Do you just submit the grade_11350.txt
>>>> showing that it's incorrect and add the comment that the test is wrong?
>>>>
>>>> thanks,
>>>> Jesse
>>>>
>>>> Sondra Renly wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Jesse,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Please reference this bugzilla report:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=204190
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> The quick summary is that MESA last year was inconsistent and that
>>>>> there is a CP this year to help clarify the language. One needs to
>>>>> be precise when multiple subcomponents exist, as applies in last
>>>>> name and dob.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Sondra
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Jesse Pangburn wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>> I'm having trouble with MESA test 11350 using the bridge. It's a
>>>>>> patient demographics query where you're supposed to query on the
>>>>>> patient's last name and their date of birth. In the web service
>>>>>> request I send to the bridge, here's the relevant portions:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <tns2:patientDateOfBirth>19380224</tns2:patientDateOfBirth >
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> <tns2:patientName>
>>>>>> <tns2:familyName>MOORE</tns2:familyName>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In the QPD-3 "demographics field" of the HL7 message the bridge
>>>>>> sends, there is the value:
>>>>>> @PID.5.1^MOORE~@PID.7.1^19380224
>>>>>> The MESA eval script says this is wrong, that the value should be:
>>>>>> @PID.5.1^MOORE~@PID.7^19380224
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In the HL7 2.5 spec, the PID segment's Date Of Birth field has two
>>>>>> subcomponents. The time and the precision. So I think the
>>>>>> message the bridge is sending is correct, but I think you could
>>>>>> also write it as the MESA test does since the second subcomponent
>>>>>> is not specified. I'm not very knowledgeable about HL7 though, so
>>>>>> does anyone know if one or both are correct?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> thanks,
>>>>>> Jesse
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>
>
|
|
|
| Re: MESA test 11350 bridge problem [message #35212 is a reply to message #35147] |
Thu, 18 October 2007 16:32 |
Jesse Pangburn
Messages: 166
Registered: July 2009 |
Senior Member |
|
|
Thanks for the link to the flyspray tracking system. I submitted a bug
for this problem.
thanks,
Jesse
Sarah Knoop wrote:
> Thanks for the update Jesse,
> I think the MESA folks are still scrambling to get things set up. I'm
> sure they are behind on email as well. If you can additionally submit a
> bug to the MESA bug tracking system (flyspray), then I think you've done
> the most you can do at this time.
> Thanks for letting the community know,
> - Sarah
> Jesse Pangburn wrote:
>> Steve never replied to my email, but he marked my test as correct and
>> put a note that said the query was ok. I don't know if he plans on
>> fixing the mesa tests or just eyeballing this test result and verifying
>> on a case by case basis.
>> At any rate, other folks using the bridge who get this test wrong
>> shouldn't worry. Just submit your result showing the error, and add a
>> comment if you like that you believe your query to be correct. Your
>> test result should show something like the following, if there are other
>> problems then you should correct those as this should be the only
>> problem on this test:
>> ERR: Test value: @PID.5.1^MOORE~@PID.7.1^19380224
>> ERR: MESA value: @PID.5.1^MOORE~@PID.7^19380224
>>
>> Jesse
>>
>> Sarah Knoop wrote:
>>
>>> Mesa Tests have a bug tracking system to communicate problems to. The
>>> links to this can be found on our OHF Connectathon 2008 Wiki.
>>
>>
>>> http://wiki.eclipse.org/IHE_Connectathon_2008#MESA_Tests
>>
>>
>>> This is the best way to communicate problems to the Mesa test officials.
>>> - Sarah
>>
>>
>>> Sondra Renly wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hey,
>>>>
>>>> First, its not common to hit problems in MESA. When you do hit a
>>>> problem, it's good to hit the newsgroup to see what others have done.
>>>> Once we get agreement on a difference, we submit our results with
>>>> comments about the difference. Steve is very good about working
>>>> through any issues that do arise. It may not result in changing MESA,
>>>> but accepting the differences. And the follow-up is likely a CP that
>>>> improves the language for consistency - like the PID-7-1 issue.
