Technical Chair: |
John
Quinn |
This
document contains the specifications for Version 2.4 of the Health Level Seven
(HL7) Standard for electronic data exchange in all healthcare environments,
with special emphasis on inpatient acute care facilities (i.e., hospitals). It
summarizes the work of a committee of healthcare providers (i.e., users),
vendors and consultants established in March 1987 on the occasion of a
conference hosted by Dr. Sam Schultz at the Hospital of the University of
Pennsylvania. Its participants, who represent users as well as vendors, share
a common goal of simplifying the implementation of interfaces between computer
applications from different, and often competing, vendors. This committee,
which subsequently became known as the HL7 Working Group, endeavors to
standardize the format and protocol for the exchange of certain key sets of
data among healthcare computer application systems. Meetings are held
approximately every four months in scattered locations throughout the United
States. HL7 sanctioned national groups also exist in many other countries
outside of the United States including Australia, Canada, China, Finland,
Germany, India, Japan, Korea, New Zealand, Southern Africa, Switzerland,
Taiwan, The Netherlands, and the United Kingdom.
This document is being presented to interested parties. It is a status report
that is periodically published to solicit the involvement of the broadest
possible group of participants as this protocol is being put into use.
Comments are solicited on all aspects of the Standard.
This effort is expected to yield a balloted standard that is open to all
who develop healthcare data processing systems. As the Standard has been put
into production, experience has been gained and is reflected in this latest
revision.
There have been two parallel efforts since the publication of Version 2.2.
First, Version 2.3 represents an evolutionary change over Version 2.2 that was
published in December 1994. Version 2.3 is the result of more than two years
work, and thousands of hours of volunteer effort by active HL7 members since
the publication of Version 2.2. Its primary goals include maintaining
backward compatibility with Version 2.2, correcting errors discovered after the
publication of 2.2, and extending the Standard within the format and context of
Version 2.2.
HL7 is operating under formal bylaws and balloting procedures. These
procedures are modeled on the balloting procedures of other relevant healthcare
industry computer messaging standards organizations (e.g., ASTM) and are
designed to conform to the requirements of the American National Standards
Institute (ANSI). HL7 is participating in ANSI's Healthcare Informatics
Standards Board (HISB). In June 1994, HL7 became an ANSI Accredited Standards
Developing Organization. Version 2.2 of HL7 was accepted by ANSI as an
accredited standard in 1996 and HL7 Version 2.3 received ANSI approval in May
of 1997. Version 2.3.1 received ANSI approval in April of 1999. Version 2.4
is being submitted to ANSI for similar consideration.
HL7, as an organization, has experienced significant growth over the last
several years. Currently, HL7's membership consists of approximately 2000
members in all membership categories and regularly attracts 400-500 members and
non-members to each of its three yearly meetings. As of 1998, HL7 had
documented several hundred healthcare provider organizations that have
implemented computer interfaces based on the HL7 Standard. It is possible for
a healthcare provider institution to use HL7 without actually being an HL7
member through a member vendor or through outright purchase of the Standard
without joining HL7.
The
term "Level 7" refers to the highest level of the Open System Interconnection
(OSI) model of the International Organization for Standardization (ISO). This
is not to say that HL7 conforms to ISO defined elements of the OSI's seventh
level. Also, HL7 does not specify a set of ISO approved specifications to
occupy layers 1 to 6 under HL7's abstract message specifications. HL7 does,
however, correspond to the conceptual definition of an application-to-
application interface placed in the seventh layer of the OSI model.
In the OSI conceptual model, the functions of both communications software and
hardware are separated into seven layers, or levels. The HL7 Standard is
primarily focused on the issues that occur within the seventh, or application,
level. These are the definitions of the data to be exchanged, the timing of
the exchanges, and the communication of certain application-specific errors
between the applications. However, of necessity, protocols that refer to the
lower layers of the OSI model are sometimes mentioned to help implementors
understand the context of the Standard. They are also sometimes specified to
assist implementors in establishing working HL7-based systems.
The HL7 Working Group is composed of volunteers who give their time on a
personal basis or under sponsorship of their employers. Membership in the HL7
Working Group has been, and continues to be, open to anyone wishing to
contribute to the development and refinement of Level 7 Interface Standard for
network technology in healthcare.
The Standard currently addresses the interfaces among various systems that send
or receive patient admissions/registration, discharge or transfer (ADT) data,
queries, resource and patient scheduling, orders, results, clinical
observations, billing, master file update information, medical records,
scheduling, patient referral, and patient care. It does not try to assume a
particular architecture with respect to the placement of data within
applications but is designed to support a central patient care system as well
as a more distributed environment where data resides in departmental systems.
Instead, HL7 serves as a way for inherently disparate applications and data
architectures operating in a heterogeneous system environment to communicate
with each other.
If we consider the multitude of healthcare information systems applications as
well as the variety of environments in which healthcare is delivered, it is
evident that there are many more interfaces which could benefit from
standardization. The interfaces chosen were considered to be of high priority
by the members participating in the standards writing process. HL7's intent is
to prepare a complete standard for these interfaces, built on a generic
framework that is sufficiently robust to support many other interfaces. This
Standard has been put into production and is being used as a basis for
extending the existing interface definitions and also adding other
definitions.
It is expected that one result of publishing this specification will be the
recruitment of more Working Group members with special interest in some newer
and not yet fully specified areas. Some of the areas that have already been
identified are:
a) decision support
b) additional specific ancillary departments
c) information needs associated with healthcare delivery systems outside of the
acute care setting
The above notwithstanding, the Working Group members feel that the interfaces
addressed here are sufficient to provide significant benefit to the healthcare
community.
This document is structured as follows. The balance of this chapter contains a
rationale for developing the Standard, the goals of the Standard, and issues
that have been considered by the Working Group pertaining to scope and
operational approach. It is hoped that this will help the readers understand
the basis for decisions that have been made in developing the Standard.
Subsequent chapters specify, respectively:
a) overall structure for all interfaces including a generalized query
interface
b) patient administration (admission, discharge, transfer and registration)
c) order entry
d) patient accounting (billing) systems
e) clinical observation data, such as laboratory results, that are sent as
identifiable data elements (rather than display oriented text)
f) a generalized interface for synchronizing common reference files (master
files)
g) medical information management
h) patient and resource scheduling
i) patient referral messages for referring a patient between two
institutions
j) patient care messages that support communication of problem-oriented
records, and to provide functionality for the implementation of clinical
pathways in computer information systems
The
organization and delivery of healthcare services is an information-intensive
effort. It is generally accepted that the efficacy of healthcare operations is
greatly affected by the extent of automation of information management
functions. Many believe that healthcare delivery agencies that have not
automated their information systems are not able to compete effectively in the
healthcare market of the 1990's.
In the past two decades, healthcare institutions, and hospitals in particular,
have begun to automate aspects of their information management. Initially,
such efforts have been geared towards reducing paper processing, improving cash
flow, and improving management decision making. In later years a distinct
focus on streamlining and improving clinical and ancillary services has
evolved, including bedside (in hospitals and other inpatient environments) and
"patient-side" systems (in ambulatory settings). Within the last few years,
interest has developed in integrating all information related to the delivery
of healthcare to a patient over his or her lifetime (i.e., an electronic
medical record). It has also been envisioned that all or part of this
electronic medical record should be able to be communicated electronically
anywhere as needed.
