Draft requirements document for transport protocol

[Dennis Ballance]

All,

 

I have put onto the Google Drive a draft requirements document for transport protocol.  As discussed, it is a technology-independent document. Since there are multiple viable means of transporting said document, VRRS does not wish to lock out or promote any one vendor or implementation. There are obvious benefits to the industry in adopting a single transport mechanism, but that is a decision that needs to be made by the stakeholders. VRRS is happy to provide the forum for that discussion, if that would be of interest.

 

In the meantime, this set of requirements should help potential implementors decide which mechanism(s) they prefer, by giving them some criteria on which to judge the offering.

 

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1T3s7ePmUk8boXqgumAJM1DgeIZvdBk7cvXn584m4pwE/edit#heading=h.daa9pjt51p2z

 

Please review and add comments.

 

--Dennis

 

[Stuart Turner]

I took a first-pass at refining some of the content in this document (thanks or starting this Dennis) and will continue to work on it.

I've divided the sections (e.g. privacy, confidentiality, security, integrity) into a broader definitional (background) statement for continuity and then a requirement (foreground) section. I hope this helps to clearly separate how each are different and to especially define the scope of responsibility. 

I took the liberty to essentially (and loosely) say that privacy statements (conceptual?) are up to the veterinary community (patient/client advocates, organizations) and are outside the bounds of VRRS. 

Confidentiality assertions (logical?) are however directly under the responsibility of VRRS requirements because VRRS needs to support and expose the semantics of confidentiality assertions that match the privacy statements as they are variably defined or required. This could include confidentiality applied to an entire document or more granularly to subsections within it.

Security I've cautiously scoped to implementation (developers/vendors) with general suggestions about their methods. We will need to decide to how explicit or specific these requirements should be. The specific implementation methods cross-cut to best practices in the industry and will inherently change over time. This is prior art and nothing new for VRRS to define beyond being clear about the more robust requirements and best-practices for clinical document exchange, reuse, and retention (e.g. digital signatures, attestation, non-repudiation, etc.)

~ Stuart

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Veterinary Radiology Report Integration Work Group" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to vrrs+uns...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

[Stuart Turner]

Can anyone on this list involved in clinical artifact exchange, share the privacy/confidentiality/security challenges  you are facing? 

Are your clients concerned about or demanding specific solutions to assuage privacy concerns of veterinary health data?

Thanks,

~ Stuart

[Stuart Turner]

Everyone:

Just a reminder about tomorrow's (18 July 2013) recurring VRRS meeting at 10:00 am PDT

Dennis has a conflict and will likely not be able to attend, or may at least arrive later in the call, so I'll be helping to facilitate the discussion. 

The agenda will be a continuation of describing the VRRS exchange/transport criteria or logical requirements in the document mentioned below.

URL: https://global.gotomeeting.com/meeting/join/234719277

Use your microphone and speakers (VoIP) - a headset is recommended. 

Or, call in using your telephone.

United States: +1 (773) 897-3016

Access Code: 234-719-277

Audio PIN: Shown after joining the meeting

Meeting ID: 234-719-277

Thanks,

~ Stuart Turner