>>>>
>>>> The bridge (and plugins) both support a pix/pdq "other" option that
>>>> allow you to directly specify a segment-field to give you full
>>>> opportunity to add beyond the "english-translated-api". For example:
>>>>
>>>> pdq plugin: msg.addOptionalDemographicSearch(path, data);
>>>> pix plugin: msg.setField("PID-19", "444-70-9999");
>>>>
>>>> bridge: see org.eclipse.ohf.bridge.ws > src_tests >
>>>> org.eclipse.ohf.bridge.ws.tests.mesa > MesaUtils.java
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sondra
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Jesse Pangburn wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Sondra,
>>>>> I knew enough to know that the bridge message was correct because it
>>>>> was precise, but not enough to tell whether the MESA version was
>>>>> acceptable too or not.
>>>>>
>>>>> So what are you guys doing for the MESA test? Is Steve going to fix
>>>>> this in the test itself? Do you just submit the grade_11350.txt
>>>>> showing that it's incorrect and add the comment that the test is wrong?
>>>>>
>>>>> thanks,
>>>>> Jesse
>>>>>
>>>>> Sondra Renly wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Jesse,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Please reference this bugzilla report:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=204190
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> The quick summary is that MESA last year was inconsistent and that
>>>>>> there is a CP this year to help clarify the language. One needs to
>>>>>> be precise when multiple subcomponents exist, as applies in last
>>>>>> name and dob.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Sondra
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Jesse Pangburn wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>> I'm having trouble with MESA test 11350 using the bridge. It's a
>>>>>>> patient demographics query where you're supposed to query on the
>>>>>>> patient's last name and their date of birth. In the web service
>>>>>>> request I send to the bridge, here's the relevant portions:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <tns2:patientDateOfBirth>19380224</tns2:patientDateOfBirth >
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> <tns2:patientName>
>>>>>>> <tns2:familyName>MOORE</tns2:familyName>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In the QPD-3 "demographics field" of the HL7 message the bridge
>>>>>>> sends, there is the value:
>>>>>>> @PID.5.1^MOORE~@PID.7.1^19380224
>>>>>>> The MESA eval script says this is wrong, that the value should be:
>>>>>>> @PID.5.1^MOORE~@PID.7^19380224
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In the HL7 2.5 spec, the PID segment's Date Of Birth field has two
>>>>>>> subcomponents. The time and the precision. So I think the
>>>>>>> message the bridge is sending is correct, but I think you could
>>>>>>> also write it as the MESA test does since the second subcomponent
>>>>>>> is not specified. I'm not very knowledgeable about HL7 though, so
>>>>>>> does anyone know if one or both are correct?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> thanks,
>>>>>>> Jesse
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>
>>
|
|
|
| Re: MESA test 11350 bridge problem [message #581950 is a reply to message #34675] |
Wed, 10 October 2007 20:34 |
Sondra Renly
Messages: 39
Registered: July 2009 |
Member |
|
|
Hi Jesse,
Please reference this bugzilla report:
https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=204190
The quick summary is that MESA last year was inconsistent and that there
is a CP this year to help clarify the language. One needs to be precise
when multiple subcomponents exist, as applies in last name and dob.
Sondra
Jesse Pangburn wrote:
> Hi,
> I'm having trouble with MESA test 11350 using the bridge. It's a
> patient demographics query where you're supposed to query on the
> patient's last name and their date of birth. In the web service request
> I send to the bridge, here's the relevant portions:
>
> <tns2:patientDateOfBirth>19380224</tns2:patientDateOfBirth >
> and
> <tns2:patientName>
> <tns2:familyName>MOORE</tns2:familyName>
>
> In the QPD-3 "demographics field" of the HL7 message the bridge sends,
> there is the value:
> @PID.5.1^MOORE~@PID.7.1^19380224
> The MESA eval script says this is wrong, that the value should be:
> @PID.5.1^MOORE~@PID.7^19380224
>
> In the HL7 2.5 spec, the PID segment's Date Of Birth field has two
> subcomponents. The time and the precision. So I think the message the
> bridge is sending is correct, but I think you could also write it as the
> MESA test does since the second subcomponent is not specified. I'm not
> very knowledgeable about HL7 though, so does anyone know if one or both
> are correct?
>
> thanks,
> Jesse
>
|
|
|
| Re: MESA test 11350 bridge problem [message #581998 is a reply to message #34710] |
Wed, 10 October 2007 23:09 |
Jesse Pangburn
Messages: 166
Registered: July 2009 |
Senior Member |
|
|
Hi Sondra,
I knew enough to know that the bridge message was correct because it was
precise, but not enough to tell whether the MESA version was acceptable
too or not.