It is not uncommon today for the average hospital to have installed computer
systems for admission, discharge, and transfer; clinical laboratories;
radiology; billing and accounts receivable, to cite a few. Often these
applications have been developed by different vendors or in-house groups, with
each product having highly specific information formats. As hospitals have
gradually expanded information management operations, a concomitant need to
share critical data among the systems has emerged. Comprehensive systems that
aim at performing most, if not all, healthcare information management are in
production by selected vendors. These systems may be designed in a centralized
or a distributed architecture. Nevertheless, to the extent that such systems
are truly complete, their use would mitigate the need for an external data
interchange standard such as HL7.
There are, however, many pressures on an institution to develop or acquire
individual departmental applications on a modular basis. One source of such
pressure is the special departmental needs that may not be addressed well (or
perhaps at all) by a comprehensive vendor (i.e., so called "best-of-breed").
Another is the need to evolve the overall systems environment of a hospital
through a series of incremental, departmental decisions rather than in a
single, revolutionary acquisition. These pressures could be met by an
environment containing a comprehensive system supplemented by departmental
systems, or one consisting entirely of separate and discrete systems.
Network technology has emerged as a viable and cost-effective approach to the
integration of functionally and technically diverse computer applications in
healthcare environments. However, these applications have developed due to
market structure rather than through a logical systems approach; they are
therefore often ad hoc and idiosyncratic. At the very least, they do not
possess a common data architecture and their combined data storage actually
constitutes a highly distributed and severely de-normalized database.
Extensive site-specific programming and program maintenance are often necessary
for interfacing these applications in a network environment. This occurs at
considerable expense to the user/purchaser and vendor while often keeping
vendor staff from other initiatives such as new product development. The need
for extensive site-specific interface work could be greatly reduced if a
standard for network interfaces for healthcare environments were available and
accepted by vendors and users alike.
Finally, the lack of data and process standards between both vendor systems and
the many healthcare provider organizations present a significant barrier to
application interfaces. In some cases, HL7 becomes an effective template to
facilitate negotiations between vendors and users but cannot, by itself, serve
as an "off-the-shelf" complete interface.
In summary, it is important that both vendors and users not be faced with the
problem of supporting incompatible transaction/communications structures.
Instead, a framework must be developed for minimizing incompatibility and
maximizing the exchange of information between systems. It is proposed that
HL7 can act as a superstructure in this environment to facilitate a common
specification and specifications methodology. It is indeed both practical and
economical to develop, and commit to, standard interfaces for computer
applications in healthcare institutions.
The
specifications of this Standard were developed in accordance with a
priori specified goals. Future extensions of the Standard should also
support these goals.
HL7's purpose is to facilitate communication in healthcare settings. The
primary goal is to provide standards for the exchange of data among
healthcare computer applications that eliminate or substantially reduce the
custom interface programming and program maintenance that may otherwise be
required. This primary goal can be delineated as a set of goals:
a) the Standard should support exchanges among systems implemented in the
widest variety of technical environments. Its implementation should be
practical in a wide variety of programming languages and operating systems. It
should also support communications in a wide variety of communications
environments, ranging from a full, OSI-compliant, 7-level network "stack" to
less complete environments including primitive point-to-point RS-232C
interconnections and transfer of data by batch media such as floppy disk and
tape.
b) immediate transfer of single transactions should be supported along with
file transfers of multiple transactions.
c) the greatest possible degree of standardization should be achieved,
consistent with site variations in the usage and format of certain data
elements. The Standard should accommodate necessary site-specific variations.
This will include, at least, site-specific tables, code definitions and
possibly site-specific message segments (i.e., HL7 Z-segments).
d) the Standard must support evolutionary growth as new requirements are
recognized. This includes support of the process of introducing extensions and
new releases into existing operational environments.
e) the Standard should be built upon the experience of existing production
protocols and accepted industry-wide standard protocols. It should not,
however, favor the proprietary interests of specific companies to the detriment
of other users of the Standard. At the same time, HL7 seeks to preserve the
unique attributes that an individual vendor can bring to the marketplace.
f) while it is both useful and pertinent to focus on information systems within
hospitals, the long-term goal should be to define formats and protocols for
computer applications in all healthcare environments.
g) the very nature of the diverse business processes that exist within the
healthcare delivery system prevents the development of either a universal
process or data model to support a definition of HL7's target environments. In
addition, HL7 does not make a priori assumptions about the architecture of
healthcare information systems nor does it attempt to resolve architectural
differences between healthcare information systems. For at least these
reasons, HL7 cannot be a true "plug and play" interface standard. These
differences at HL7 sites will most likely require site negotiated
agreements.
h) a primary interest of the HL7 Working Group has been to employ the Standard
as soon as possible. Having achieved this, HL7 has also developed an
infrastructure that supports a consensus balloting process and has been
recognized by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) as an Accredited
Standards Organization (ASO).
i) cooperation with other related healthcare standards efforts (e.g., ACR/NEMA
DICOM, ASC X12, ASTM, IEEE/MEDIX, NCPDP, etc.) has become a priority activity
of HL7. HL7 has participated in the ANSI HISPP (Health Information Systems
Planning Panel) process since its inception in 1992.
The
HL7 Working Group has met approximately every three to four months since March
1987 to develop and review this specification. The group is structured into
committees to address each of the functional interfaces under development, with
additional committees to address the overall control structure and various
administrative aspects of the group. These committees have the responsibility
to author and maintain the chapters in the HL7 Interface Standard. In
addition, from time to time various special interest groups are formed within
HL7 to develop ideas and sponsor particular perspectives that are not covered
by any single existing committee. If a special interest group's activities
warrant and a new chapter is considered necessary, they may petition the HL7
Technical Committee Chair and the Executive Committee to form a Technical
Committee.
In the initial three meetings, a Version 1.0 draft Standard was prepared
covering the overall structure of the interfaces, ADT, order entry, and
display-oriented queries. Although the patient accounting system was
recognized as very important, the time frame did not allow it to be addressed
in the first draft. This draft was presented to a Plenary meeting of the
overall group in Tyson's Corner, VA, on October 8, 1987.
Version 2.0 was prepared subsequent to Plenary I in Tyson's Corner and
presented at Plenary II in Tucson in September 1988. Since Plenary II, editing
and revisions for Version 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.3.1, and 2.4 have been ongoing and
the Working Group has grown to nearly 400 individuals, far exceeding its
original size of 12 and the following has been accomplished:
a) specifications for the various functional areas have been refined and
expanded.
b) formal liaison was developed with several other standards efforts: the ANSI
HISPP (Healthcare Information Standards Planning Panel) for the coordination of
healthcare standards efforts that has since been replaced by the ANSI HISB
(Healthcare Information Standards Board), the ASC X12N group for external EDI
Standards, the ASTM E31.11 group for Clinical Data Exchange Standards, the
ACR/NEMA DICOM group for standards relating to imaging and other aspects of
Radiology Information Systems, and the IEEE P1157 group for medical data
interchange (MEDIX).
c) the generic control structure was modified, on the basis of comments, to be
adaptable to a wider variety of communications environments and to facilitate
cooperation with other standards groups.
d) a chapter on the interface to a patient accounting system has been added.
