In this paper, we classify conformance testing into interface .... specification Finite State Machine (FSM) operation errors, i.e. ... analytic power of the test case becomes greater. A finest ... N6. NN1. NN0. Tester A. IUT A. IUT B. Tester B. Teste
between major CAD systems, and other design tools, there is an expectation, supported by compliance testing, that semantically consistent data will flow across the project team. This assumption is .... Step 2: Load Schema and IFC models.
programming language nesC [12] that builds component ab- stractions on top of standard C. ..... download links, can be found at: http://www.sics.se/contiki/ and.
ABSTRACT. Current Enterprise Architecture (EA) models provide little ..... Organization Chart .... The creation of a National Health Information Network (NHIN).
Working with Microsoft's product groups, we began to appreciate how important ... dark and at present overwhelming part of software development into an.
This research was carried out as part of the EU FP6 project Credo: Modeling and analysis of evolutionary structures for distributed services (IST-33826).
BPEL [1] is a business process description language ... is organized as follow: Section 2 introduces BPEL; ..... open.org/wsbpel/2.0/wsbpel-v2.0.pdf,2007.
Abstract We present and compare different notions of conformance testing based
... (ioco) [9,10] to an industrial embedded system from the banking domain [1].
Furthermore, Internet applications are request-response based where window based .... which means that the internal state of applications is not known in the model. Finally, we focus on ... to the application are the initial request which models the
speci cation of 188-220, and gives examples of errors ..... 1~16 dest addr*, Type 2 connection status) ... for the Network layer has 7,150 lines of code, de ning .... good set of test scripts should at least check those ..... e7 e5 e6 e7 e6 e7 e7 e11
Jan 23, 2005 - language descriptions, coupled with an emphasis on working code .... code, interrupt-driven timers, function pointers, and various opti-.
The registration process for a new Web Service. 1. The provider .... This suggests the derivation of test cases using a domain-based strategy, known as partition.
XML [2] and sends it to a server using a secure, connection- oriented session. ..... The framework features test automation, shared configura- .... [10] Python unit.
binding operation is performed using Microsoft's Phoenix. Framework [5] to open the compiled IUT and to create a corresponding structural representation.
May 26, 2011 - Blue-Ray versus HD-DVD). ⢠Helps supporting precise and uniform specifications. ⢠Supports user confidence & market growth. ⢠Has a risk of ...
HITCH
Healthcare Interoperability Testing Conformance Harmonization eHealth 2011 26th of May 2011
Status Quo •
EuroRec has good contacts with the EC (DG INFSO) – but no echo in markets or national projects – EuroRec publishes frequently, using the terms certification and functional profile
•
IHE sees significant echo in the market – using the terms connect-a-thon and interoperability profile
•
these mixed messages create uncertainty among legislators, authorities, SDOs
HITCH Project • The goal of this project is to give a recommendation to EC DG INFSO, explain terms and discuss benefits/drawbacks • „Provide EC with a Roadmap on HIT Interoperability Labelling / Certification“ • Funded by DG INFSO • Participants: ETSI, IHE EU, OFFIS, EuroRec, MEDKOM • Duration 2010 to 2011
page 3
HITCH Roadmap
page 4
EuroRec • Functional Profiles from a thesaurus of potential functional statements about an EHR system • Parallel to ISO 10781 (HL7 EHR Functional profile) • Issue: EHR projects are integration projects: but functional profiles do not help in integration but rather in QS and project controlling. • No echo in the market, confusion among authorities
page 5
IHE • Vendors and users define workflows in Integration Profiles • Technical committees publish Transaction Specifications for free implementation • Vendors demonstrate voluntary interoperability towards such Profiles during connect-a-thons • Users select products based on connect-a-thon (vendor) or Integration Statements (product) • iterated improvements, enhancement, innovation page 6
Outcome 1: Quality System HITCH recommends to introduce a strict QMS for each labelling scheme, which asks standard users to • Write profiles based on existing standards • Label products against profiles • Use interoperability specifications in RFPs HITCH also points at the importance of supporting the tools and test specifications required for systematic testing
page 7
Outcome 2: Explanation HITCH acknowledges that 3rd party certification • Has helped with innovation while markets are unstable / fragmented • Avoids « standard stand-off » (eg. Blue-Ray versus HD-DVD) • Helps supporting precise and uniform specifications • Supports user confidence & market growth • Has a risk of «label sclerosis»: if markets can’t get rid of «old label certification» A current example is WiMax vs. LTE, while GSM is an established label, where certification would only create obstacles.
page 8
Outcome 3: Discussion Approach Granting organisation Evaluation of the tests
Testing organisation
Third Party Accredited
Not accredited
Third Party Granting organ.
Self testing with an External Reference Accredited
Not accredited
External Reference Self
SelfAssessment None Self
Self Self
Recognised organ.
Result
Certificate
Label
Subcontractor
Subcontractor
Certificate
Label
Document
page 9
Outcome 4: Process European Level Ehealth Governance body (TBD) Recognises
Test tools and Test cases as reference
Catalog of Profiles Used to develop
Testing and evaluation
Used at
Project Level Project Selection of Profiles Extension specifications
Selection of tools and Test cases as reference Specific Test tools and test cases
Specific profiles HITCH - Healthcare Interoperability Testing and Conformance Harmonisation
Testing and evaluation
page 10
Outcome 5: Roadmap 1. Drive adoption of HITCH proposed interoperability QMS and guidelines to interoperability testing processes. Improve with usage. 2. Adoption of profiles at the European level written in a comprehensive interoperability technical framework . Describes use cases 3. Drive closure of key gaps in interoperability testing tools building consistent test tools upon a shared management platform tool and methodology. This requires that most EU countries recognize and adopt consistent profiles (tools reuse). 4. Further encourage collaboration between the functionality-focused and the interoperability-focused testing/labelling initiatives to document “relationship between criteria”. 5. Keep flexibility across the three proposed labelling/certification schemes to facilitate evolution (reduce costs as different segments of eHealth market mature and avoid to legislate or regulate specific schemes). 6. Certification or QL will be valid among countries for the European profiles. Adopt common processes, tools and QMS at the national level.
page 11 HITCH - Healthcare Interoperability Testing and Conformance Harmonisation