So what are you guys doing for the MESA test? Is Steve going to fix this
in the test itself? Do you just submit the grade_11350.txt showing that
it's incorrect and add the comment that the test is wrong?
thanks,
Jesse
Sondra Renly wrote:
> Hi Jesse,
> Please reference this bugzilla report:
> https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=204190
> The quick summary is that MESA last year was inconsistent and that there
> is a CP this year to help clarify the language. One needs to be precise
> when multiple subcomponents exist, as applies in last name and dob.
> Sondra
> Jesse Pangburn wrote:
>> Hi,
>> I'm having trouble with MESA test 11350 using the bridge. It's a
>> patient demographics query where you're supposed to query on the
>> patient's last name and their date of birth. In the web service request
>> I send to the bridge, here's the relevant portions:
>>
>> <tns2:patientDateOfBirth>19380224</tns2:patientDateOfBirth >
>> and
>> <tns2:patientName>
>> <tns2:familyName>MOORE</tns2:familyName>
>>
>> In the QPD-3 "demographics field" of the HL7 message the bridge sends,
>> there is the value:
>> @PID.5.1^MOORE~@PID.7.1^19380224
>> The MESA eval script says this is wrong, that the value should be:
>> @PID.5.1^MOORE~@PID.7^19380224
>>
>> In the HL7 2.5 spec, the PID segment's Date Of Birth field has two
>> subcomponents. The time and the precision. So I think the message the
>> bridge is sending is correct, but I think you could also write it as the
>> MESA test does since the second subcomponent is not specified. I'm not
>> very knowledgeable about HL7 though, so does anyone know if one or both
>> are correct?
>>
>> thanks,
>> Jesse
>>
|
|
|
| Re: MESA test 11350 bridge problem [message #582018 is a reply to message #34777] |
Wed, 10 October 2007 23:41 |
Sondra Renly
Messages: 39
Registered: July 2009 |
Member |
|
|
Hey,
First, its not common to hit problems in MESA. When you do hit a
problem, it's good to hit the newsgroup to see what others have done.
Once we get agreement on a difference, we submit our results with
comments about the difference. Steve is very good about working through
any issues that do arise. It may not result in changing MESA, but
accepting the differences. And the follow-up is likely a CP that
improves the language for consistency - like the PID-7-1 issue.
The bridge (and plugins) both support a pix/pdq "other" option that
allow you to directly specify a segment-field to give you full
opportunity to add beyond the "english-translated-api". For example:
pdq plugin: msg.addOptionalDemographicSearch(path, data);
pix plugin: msg.setField("PID-19", "444-70-9999");
bridge: see org.eclipse.ohf.bridge.ws > src_tests >
org.eclipse.ohf.bridge.ws.tests.mesa > MesaUtils.java
Sondra
Jesse Pangburn wrote:
> Hi Sondra,
> I knew enough to know that the bridge message was correct because it was
> precise, but not enough to tell whether the MESA version was acceptable
> too or not.
>
> So what are you guys doing for the MESA test? Is Steve going to fix
> this in the test itself? Do you just submit the grade_11350.txt showing
> that it's incorrect and add the comment that the test is wrong?
>
> thanks,
> Jesse
>
> Sondra Renly wrote:
>
>> Hi Jesse,
>
>> Please reference this bugzilla report:
>
>> https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=204190
>
>> The quick summary is that MESA last year was inconsistent and that
>> there is a CP this year to help clarify the language. One needs to be
>> precise when multiple subcomponents exist, as applies in last name and
>> dob.
>
>> Sondra
>
>
>> Jesse Pangburn wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> I'm having trouble with MESA test 11350 using the bridge. It's a
>>> patient demographics query where you're supposed to query on the
>>> patient's last name and their date of birth. In the web service
>>> request I send to the bridge, here's the relevant portions:
>>>
>>> <tns2:patientDateOfBirth>19380224</tns2:patientDateOfBirth >
>>> and
>>> <tns2:patientName>
>>> <tns2:familyName>MOORE</tns2:familyName>
>>>
>>> In the QPD-3 "demographics field" of the HL7 message the bridge
>>> sends, there is the value:
>>> @PID.5.1^MOORE~@PID.7.1^19380224
>>> The MESA eval script says this is wrong, that the value should be:
>>> @PID.5.1^MOORE~@PID.7^19380224
>>>
>>> In the HL7 2.5 spec, the PID segment's Date Of Birth field has two
>>> subcomponents. The time and the precision. So I think the message
>>> the bridge is sending is correct, but I think you could also write it
>>> as the MESA test does since the second subcomponent is not
>>> specified. I'm not very knowledgeable about HL7 though, so does
>>> anyone know if one or both are correct?