e) a chapter on the reporting of ancillary results, clinical trials, product
experience and waveform data has been prepared, harmonized with the ASTM
1238-91 Standard and with the direct, active participation of members of the
ASTM E31.11 committee.
f) a chapter with a set of transactions to support the synchronization of
master files between related information systems has been added.
g) a chapter on the interface to applications that support medical record
functions including transcription management, chart location and tracking,
deficiency analysis, consents and release of information.
h) a chapter on messages to support the communication of various events related
to the scheduling of appointments for services or for the use of resources has
been added.
i) a chapter defining the message set used in patient referral communications
between mutually exclusive healthcare entities has been added.
j) a computerized data dictionary of all data elements and other message
components has been created. Appendix A contains cross references and other
information generated from this electronic data dictionary.
k) inconsistencies and mistakes which were discovered in the previous Versions
2.0, 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3 of the Standard have been addressed and documented in
Version 2.3.1.
l) extensive additions have occurred in the Order/Entry and Clinical
Observations chapters to include data element oriented results, pharmacy orders
and administrations interface.
m) message acknowledgments have been extended to include a separate enhanced
mode that defines the "accept acknowledgment." While this mode of
acknowledgment has always been allowed, it is now obvious how HL7 supports any
environment when intermediaries exist in the network with implicit time delays
(such as store and forward services, "Interface Engines" that perform fan out
services, etc.). Immediate acknowledgments are available to release the
sending system from the need to resend the message.
n) distinctions have been documented between the HL7 abstract message
definition which is purely a level 7 (application level) definition vs. the HL7
encoding rules for converting an abstract message into a string of characters
that comprises an actual message. These encoding rules are actually a
suggested potential alternative where a fully defined level 6 (presentation
level) definition does not exist (e.g., ISO's ASN.1 Basic Encoding Rules (BER)).
This section contains a description of the conceptual basis of the HL7 Standard, the approach to accommodating intra-site variations and evolutionary changes, and the way it has been structured in order to accommodate varying current and future communications environments.
Message
formats prescribed in the HL7 encoding rules consist of data fields that are of
variable length and separated by a field separator character. Rules describe
how the various data types are encoded within a field and when an individual
field may be repeated. The data fields are combined into logical groupings
called segments. Segments are separated by segment separator characters. Each
segment begins with a three-character literal value that identifies it within a
message. Segments may be defined as required or optional and may be permitted
to repeat. Individual data fields are found in the message by their position
within their associated segments.
All data is represented as displayable characters from a selected character
set. The ASCII displayable character set (hexadecimal values between 20 and 7E,
inclusive) is the default character set unless modified in the MSH header
segment. The field separator is required to be chosen from the ASCII
displayable character set. All the other special separators and other special
characters are also displayable characters, except that the segment separator
is the ASCII Carriage Return character.
(1) There is nothing intrinsic to HL7 Version 2.4 or ASTM 1238 that restricts
the legal data set to the printable ASCII characters. The former restriction
was imposed to accommodate the limitations of many existing communication
systems. Some existing systems would misinterpret some eight-bit characters as
flow control characters instead of data. Others would strip off the eighth
bit.
(2) The European community (EC) has a need for printable characters (for
example, the German oe, the French accent grave) that are not within the
above-defined restricted data set. The personal computer market accommodates
these alphabetic characters by assigning them to codes between 128 and 256, but
it does this in many different ways. ISO 8859 is a 256-character set that
does include all of the needed European letters and is a candidate for the
European standards group. Where the Europeans define an eight-bit character
set specification, HL7 will accept this data set in environments that require
it, and can use it without complications.
(3) Multi-character Codes:
(a) UNICODE - When communicants use UNICODE, and all characters are
represented by the same number of bytes, all delimiters will be single
characters of the specified bytes length, and the Standard applies just as it
does for single-byte length, except that the length of the characters may be
greater than one byte.
(b) JIS X 0202 - ISO 2022 provides an escape sequence for switching among
different character sets and among single-byte and multi-byte character
representations. Japan has adopted ISO 2022 and its escape sequences as JIS X
0202 in order to mix Kanji and ASCII characters in the same message. Both the
single- and multiple-byte characters use only the low order 7 bits in JIS Kanji
code with JIS X 0202 in order to ensure transparency over all standard
communication systems. When HL7 messages are sent as JIS X 0202, all HL7
delimiters must be sent as single-byte ASCII characters, and the escape
sequence from ASCII to Kanji and back again must occur within delimiters. In
most cases the use of Kanji will be restricted to text fields.
There are other parts of the JIS X series that support Katakana (JIS X 0201/ISO
IR 13), Romaji (JIS X 0201/ISO IR 14) and Kanji (JIS X 0208/ISO IR 87) and JIS
X 0212/ISO IR 159) that can be used in HL7 messages in the same manner as JIS X
0202.
(c) In the case that a single country uses conflicting rules for representing
multi-byte characters, it is up to the communicants to ensure that they are
using the same set of rules.
The encoding rules distinguish between data fields that have the null value and
those that are not present. The former are represented by two adjacent
quotation marks, the latter by no data at all (i.e., two consecutive separator
characters.) The distinction between null values and those that are not
present is important when a record is being updated. In the former case the
field in the database should be set to null; in the latter case it should
retain its prior value. The encoding rules specify that if a receiving
application cannot deal with a data field not being present, it should treat
the data field as present but null.
The encoding rules specify that a receiving application should ignore fields
that are present in the message but were not expected rather than treat such a
circumstance as an error. For more information on fields and encoding rules,
see Section 2.6, "Fields," and 2.10, "Message Construction Rules."
The
HL7 Standard is intended to standardize data interchanges, not the underlying
applications systems. This means that there will be a wide variety in the
manner in which the Standard is applied in different institutions.
The requirement to support diversity within the Standard is addressed in these
ways:
a) The only data fields that are required in the abstract messages are those
necessary to support the logic of the relationships among the messages or their
basic purpose. Many other fields are specified but made optional.
b) There are provisions within the specifications to add messages or portions
of messages that are local to an institution. The conventions used for this are
intended to prevent conflict with future versions of the specification.
All
standards must evolve as the applications they support change and as a result
of experience using them. In recognition of this, the Standard includes a
protocol version ID in all messages.
New transactions or data elements will be added to operational HL7 environments
as a result of changes in the Standard or due to changes in the local
implementation as permitted within the Standard. It is important that these
changes be implementable at a site without requiring all communicating
applications to upgrade simultaneously. The special provisions in the Encoding
Rules for dealing with fields that are not present or unexpected are very
important here. Because of them, new fields can be added first to the sending
or source system; the receiving system will ignore the new fields until it has
been updated to use them. Often, these rules also facilitate changing the
receiving system first. Until the sending system is changed, the receiving
system will find the new data field `not present' and deal with this according
to its rules for data not present.
Similarly, the HL7 Encoding Rules support changes in data field sizes. Fields
are found within the message by examining separators, rather than by an offset.
Changing the size of a field does not change the procedure used to detect
subsequent fields.
Although the HL7 Standard is defined in terms of the client-server (remote operation) model, its standards are equally applicable to file transfers. One or more messages may be encoded according to the Encoding Rules, grouped in a file and transferred using external media, FTAM, FTP, Kermit, or any other file transfer protocol. Responses may be grouped in a file and similarly transmitted. Chapter 2 provides the general mechanisms for the batch transmittal of HL7 messages.