>>>
>>> thanks,
>>> Jesse
>>>
>
>
|
|
|
| Re: MESA test 11350 bridge problem [message #582059 is a reply to message #34811] |
Thu, 11 October 2007 19:25 |
Jesse Pangburn
Messages: 166
Registered: July 2009 |
Senior Member |
|
|
Hi,
OK, then I'm going to submit mine as-is and let Steve know that I believe
it to be correct. I have used the "other" option, it's called
genericAdtValues or something. I used that to pass another test that
required a parameter the bridge didn't have, but in this case the bridge
has the parameter and MESA is incorrectly saying it's wrong. So I'd
rather not use that mechanism to get my results in with no hassle only to
leave others to run into the same thing.
This bridge is a lifesaver, if I can spend a little time making to make a
MESA test or two easier on its users, it's good to be able to help a bit.
thanks,
Jesse
Sondra Renly wrote:
> Hey,
> First, its not common to hit problems in MESA. When you do hit a
> problem, it's good to hit the newsgroup to see what others have done.
> Once we get agreement on a difference, we submit our results with
> comments about the difference. Steve is very good about working through
> any issues that do arise. It may not result in changing MESA, but
> accepting the differences. And the follow-up is likely a CP that
> improves the language for consistency - like the PID-7-1 issue.
> The bridge (and plugins) both support a pix/pdq "other" option that
> allow you to directly specify a segment-field to give you full
> opportunity to add beyond the "english-translated-api". For example:
> pdq plugin: msg.addOptionalDemographicSearch(path, data);
> pix plugin: msg.setField("PID-19", "444-70-9999");
> bridge: see org.eclipse.ohf.bridge.ws > src_tests >
> org.eclipse.ohf.bridge.ws.tests.mesa > MesaUtils.java
> Sondra
> Jesse Pangburn wrote:
>> Hi Sondra,
>> I knew enough to know that the bridge message was correct because it was
>> precise, but not enough to tell whether the MESA version was acceptable
>> too or not.
>>
>> So what are you guys doing for the MESA test? Is Steve going to fix
>> this in the test itself? Do you just submit the grade_11350.txt showing
>> that it's incorrect and add the comment that the test is wrong?
>>
>> thanks,
>> Jesse
>>
>> Sondra Renly wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Jesse,
>>
>>> Please reference this bugzilla report:
>>
>>> https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=204190
>>
>>> The quick summary is that MESA last year was inconsistent and that
>>> there is a CP this year to help clarify the language. One needs to be
>>> precise when multiple subcomponents exist, as applies in last name and
>>> dob.
>>
>>> Sondra
>>
>>
>>> Jesse Pangburn wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>> I'm having trouble with MESA test 11350 using the bridge. It's a
>>>> patient demographics query where you're supposed to query on the
>>>> patient's last name and their date of birth. In the web service
>>>> request I send to the bridge, here's the relevant portions:
>>>>
>>>> <tns2:patientDateOfBirth>19380224</tns2:patientDateOfBirth >
>>>> and
>>>> <tns2:patientName>
>>>> <tns2:familyName>MOORE</tns2:familyName>
>>>>
>>>> In the QPD-3 "demographics field" of the HL7 message the bridge
>>>> sends, there is the value:
>>>> @PID.5.1^MOORE~@PID.7.1^19380224
>>>> The MESA eval script says this is wrong, that the value should be:
>>>> @PID.5.1^MOORE~@PID.7^19380224
>>>>
>>>> In the HL7 2.5 spec, the PID segment's Date Of Birth field has two
>>>> subcomponents. The time and the precision. So I think the message
>>>> the bridge is sending is correct, but I think you could also write it
>>>> as the MESA test does since the second subcomponent is not
>>>> specified. I'm not very knowledgeable about HL7 though, so does
>>>> anyone know if one or both are correct?
>>>>
>>>> thanks,
>>>> Jesse
>>>>
>>
>>
|
|
|
| Re: MESA test 11350 bridge problem [message #582067 is a reply to message #34811] |
Fri, 12 October 2007 18:17 |
No real name
Messages: 292
Registered: July 2009 |
Senior Member |
|
|
Mesa Tests have a bug tracking system to communicate problems to. The
links to this can be found on our OHF Connectathon 2008 Wiki.
http://wiki.eclipse.org/IHE_Connectathon_2008#MESA_Tests
This is the best way to communicate problems to the Mesa test officials.
- Sarah
Sondra Renly wrote:
> Hey,
>
> First, its not common to hit problems in MESA. When you do hit a
> problem, it's good to hit the newsgroup to see what others have done.
> Once we get agreement on a difference, we submit our results with
> comments about the difference. Steve is very good about working through
> any issues that do arise. It may not result in changing MESA, but
> accepting the differences. And the follow-up is likely a CP that
> improves the language for consistency - like the PID-7-1 issue.
>
> The bridge (and plugins) both support a pix/pdq "other" option that
> allow you to directly specify a segment-field to give you full
> opportunity to add beyond the "english-translated-api". For example:
>
> pdq plugin: msg.addOptionalDemographicSearch(path, data);
> pix plugin: msg.setField("PID-19", "444-70-9999");
>
> bridge: see org.eclipse.ohf.bridge.ws > src_tests >
> org.eclipse.ohf.bridge.ws.tests.mesa > MesaUtils.java
>
>
> Sondra
>
>
> Jesse Pangburn wrote:
>
>> Hi Sondra,
>> I knew enough to know that the bridge message was correct because it
>> was precise, but not enough to tell whether the MESA version was
>> acceptable too or not.
>>
>> So what are you guys doing for the MESA test? Is Steve going to fix
>> this in the test itself? Do you just submit the grade_11350.txt
>> showing that it's incorrect and add the comment that the test is wrong?
>>
>> thanks,
>> Jesse
>>
>> Sondra Renly wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Jesse,
>>
>>
>>> Please reference this bugzilla report:
>>
>>
>>> https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=204190
>>
>>
>>> The quick summary is that MESA last year was inconsistent and that
>>> there is a CP this year to help clarify the language. One needs to be
>>> precise when multiple subcomponents exist, as applies in last name
>>> and dob.
>>
>>
>>> Sondra
>>
>>
>>
>>> Jesse Pangburn wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>> I'm having trouble with MESA test 11350 using the bridge. It's a
>>>> patient demographics query where you're supposed to query on the
>>>> patient's last name and their date of birth. In the web service
>>>> request I send to the bridge, here's the relevant portions:
>>>>
>>>> <tns2:patientDateOfBirth>19380224</tns2:patientDateOfBirth >
>>>> and
>>>> <tns2:patientName>
>>>> <tns2:familyName>MOORE</tns2:familyName>
>>>>
>>>> In the QPD-3 "demographics field" of the HL7 message the bridge
>>>> sends, there is the value:
>>>> @PID.5.1^MOORE~@PID.7.1^19380224
>>>> The MESA eval script says this is wrong, that the value should be:
>>>> @PID.5.1^MOORE~@PID.7^19380224
>>>>
>>>> In the HL7 2.5 spec, the PID segment's Date Of Birth field has two
>>>> subcomponents. The time and the precision. So I think the message
>>>> the bridge is sending is correct, but I think you could also write
>>>> it as the MESA test does since the second subcomponent is not
>>>> specified. I'm not very knowledgeable about HL7 though, so does
>>>> anyone know if one or both are correct?
>>>>
>>>> thanks,
>>>> Jesse
>>>>
>>
>>
|
|
|
| Re: MESA test 11350 bridge problem [message #582189 is a reply to message #34912] |
Wed, 17 October 2007 17:26 |
Jesse Pangburn
Messages: 166
Registered: July 2009 |
Senior Member |
|
|
Steve never replied to my email, but he marked my test as correct and put
a note that said the query was ok. I don't know if he plans on fixing the
mesa tests or just eyeballing this test result and verifying on a case by
case basis.
At any rate, other folks using the bridge who get this test wrong
shouldn't worry. Just submit your result showing the error, and add a
comment if you like that you believe your query to be correct. Your test
result should show something like the following, if there are other
problems then you should correct those as this should be the only problem
on this test:
ERR: Test value: @PID.5.1^MOORE~@PID.7.1^19380224
ERR: MESA value: @PID.5.1^MOORE~@PID.7^19380224
Jesse
Sarah Knoop wrote:
> Mesa Tests have a bug tracking system to communicate problems to. The
> links to this can be found on our OHF Connectathon 2008 Wiki.