A
great deal of consideration has been given to the relationship between the HL7
Standard protocol and other protocols. There are three questions:
a) what is the relationship between the HL7 protocol and "lower layer," service
protocols? In strict accordance with the ISO OSI model, HL7 should not
replicate features of these protocols. This can even be construed to require
HL7 to avoid replicating certain ISO layer 7 functionality contained in the
Service Elements.
However, it is the goal of the HL7 group to support
healthcare communications in a wide variety of communications environments,
including many that are not as complete as ISO will be one day.
b) what is the relationship between the HL7 Standard protocol and other
applications protocols? Protocols of interest include the ASC X12 Standards
for Electronic Document Interchange, the ASTM 1238-88 Standards for laboratory
data reporting, the ACR/NEMA DICOM Standards for imaging and other aspects of
Radiology Information Systems, and the IEEE P1157 Standards for Medical Data
Interchange (MEDIX).
c) what is the relationship between the HL7 Standard and various proprietary
healthcare protocols in use today?
The
HL7 Encoding Rules are substantially different from the ASN.1 Basic Encoding
Rules (BER) documented in CCITT X.409 and X.209 and ISO 8825 or those employed
in LU6.2 or RPC. This is because:
a) by definition, the HL7 encoding rules will be applied where the environment
does not include software to do encoding. Without such software, the burden on
applications programmers to develop messaging software that conforms to those
encoding rules is onerous.
b) the encoding rules of these protocols depend on the assumption that lower
level protocols provide transparency (i.e., all character codes can be
transmitted without being changed by and of the lower levels). This assumption
is often not met in the communications environments that must serve HL7 for the
interim. The techniques that might be used to implement transparency in the
Lower Level Protocol are difficult to implement in some present-day
applications environments.
The notation chosen to document the message formats in the HL7 Standard is not
the Abstract Syntax Notation1 (ASN.1) Basic Encoding Rules (BER) defined by
ISO.
Contrary to other high level communications environments, there is no notion of
association separate from the sending of the message from client to server and
the response. This seems appropriate to the client-server model.
Whenever HL7 is applied in a networking environment, addressing will be an
issue. This is equally true when it is applied on ISO Standards networks or
proprietary networks. Although the Standard does not specify how this
addressing will occur, it does provide certain data fields that will be of
value in determining addresses. The fields MSH-5-receiving application,
MSH-6-receiving facility, and MSH-11-processing ID, are located
in the header of all HL7 messages. MSH-6-receiving facility is intended
for environments where multiple occurrences of the same application are being
run on the same computer system or on the same network on behalf of different
institutions or other organizational entities. MSH-11-processing ID is
used where various versions of essentially the same application may reside on
the same computer for different purposes. See HL7 table 0103 - Processing
ID for recommended values.
HL7 does not standardize all values for MSH-5- receiving application
and MSH-6-receiving facility at this time because there are so many
variations in place in existing systems and because different kinds of
environments (e.g., different countries) may have different required code sets.
However, we strongly encourage the use of the HL7 suggested code sets where
they are defined and we recognize that movement toward more standardized codes
is essential for seamless communications.
The
Working Group has given considerable attention to the relationship of the HL7
protocol and other protocols. A considerable liaison effort is underway. This
is described below:
a) ACR/NEMA DICOM. The HL7 Working Group maintains an on-going liaison
with the ACR/NEMA DICOM working group. HL7 and ACR/NEMA DICOM are both members
of ANSI's HISB.
b) ASC X12 Standards for Electronic Document Interchange.ASC X12 is a
family of standards that provides both general and specific descriptions for
data interchange within a number of industries. The HL7 Encoding Rules are
modeled on the X12 standards, although there are differences. The HL7 Standard
needs to accommodate online exchange of individual transactions on LANs. This
difference, and certain applications issues, is responsible for the variance
from X12. X12 has recently decided to follow the UN/EDIFACT encoding rules for
all X12 standards produced in 1995 or later. X12N transactions that facilitate
the transfer of healthcare claims and remittance information as well as benefit
coordination, enrollment and verification are enjoying dramatically increased
use. HL7 has elected to assume that all new business transactions between
institutions regarding the interchange of claims, benefits, or other financial
information are the responsibility of ASC X12N, the insurance subcommittee of
X12.
In February of 1994, HL7 and X12 signed an agreement to "improve
coordination efforts and have identified that technical issues must be
harmonized. Both groups agree to migrate to the appropriate level of
resolution of potentially overlapping work by utilizing user and standards
communities' and anticipated healthcare reform requirements."
c) ASTM 1238.94 Laboratory Data Reporting. An active liaison effort
between the ASTM committee and the Working group has resulted in minor changes
in the ASTM specification to enhance compatibility, changes in the HL7 control
specifications to enhance compatibility, and the development of the entire
Ancillary Data Reporting chapter, developed jointly by the committees and built
on the ASTM Standards. This liaison has extended to the point where both
groups now have the permission to freely use the contents of each others
standards efforts "in whole" within their own published standards.
Some
distinctions are more in the terminology chosen than the actual message
content. For example, the ASTM "sub-field delimiter" is generally used to
separate repetitions of homogenous values. It is called a "repetition
separator" in HL7. HL7 and ASTM are both members of ANSI's HISB.
d) IEEE P1157 ("MEDIX"). The MEDIX committee has defined an
application-level protocol similar in scope to HL7 but built strictly on the
ISO protocol stack, up to and including the Remote Operation Service Element
(ROSE). HL7 varies from this approach by the decision not to depend on ROSE
nor use the ASN.1 BER syntax notation. Despite the difference in approaches,
the HL7 Working Group has regular liaison with the MEDIX committee. The
Working Group has devised a format for the HL7 Standard that is relatively
independent of the encoding rules chosen and easily translated into the ASN.1
notation. The transactions defined in this manner should be directly
transferable to the MEDIX effort, and transaction messages encoded using the
HL7 scheme should be translatable to transactions encoded using the BER. This
should facilitate the creation of gateways between the HL7 and future
environments.
In addition, HL7 and MEDIX have agreed on a course for convergence. This will
occur within the HL7 abstract message definitions. MEDIX has further agreed to
use the HL7 abstract message definitions as defined in Version 2.1 as a
starting point for the MEDIX message definitions.
HL7, IEEE, and X12 are ANSI approved standards developers.
It
is useful to understand both what HL7 is and what it is not. This chapter, up
to this point, represents some effort to give the reader an overall
understanding of HL7 by looking at purpose, history, and some of its overall
features and architecture. It is also of value to understand the "edges" or
limitation of HL7. While HL7 can, and routinely does, provide a considerable
service in everyday use today, there are certainly many areas of healthcare
system integration that HL7 does not address or addresses with what may prove
to be an inadequate or incomplete solution.
Many of these topic areas are being worked on today by HL7 and will, hopefully,
appear in latter versions of this balloted Standard. Some others of these
topics may never be addressed by HL7 because they are being addressed by some
other standards body. Still other areas may never be addressed by HL7 due to a
lack of interest, or at least available energy by its members.