> http://wiki.eclipse.org/IHE_Connectathon_2008#MESA_Tests
> This is the best way to communicate problems to the Mesa test officials.
> - Sarah
> Sondra Renly wrote:
>> Hey,
>>
>> First, its not common to hit problems in MESA. When you do hit a
>> problem, it's good to hit the newsgroup to see what others have done.
>> Once we get agreement on a difference, we submit our results with
>> comments about the difference. Steve is very good about working through
>> any issues that do arise. It may not result in changing MESA, but
>> accepting the differences. And the follow-up is likely a CP that
>> improves the language for consistency - like the PID-7-1 issue.
>>
>> The bridge (and plugins) both support a pix/pdq "other" option that
>> allow you to directly specify a segment-field to give you full
>> opportunity to add beyond the "english-translated-api". For example:
>>
>> pdq plugin: msg.addOptionalDemographicSearch(path, data);
>> pix plugin: msg.setField("PID-19", "444-70-9999");
>>
>> bridge: see org.eclipse.ohf.bridge.ws > src_tests >
>> org.eclipse.ohf.bridge.ws.tests.mesa > MesaUtils.java
>>
>>
>> Sondra
>>
>>
>> Jesse Pangburn wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Sondra,
>>> I knew enough to know that the bridge message was correct because it
>>> was precise, but not enough to tell whether the MESA version was
>>> acceptable too or not.
>>>
>>> So what are you guys doing for the MESA test? Is Steve going to fix
>>> this in the test itself? Do you just submit the grade_11350.txt
>>> showing that it's incorrect and add the comment that the test is wrong?
>>>
>>> thanks,
>>> Jesse
>>>
>>> Sondra Renly wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Jesse,
>>>
>>>
>>>> Please reference this bugzilla report:
>>>
>>>
>>>> https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=204190
>>>
>>>
>>>> The quick summary is that MESA last year was inconsistent and that
>>>> there is a CP this year to help clarify the language. One needs to be
>>>> precise when multiple subcomponents exist, as applies in last name
>>>> and dob.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Sondra
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Jesse Pangburn wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>> I'm having trouble with MESA test 11350 using the bridge. It's a
>>>>> patient demographics query where you're supposed to query on the
>>>>> patient's last name and their date of birth. In the web service
>>>>> request I send to the bridge, here's the relevant portions:
>>>>>
>>>>> <tns2:patientDateOfBirth>19380224</tns2:patientDateOfBirth >
>>>>> and
>>>>> <tns2:patientName>
>>>>> <tns2:familyName>MOORE</tns2:familyName>
>>>>>
>>>>> In the QPD-3 "demographics field" of the HL7 message the bridge
>>>>> sends, there is the value:
>>>>> @PID.5.1^MOORE~@PID.7.1^19380224
>>>>> The MESA eval script says this is wrong, that the value should be:
>>>>> @PID.5.1^MOORE~@PID.7^19380224
>>>>>
>>>>> In the HL7 2.5 spec, the PID segment's Date Of Birth field has two
>>>>> subcomponents. The time and the precision. So I think the message
>>>>> the bridge is sending is correct, but I think you could also write
>>>>> it as the MESA test does since the second subcomponent is not
>>>>> specified. I'm not very knowledgeable about HL7 though, so does
>>>>> anyone know if one or both are correct?
>>>>>
>>>>> thanks,
>>>>> Jesse
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
|
|
|
| Re: MESA test 11350 bridge problem [message #582210 is a reply to message #35117] |
Wed, 17 October 2007 17:40 |
No real name
Messages: 292
Registered: July 2009 |
Senior Member |
|
|
Thanks for the update Jesse,
I think the MESA folks are still scrambling to get things set up. I'm
sure they are behind on email as well. If you can additionally submit a
bug to the MESA bug tracking system (flyspray), then I think you've done
the most you can do at this time.
Thanks for letting the community know,
- Sarah
Jesse Pangburn wrote:
> Steve never replied to my email, but he marked my test as correct and
> put a note that said the query was ok. I don't know if he plans on
> fixing the mesa tests or just eyeballing this test result and verifying
> on a case by case basis.
> At any rate, other folks using the bridge who get this test wrong
> shouldn't worry. Just submit your result showing the error, and add a
> comment if you like that you believe your query to be correct. Your
> test result should show something like the following, if there are other
> problems then you should correct those as this should be the only
> problem on this test:
> ERR: Test value: @PID.5.1^MOORE~@PID.7.1^19380224
> ERR: MESA value: @PID.5.1^MOORE~@PID.7^19380224
>
> Jesse
>
> Sarah Knoop wrote:
>
>> Mesa Tests have a bug tracking system to communicate problems to. The
>> links to this can be found on our OHF Connectathon 2008 Wiki.
>
>
>> http://wiki.eclipse.org/IHE_Connectathon_2008#MESA_Tests
>
>
>> This is the best way to communicate problems to the Mesa test officials.
>> - Sarah
>
>
>> Sondra Renly wrote:
>>
>>> Hey,
>>>
>>> First, its not common to hit problems in MESA. When you do hit a
>>> problem, it's good to hit the newsgroup to see what others have done.
>>> Once we get agreement on a difference, we submit our results with
>>> comments about the difference. Steve is very good about working
>>> through any issues that do arise. It may not result in changing MESA,
>>> but accepting the differences. And the follow-up is likely a CP that
>>> improves the language for consistency - like the PID-7-1 issue.
>>>
>>> The bridge (and plugins) both support a pix/pdq "other" option that
>>> allow you to directly specify a segment-field to give you full
>>> opportunity to add beyond the "english-translated-api". For example:
>>>
>>> pdq plugin: msg.addOptionalDemographicSearch(path, data);
>>> pix plugin: msg.setField("PID-19", "444-70-9999");
>>>
>>> bridge: see org.eclipse.ohf.bridge.ws > src_tests >
>>> org.eclipse.ohf.bridge.ws.tests.mesa > MesaUtils.java
>>>
>>>
>>> Sondra
>>>
>>>
>>> Jesse Pangburn wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Sondra,
>>>> I knew enough to know that the bridge message was correct because it
>>>> was precise, but not enough to tell whether the MESA version was
>>>> acceptable too or not.
>>>>
>>>> So what are you guys doing for the MESA test? Is Steve going to fix
>>>> this in the test itself? Do you just submit the grade_11350.txt
>>>> showing that it's incorrect and add the comment that the test is wrong?
>>>>
>>>> thanks,
>>>> Jesse
>>>>
>>>> Sondra Renly wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Jesse,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Please reference this bugzilla report:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=204190
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> The quick summary is that MESA last year was inconsistent and that
>>>>> there is a CP this year to help clarify the language. One needs to
>>>>> be precise when multiple subcomponents exist, as applies in last
>>>>> name and dob.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Sondra
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Jesse Pangburn wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>> I'm having trouble with MESA test 11350 using the bridge. It's a
>>>>>> patient demographics query where you're supposed to query on the
>>>>>> patient's last name and their date of birth. In the web service
>>>>>> request I send to the bridge, here's the relevant portions:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <tns2:patientDateOfBirth>19380224</tns2:patientDateOfBirth >
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> <tns2:patientName>
>>>>>> <tns2:familyName>MOORE</tns2:familyName>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In the QPD-3 "demographics field" of the HL7 message the bridge
>>>>>> sends, there is the value:
>>>>>> @PID.5.1^MOORE~@PID.7.1^19380224
>>>>>> The MESA eval script says this is wrong, that the value should be:
>>>>>> @PID.5.1^MOORE~@PID.7^19380224
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In the HL7 2.5 spec, the PID segment's Date Of Birth field has two
>>>>>> subcomponents. The time and the precision. So I think the
>>>>>> message the bridge is sending is correct, but I think you could
>>>>>> also write it as the MESA test does since the second subcomponent
>>>>>> is not specified. I'm not very knowledgeable about HL7 though, so
>>>>>> does anyone know if one or both are correct?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> thanks,
>>>>>> Jesse
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>
>
|
|
|
| Re: MESA test 11350 bridge problem [message #582251 is a reply to message #35147] |
Thu, 18 October 2007 16:32 |
Jesse Pangburn
Messages: 166
Registered: July 2009 |
Senior Member |
|
|
Thanks for the link to the flyspray tracking system. I submitted a bug
for this problem.
thanks,
Jesse
Sarah Knoop wrote:
> Thanks for the update Jesse,
> I think the MESA folks are still scrambling to get things set up. I'm
> sure they are behind on email as well. If you can additionally submit a
> bug to the MESA bug tracking system (flyspray), then I think you've done
> the most you can do at this time.