In any case, it is certainly useful for the analyst to understand what these
boundaries are and to then either choose to solve them in some other way or to
merely ignore them if they are deemed not sufficiently important. The
following features listed in this section may well be best served by the
participating applications themselves. However, it is possible to conceive of
an architecture that expects these features to be present in the messaging
standard itself. These potential deficiencies are included to give the reader
a complete view.
HL7
is not, in itself, a complete systems integration solution. The issue directly
addresses the so-called goal for "plug-and-play." There are several barriers
in today's healthcare delivery environment that make it difficult, it not
impossible, for HL7 to create a complete "plug-and-play" solution. Two of
these barriers include: a) the lack or process conformity within healthcare
delivery environments and b) the resulting requirement for "negotiation"
between users and vendors.
There is little, if any, process conformity within healthcare delivery
environments. As a consequence, healthcare information solutions vendors are
required to create very flexible systems with a very wide range of data and
process flow options. HL7 attempts to address the superset of all known
process (i.e., trigger) and data (i.e., segment and field) requirements. In
doing this, it has attempted to be "all things to systems and users."
In fact, there is no one user nor any system that users would elect to use that
would use all that HL7 attempts to offer. This "excess" of features typically
requires some level of "negotiation" to take place between a user and his/her
vendors to come up with the set of triggers and data items necessary to affect
the solution for the user. In effect, this creates a unique use of the
Standard at that site. The current version of HL7 has no intrinsic way to
tailor a pre-determinable view of the Standard for each possible use. Future
versions of HL7 will likely address this shortcoming.
A true integrated healthcare information systems solution addresses an
integrated database, or at least what appears to be a virtual integrated
database. In fact, however, as a practical matter, information solutions still
need to be installed and operated in environments where no other, or only a
subset of other, systems are available. In any case, all systems today are
designed and implemented to process using their own local copies of data.
HL7, to this date, has not attempted to prescribe the architecture,
functionality, data elements or data organization of healthcare applications.
Rather, HL7 has attempted to accommodate all application requirements that have
been brought to its attention by volunteers willing and able to address
them.
Future versions of HL7 may choose to alter HL7's historic approach to these
issues. Recent efforts by HL7 and other ANSI Standards Developers to produce
Data Meta Models have created a framework that both standards and applications
developers can use as a common basis for defining and using both data and data
organizations. Widespread acceptance of these concepts may allow HL7 and other
Standards Groups to be more prescriptive in their approach with a smaller set
of choices that must be made when interfaces are implemented.
For now, however, users should be aware that HL7 provides a common framework
for implementing interfaces between disparate vendors. In all cases, if an
existing application interface is not available, HL7 reduces (but does not
eliminate) the time and cost required to implement an application interface
between two or more healthcare information systems. If a user chooses to
implement a set of homogeneous solutions from a single vendor, HL7 is typically
not necessary nor even applicable.
HL7 Version 2.4 is largely silent about the issues of privacy authentication and confidentiality of data that pass through HL7 messages. HL7 makes no assumption about the ultimate use of data but rather assumes that both source and destination applications provide for these requirements. In addition, HL7 does not, at this time, specifically specify what, if any, encryption method should be used when transporting HL7 -based messages between two or more systems. At this time, HL7 users should familiarize themselves with legal and professional requirements for these topics.
HL7 Version 2.4 does not attempt to support DOD Security Divisions (A, B, C, D) and Classes (1, 2, 3). If a user requires these features, they will have to define their own structures to support these classifications and insure a uniform implementation across multiple systems in an enterprise.
HL7 Version 2.4, itself, does not provide for the enforcement of a provider organization's security and access control policies. There are no messages specifically defined, at this time, that affect the movement of data based on an organization's security and access control policies in conjunction with message content information that identifies the users of the message data and the organization's policies for that user's authorization to access that data. Systems implementors may want to reference relevant ASTM standards and IOM recommendations on this topic.
HL7 Version 2.4 does not, at this time, attempt to address DOD requirement for marking or access control labels that are associated with data objects. This particular method might be one way of supporting both IOM and JCAHO recommendations for providing different levels of data confidentiality and authentication of both producers and consumers of confidential data.
HL7 Version 2.4 does not, in itself, attempt to define or even support the implicit and explicit relationships between persons such as patients, physicians, providers, etc. It is possible that current data modeling efforts by HL7 and other standards developers will, in the future, result in HL7 assuming this responsibility.
HL7 Version 2.4 does not attempt to define typical transaction processing features such as audit trails. A feature such as an audit trail may well be needed to successfully implement both a robust and security auditable environment. This feature could also support verifying that a given action is performed by individuals who are also responsible. A user may decide that these features are necessary in their integrated environment.
HL7 Version 2.4 does not attempt to support hardware and software security controls, nor does it provide means to insure continuous protection of data from unauthorized changes. Such a feature may be useful in limiting access to certain types of data to devices and/or users, based on device type or location. Certain DOD requirements and IOM recommendations may required users to implement these on their own and/or rely on specific applications vendors to support this requirement.
HL7 Version 2.4 does not include an explicit data model or composite data dictionary. However, extensive work has taken place within the HL7 Working Group to produce a data model for Versions 2.2 and 2.3. While these models have not been formally balloted, they are available on the HL7 web server. Future versions of HL7 may also include a balloted data model and composite data dictionary.
HL7 Version 2.4 is silent on supporting the controlled disclosure of protected health information where HL7 is the vehicle of the disclosure across multiple systems in a healthcare delivery system. It is also silent on messages that notify a user that requested information is protected and messages to track allowed exceptions that may take place at the discretion of potentially, but not certified, authorized users (e.g., a physician in the emergency room).
HL7 Version 2.4 does not provide messages to support the tracking of corrections, amendments or refusals to correct or amend protected health information. These messages would support the process to verify, challenge and ultimately correct inaccuracies discovered in protected health information. Users needing such messages may need to define custom messages to support this requirement.
HL7 Version 2.4 does not have specific messages to disclose "disidentified" health information. Disidentified data is data that does not reveal the identity of the person or care provider(s) (either organizations or individual licensed practitioners or both). While it may be possible to support this need with existing HL7 messages, it would create an unexpected message with missing required patient identification.
While HL7 Version 2.4 does support an electronic signature for chart completion transactions, it does not, in general, support an electronic signature that is also tied to relevant applications to insure the authentication of the source or arbitrary health data and a prohibition against the alteration of data that has been electronically signed.
HL7 Version 2.4 does not provide messages for tracking the validation (or lack of validation) of data from its source (human or machine).
HL7 Version 2.4, itself, is silent on the actual logical and physical construction of the patient longitudinal health record. While it is certainly possible to build the currently-identified major components of such a record using existing HL7 messages, there is no formal attempt on the part of HL7 to define just what the exact message sequence and content should be to describe this record. Other organizations such as ASTM, CPRI and the IOM have published on this subject. It is not the intent of HL7, at this time, to formally define message sequences and structures to directly create the longitudinal health record across multiple information systems within (or outside of) a healthcare delivery system.
HL7 Version 2.4 is silent on messages to support the integration of a patient's health record across multiple delivery entities (or outside of) a healthcare delivery system. This would also include messages to insure central control and integrity of information that was "merged" between multiple delivery entities.
While HL7 Version 2.4 makes significant use of time and date stamped data, it does not support a set of transactions to insure that synchronization of the electronic clocks with the various computer systems of the enterprise's heterogeneous computing environment.
HL7 Version 2.4 makes no attempt to provide messages that could support the coordination of database activities across multiple information systems in a heterogeneous computing environment. Users who want to operate their multiple systems as a distributed database environment must provide their own message support or rely on a database vendor's facilities (e.g., Oracle, Sybase, etc.).
As stated in Section 1.8.2, "Protection of healthcare information," above, process and operations variations are a primary barrier to HL7 providing a complete solution. Serious attempts are being made to give HL7 the ability to support operations and process variability in a future revision. At this time, however, (Version 2.4), operations and process variability is a major reason why HL7 is implemented in a slightly different form at each and every site. This includes issues such as business and clinical practice rules, clinical and operation processes, staging and continuity of process steps, protocols, resource/utilization requirements, quality assurance requirements, cost management, comprehensive master file and code tables, etc.
The so-called Interface Engine has grown into a popular implementation and operation tool for HL7 and other message-based interfaces over the last several years. Interface engines, per se, however, are not an a priori consideration in the design of HL7. HL7 makes no assumption about the existence of an Interface Engine at a particular HL7 site. Hence, there also are no defined HL7 messages to directly communicate with and control the operations of Interface Engines. This might be of particular use when the Interface Engine assumes an applications architecture role as a dynamic filter and arbitrator of information based on dynamic rules defined by delivery systems.
As a close practical application of an Interface Engine in the topology of healthcare interfaces, rules engines are becoming increasingly popular. HL7 does not have, at this time, specific messages to define and control the rules that might be dynamically associated with an Interface Engine. This might include, but is not limited to: Create and modify patient therapeutic or diagnostic protocols; Activate clinical or operational processes (e.g., conditional orders, critical paths, etc.); Cancel or hold active clinical processes; Notify appropriate users of a state or condition.
A
number of applications and information delivery methods exist within the
healthcare delivery environment that can be closely identified with the
"infrastructure" that ties together disparate systems. These applications
include, but are not limited to:
Robust and Integrated Scheduling
Point of Service Support
Prompts
Alerts and Reminders
Concurrent Data Surveillance, Metrics and Analysis
Concurrent Decision Support
Outcome Tracking
Tracking of Patient (i.e.,
customer) Expectation and Satisfaction
Problem Lists
These, and probably others, could be well served by the use of healthcare data
during and very close to the action of transferring information between
healthcare information systems. HL7, at this time, has very little or no
message functionality that directly supports these uses of healthcare data.
HL7 Version 2.4 does not provide specific messages to support partial replication (i.e., extraction and subsequent merger) of a patient's demographic and clinical records. This process has been identified by the IOM, JCAHO and others as an emerging requirement for the maintenance and practical use of an electronic health record system. HL7 may provide more explicit support for this concept in the future as organizations such as ASTM and CPRI develop specific definitions and requirements for this functional activity and healthcare vendors start to include this type of functionality within their individual clinical record solutions offerings.
ANSI X3.30 |
1985 Representation for calendar date and ordinal date |
ANSI X3.4 |
1986 Coded character sets - American National Standard code for information interchange (7-bit ASCII) |
ANSI X3.43 |
1986 Information systems representation of local time of day for information interchange |
ANSI X3.50 |
1986 Representations for U.S. customary, SI, and other units to be used in systems with limited character sets |
ANSI X3.51 |
1986 Representations of universal time, local time differentials, and United States time zone references for information interchange |
ISO 5218 |
1977 Information Interchange-Representation of Human Sexes |
ISO 1000 |
1981 SI Units and Recommendations for the use of their multiples and of certain other units |
ISO 2955 |
1983 Information processing-Representation of SI and other units in systems with limited character sets |
ISO 8072 |
1986 Network Standards |
ISO 8601 |
1988 Data elements and interchange formats - information interchange (representation of dates and times) |
ISO 8859 |
1988 Information Processing- 8-bit single-byte coded graphic character sets |
ISO 8859/1 |
1988 Information Processing-Latin Alphabet No. 1 |
ISO 8859/2 |
1988 Information Processing-Latin Alphabet No. 2 |
ISO 8859/3 |
1988 Information Processing-Latin Alphabet No. 3 |
ISO 8859/4 |
1988 Information Processing-Latin Alphabet No. 4 |
ISO 8859/5 |
1988 Information Processing-Latin/Cyrillic Alphabet |
ISO 8859/6 |
1988 Information Processing-Latin/Arabic Alphabet |
ISO 8859/7 |
1988 Information Processing-Latin/Greek Alphabet |
ISO 8859/8 |
1988 Information Processing-Latin/Hebrew Alphabet |
ISO 8859/9 |
1988 Information Processing-Latin Alphabet No. 5 |
JAS2020 |
A subset of ISO2020 used for most Kanji transmissions |
JIS X 0202 |
ISO 2022 with escape sequences for Kanji |
ACR |
Index for Radiological Diagnosis, Revised 3rd Edition |
CPT4 |
Current Procedural Terminology[3] |
CAS |
USAN 1990 and the USP dictionary of drug names[4] |
|
|
EUCLIDES |
European standard for clinical laboratory data exchange[5] |
Home Health |
Home Healthcare Classification System (Virginia Saba, EdD, RN, Georgetown U. School of Nursing, Washington DC) |
HIBCC |
Standard for electronic business data interchange |
ICCS |
Commission on Professional and Hospital Activities |
ICD-9 |
International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision |
ICD9-CM |
International Classification of Diseases, Clinical Modification Manual of Clinical Microbiology[6] |
NANDA |
North American Nursing Diagnosis Association, Philadelphia PA |
NDC |
National drug codes[7] |
NIC |
Nursing Interventions Classification, Iowa Intervention Project. U. of Iowa |
NLM |
Unified Medical Language[8] |
|
|
Omaha System |
Omaha Visiting Nurse Association, Omaha NE |
Read |
Clinical Classification of Medicine[9] |
SNOMED III |
Systemized Nomenclature of Medicine[10] |
WHO |
Drug Codes[11] |
UMDNS |
Universal Medical Device Nomenclature System[12] |
FDA K10 |
Device Codes Device and analyte process codes[13] |
LOINC |
Laboratory Object Identifier and Numerical Code |
ASTM
E31.12 Draft Dec 1990 - A Standard Specification for Representing Clinical
Laboratory Test and Analyte Names Draft[14]
ASTM E1467-91 Standard Specification for Transferring Digital
Neurophysiological Data Between Independent Computer Systems[15]
ASTM E1394 A Standard Specification for Transferring Information Between
Clinical Instruments and Computer Systems[16]
ASTM E1381 Standard Specification for the Low-level Protocol to Transfer
Messages between Clinical Instruments and Computer Systems[17]
McDonald CJ, Hammond WE: Standard formats for electronic transfer of clinical
data. Annals of Internal Medicine 1989; 110(5):333-335.
International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry/International Federation of
Clinical Chemistry. The Silver Book: Compendium of terminology and
nomenclature of properties in clinical laboratory sciences. Oxford: Blackwell
Scientific Publishers, 1995.