> Thanks for letting the community know,
> - Sarah
> Jesse Pangburn wrote:
>> Steve never replied to my email, but he marked my test as correct and
>> put a note that said the query was ok. I don't know if he plans on
>> fixing the mesa tests or just eyeballing this test result and verifying
>> on a case by case basis.
>> At any rate, other folks using the bridge who get this test wrong
>> shouldn't worry. Just submit your result showing the error, and add a
>> comment if you like that you believe your query to be correct. Your
>> test result should show something like the following, if there are other
>> problems then you should correct those as this should be the only
>> problem on this test:
>> ERR: Test value: @PID.5.1^MOORE~@PID.7.1^19380224
>> ERR: MESA value: @PID.5.1^MOORE~@PID.7^19380224
>>
>> Jesse
>>
>> Sarah Knoop wrote:
>>
>>> Mesa Tests have a bug tracking system to communicate problems to. The
>>> links to this can be found on our OHF Connectathon 2008 Wiki.
>>
>>
>>> http://wiki.eclipse.org/IHE_Connectathon_2008#MESA_Tests
>>
>>
>>> This is the best way to communicate problems to the Mesa test officials.
>>> - Sarah
>>
>>
>>> Sondra Renly wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hey,
>>>>
>>>> First, its not common to hit problems in MESA. When you do hit a
>>>> problem, it's good to hit the newsgroup to see what others have done.
>>>> Once we get agreement on a difference, we submit our results with
>>>> comments about the difference. Steve is very good about working
>>>> through any issues that do arise. It may not result in changing MESA,
>>>> but accepting the differences. And the follow-up is likely a CP that
>>>> improves the language for consistency - like the PID-7-1 issue.
>>>>
>>>> The bridge (and plugins) both support a pix/pdq "other" option that
>>>> allow you to directly specify a segment-field to give you full
>>>> opportunity to add beyond the "english-translated-api". For example:
>>>>
>>>> pdq plugin: msg.addOptionalDemographicSearch(path, data);
>>>> pix plugin: msg.setField("PID-19", "444-70-9999");
>>>>
>>>> bridge: see org.eclipse.ohf.bridge.ws > src_tests >
>>>> org.eclipse.ohf.bridge.ws.tests.mesa > MesaUtils.java
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sondra
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Jesse Pangburn wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Sondra,
>>>>> I knew enough to know that the bridge message was correct because it
>>>>> was precise, but not enough to tell whether the MESA version was
>>>>> acceptable too or not.
>>>>>
>>>>> So what are you guys doing for the MESA test? Is Steve going to fix
>>>>> this in the test itself? Do you just submit the grade_11350.txt
>>>>> showing that it's incorrect and add the comment that the test is wrong?
>>>>>
>>>>> thanks,
>>>>> Jesse
>>>>>
>>>>> Sondra Renly wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Jesse,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Please reference this bugzilla report:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=204190
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> The quick summary is that MESA last year was inconsistent and that
>>>>>> there is a CP this year to help clarify the language. One needs to
>>>>>> be precise when multiple subcomponents exist, as applies in last
>>>>>> name and dob.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Sondra
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Jesse Pangburn wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>> I'm having trouble with MESA test 11350 using the bridge. It's a
>>>>>>> patient demographics query where you're supposed to query on the
>>>>>>> patient's last name and their date of birth. In the web service
>>>>>>> request I send to the bridge, here's the relevant portions:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <tns2:patientDateOfBirth>19380224</tns2:patientDateOfBirth >
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> <tns2:patientName>
>>>>>>> <tns2:familyName>MOORE</tns2:familyName>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In the QPD-3 "demographics field" of the HL7 message the bridge
>>>>>>> sends, there is the value:
>>>>>>> @PID.5.1^MOORE~@PID.7.1^19380224
>>>>>>> The MESA eval script says this is wrong, that the value should be:
>>>>>>> @PID.5.1^MOORE~@PID.7^19380224
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In the HL7 2.5 spec, the PID segment's Date Of Birth field has two
>>>>>>> subcomponents. The time and the precision. So I think the
>>>>>>> message the bridge is sending is correct, but I think you could
>>>>>>> also write it as the MESA test does since the second subcomponent
>>>>>>> is not specified. I'm not very knowledgeable about HL7 though, so
>>>>>>> does anyone know if one or both are correct?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> thanks,
>>>>>>> Jesse
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>
>>
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Fri Apr 19 14:48:56 GMT 2024
Powered by FUDForum. Page generated in 0.03140 seconds |
] 
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