LOINC Committee. Logical Observation Identifier Names and Codes. Indianapolis:
Regenstrief Institute and LOINC Committee, 1995. c/o Kathy Hutchins, 1001 West
10th Street RG-5, Indianapolis, IN 46202.<PHONE_NUMBER>. Available via
FTP/Gopher (dumccss.mc.duke.edu/standards/HL7/termcode/loinclab) and the World
Wide Web (http://dumccss.mc.duke.edu/standards HL7/termcode/loinclab/)
Forrey AF, McDonald CJ, DeMoor G, Huff SM, Leavelle D, Leleand D et al.
Logical Observation Identifier Names and Codes (LOINC) database, A public use
set of codes and names for electronic reporting of clinical laboratory test
results. Clin Chem 1996; 42:81-90.
UB-92 National Uniform Billing Data Element Specifications as developed by the
National Uniform Billing Committee, November 5, 1997. National Uniform Billing
Data Element Specifications as adopted by the Florida State Health Claims
Review Committee, 2nd Revision, December 19, 1993.
UB-82 Recommended Billing Instructions.
The
Standard, in its entirety, was edited for technical content by:
Anita
Benson |
Dan
Russler |
Karen
Van Hentenryck |
Mike
Henderson |
Frank
Oemig |
Klaus
Veil |
Joann
Larson |
Helen
Stevens |
Kathleen
Yanik |
Jim
Kingsland |
Wayne
Tracy |
The
HL7 Working Group welcomes comments and suggestions for improving the Standard.
The Working Group is also open to new membership. Both feedback on the
Standard and interest in membership should be sent to:
Karen
Van Hentenryck |
Stan
Huff, MD |
John
Quinn |
Available from American National
Standards Institute, 11 West 42nd Street, New York, NY 10036
[2] Available from ISO 1 Rue de Varembe, Case
Postale 56, CH 1211, Geneva, Switzerland[3]
Available from American Medical Association, P O Box 10946, Chicago, IL
60610[4] William M. Heller, Ph.D., Executive
Editor. Available from United States Pharmacopeial Convention, Inc., 12601
Twinbrook Parkway, Rockville, MD 20852. [5]
Available from G. De Moor, M.D., Dept. of Medical Informatics 5K3, State
University Hospital Gent, De Pintelaan 185, B 9000 GENT, BELGIUM [6] Available from American Society for Microbiology, 1913 Eye
St., NW, Washington, D.C. 20006. [7] Available
from the National Drug Code Directory, FDA, Rockville, MD, and other sources[8] Available from National Library of Medicine,
8600 Rockville Pike, Bethesda, MD 20894[ ]9 Available from James D. Read, MB, ChB,
DRCOG, MRCGP, General Medical Practitioner, Park View Surgery, 26-28 Leicester
Rd., Loughborough, Leicestershire LE11 2AG.[10]
Available from American College of Pathology, Skokie, IL [11] Available from INTDIS, P O Box 26, S-751 03 Uppsele,
Sweden[12 ] Available from ECRI, 5200 Butler
Pike, Plymouth Meeting, PA 19462 [13]
Available from Dept. of Health & Human Services, FDA, Rockville, MD 20857
[14] Available from Arden Forrey, Ph.D., 4916
Purdue Ave., NE, Seattle, WA 98105
[15] Available from American Society for
Testing and Materials (ASTM) 1916 Race St., Philadelphia, PA 19103-1187.
[16] Available from American Society for
Testing and Materials (ASTM) 1916 Race St., Philadelphia, PA 19103-1187
[17] Available from American Society for
Testing and Materials (ASTM) 1916 Race St., Philadelphia, PA 19103-1187


Decentralized Autonomous Organization (DAO) Treasury
ZenCash Treasury Model is an inclusive, provably fair, and transparent economic system with incentives to participate.
In addition to zk-SNARKs, the Zen architecture includes encryption at the node level. Cryptocurrencies rely on nodes to operate, we require our Secure Node operators to have the latest Information Technology and Network Security to qualify for compensation.
Domain fronting is a versatile censorship circumvention technique that hides the remote endpoint of a communication. It works at the application layer, using HTTPS, to communicate with a forbidden host while appearing to communicate with some other host, permitted by the censor.
The key idea is the use of different domain names at different layers of communication. One domain appears on the “outside” of an HTTPS request–in the 9 DNS request and TLS Server Name Indication, while another domain appears on the “inside”–in the HTTP Host header, invisible to the censor under HTTPS encryption. A censor, unable to distinguish fronted and non-fronted traffic to a domain, must choose between allowing circumvention traffic and blocking the domain entirely, which results in expensive collateral damage.
Domain fronting does not require special cooperation by network intermediaries. We identify a number of hard-to-block web services, such as content delivery networks, that support domain-fronted connections and are useful for censorship circumvention.
Check out our Secure Node network
Zen Secure Nodes enable a distributed and reliable cryptocurrency system that encrypts inter-node communications. Zen node communication looks like any other encrypted internet traffic, instead of like Bitcoin traffic. This effectively hides the type of activity taking place, making it less likely that Zen users and nodes are blocked.
The basic requirements of Secure Nodes are:
ZenCash Treasury Model is an inclusive, provably fair, and transparent economic system with incentives to participate.
ZenCash is Money
ZenCash allows for easy transfer of value by using regular (T) and private (Z) addresses.
T addresses are regular addresses and transactions similar to bitcoin.
Z addresses are called shielded transactions and leverage the latest privacy technology to obscure sender and recipient addresses, as well as amount sent.
Balances in shielded addresses are private. If spending to one or more shielded addresses, the value stays private but any transparent addresses on the receiving end will deshield the token and reveal the value received on the blockchain.
ZenCash is compatible with Bitcoin- and Z-derived applications, exchanges, and wallets.


Mapping Activity in Pokhara for Each Day of the Year
hover over the day box to see the number of objects


a work in progress by ian montgomery
home
cultural blogs
technical blogs
about me
my github profile
another link
and another link
hello,
welcome
this is a space for me to showcase my EDA work


What am I drawing?
Draw a picture and let an AI tell you what it thinks!
Upload Canvas
Predictions
animal
symbol
vector
retro
design
business


{% extends "layout.html" %} {% block page_title %} Register as self employed {% endblock %} {% block content %} {% include "includes/phase_banner_beta.html" %} Become a childminder Register as self employed {{formData | safe}} Register as self employed Register as self employed As you'll be working for yourself, you will need to pay on the money you earn. Tasks to register as self employed: register as self-employed keep records of your business income and outgoings pay your tax each year {% endblock %}
As you'll be working for yourself, you will need to pay on the money you earn.
Tasks to register as self employed:


WWE Legend The Rock reveals that he's currently unemployed
by Phillipa MarieThe Rock is easily considered to be one of the greatest performers all time. The former World Champion was one of the first wrestlers to successfully make the move from the ring to the big screen and has since made quite the career for himself as an actor.
This year alone The Rock has starred in a number of headline movies, but these projects have kept him away from his family. The former wrestler recently told Wall Street Journal reporter Josh Eells that he is currently unemployed and enjoying the downtime.
"I'm unemployed, man! It’s honestly been the best, It’s so nice to have this downtime with the family, just taking a breather," he said via Comicbook.com
The Rock recently starred in the Fast and Furious spinoff Hobbs and Shaw, as well as Fighting with my Family and Jumanji: The Next Level. He also recently filmed the latest season of Ballers.
Following a busy 2019, The Rock is taking a much-needed break and enjoying some time with his family, but it isn't expected to last since 'The Great One' already has a hectic 2020 planned.


<linkpool>
The <linkpool>
element defines a group of links that have common
characteristics, such as type or audience or source. When links are in
<related-links>
or <linkpool>
elements, the
organization of links on final output is determined by the output process, not by the order
that the links actually occur in the DITA topic.
Category: Related links elements


Accomplished growth marketer with 10 years of experience. I build a track record of increasing revenues and profits and market share by using my extensive knowledge of tech marketing tactics and growth hacking. I’m passionate about technology, digital product management and growth marketing. My areas of expertise are PPC , Display and Programmatic , SEO , lead generation tactics using lead magnet strategy and social media , CRM automatisation.
Helping and advising startups to generate more revenue by improving conversion funnels
To help the marketing team to grow traffic to the website by designing , set-up and experimenting with growth hacking tactics using online social media, SEO and CRM
Reporting to the Global lead of CRM in order to develop the global CRM strategy and technical infrastructure for B2C, B2B across multiple touchpoints in 21 markets.
Apart from being a marketer, I founded a Marketing and Coding Bootcamp whose mission is to set up coding & Marketing programs for the underprivileged youth and people who grew up in low-income circumstances with low access to technology.


EasyJet plans to trim expansion in 2020 to bolster fares
Airline has bought a batch of operating slots at Gatwick
EasyJet said it will trim expansion next year in an effort to bolster fares and months ended September 30th, Europe’s second-biggest discount airline said Tuesday.
The capacity increase in fiscal 2020 will be at the lower end of an historic 3 per cent to 8 per cent range, down from 10 per cent in the 12 months ended September 30th, Europe’s second-biggest discount airline said Tuesday.
Chief executive Johan Lundgren said in a statement forward book for the first half of fiscal 2020 are “reassuring” and slightly ahead of last year.
The company reported a 2019 pretax profit of £427 million, down from £578 million a year earlier. It said last month the figure would be in a £420 million and £430 million range.
Passenger numbers increased by 8.6 per cent to 96.1 million. EasyJet hasn’t given up on growth and recently bought a batch of operating slots at London Gatwick Airport in a deal worth more than £30 million.
Mr Lundgren said that from today EasyJet will become the first carrier in the world to make all flights net zero carbon by offsetting emissions across its network. – Bloomberg


Hooting Yard continues its mission to raise the tone of the monthly magazine market. From next week, hoping to oust all that drivel like Beer & Blokes and Handbags For Fluffyheads from your newsagent's shelves, we will be launching an exciting new title devoted entirely to the composer Sir Arnold Bax (1883-1953). Issue one has an exciting article about Sir William Walton's attempt to “knock Bax off the map” with his own first symphony, including a special mezzotint reproduction of the map itself from noted mezzotintist Rex Tint. Plus there is a chance to read some of Bax's pseudonymous 'Dermot O'Byrne' poems, a botanical description of The Garden Of Fand, and some swan recipes from Bax's successor as Master of the Queen's Music, that scamp Sir Peter Maxwell Davies.


I have finished my bachelor's degree in computer science with an average of 86.9 from Zarqa
University
in
Feb 2020.
Recently I finished a penetration testing trainee at al-Hussain Technical University. Nowadays I am
a
full stack developer trainee at Abdul Aziz Al Ghurair School of Advanced Computing (ASAC).
I have knowledge of multiple programming languages such as python, c#, and asp.net.
I have multiple skills, I’m a fast learner, a hard worker, a good leader, and efficient in my work.
My interest is in machine learning, image processing, and data science. That made me passionate
about my
graduation project.
I’m seeking to improve my experiences and achievements in both my professional path and my knowledge
on
each thing related to technology.


Issue 6432: Long string properties don't allow to set a breakpoint for them
Steps to reproduce
Open Firebug
Enable the Script panel
Switch to the DOM panel ⇒ DOM panel should list a testString property with a cropped string value.
Click the breakpoint column besides that property ⇒ A breakpoint should be set for the property.
Click the Change property value button above Firebug should automatically switch to the Script panel and the debugger should stop at line 16
(testString = "Now it's not a long string anymore.";)
Expected result
Setting breakpoints at long string properties should work.


Use Agreement for SUMsaraizer
This Use Agreement (UA) is a legal agreement between you (either an individual or a single entity) and the mentioned authors (Jeremy Coyle, Ajay Pillarisetti, Marc Pare, and Daniel Wilson) of this Software for the software product identified above, which includes computer software and may include associated media, printed materials, and “online” or electronic documentation (“SOFTWARE PRODUCT”).
By using the SOFTWARE PRODUCT, you agree to be bounded by the terms of this UA. If you do not agree to the terms of this UA, do not use the SOFTWARE PRODUCT.
1. SOFTWARE PRODUCT LICENSE
SUMsarizer is being distributed as open source web application for personal, commercial use, non-profit organization, and educational purposes. You are NOT allowed to make a charge for distributing this Software (either for profit or merely to recover your media and distribution costs) whether as a stand-alone product, or as part of a compilation or anthology, nor to use it for supporting your business or customers. It may be distributed freely on any website or through any other distribution mechanism.
SUMsarizer allows you to upload, submit, store, send or receive content. You retain ownership of any intellectual property rights that you hold in that content. In short, what belongs to you stays yours.
When you upload, submit, store, send or receive content to or through our SOFTWARE PRODUCT, you give SUMsarizer (and those we work with) a worldwide license to use, host, store, reproduce, modify, create derivative works (such as those resulting from translations, adaptations or other changes we make so that your content works better with our SOFTWARE PRODUCT), communicate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute such content. The rights you grant in this license are for the limited purpose of operating, promoting, and improving our SOFTWARE PRODUCT, and to develop new ones. This license continues even if you stop using our SOFTWARE PRODUCT.
The authors of this SOFTWARE PRODUCT work hard to respect privacy and human subjects data protected by Institutional Review Boards. If applicable, we recommend that the data you upload to the SOFTWARE PRODUCT be anonymized to the standards required by your Institutional Review Board. Do not upload personally identifiable information to the SOFTWARE PRODUCT. If you have concerns regarding human subjects protocols, please contact the authors.
2. LIMITED WARRANTY
NO WARRANTIES.
The Author of this Software expressly disclaims any warranty for the SOFTWARE PRODUCT. The SOFTWARE PRODUCT and any related documentation is provided “as is” without warranty of any kind, either express or implied, including, without limitation, the implied warranties or merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, or noninfringement. The entire risk arising out of use or performance of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT remains with you.
NO LIABILITY FOR DAMAGES.
In no event shall the author of this Software be liable for any special, consequential, incidental or indirect damages whatsoever (including, without limitation, damages for loss of business profits, business interruption, loss of business information, or any other pecuniary loss) arising out of the use of or inability to use this product, even if the Author of this Software is aware of the possibility of such damages and known defects.
3. COPYRIGHT.
SUMsarizer by Daniel Wilson, Jeremy Coyle, and Ajay Pillarisetti is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.


I love any outdoor activities -- swimming, snowboarding, running, hiking and etc. I was a competitive swimmer back in college, and I've been snowboarding for about 20 years now and it's my favorite thing to do in the winter.
In terms of my career, I'm a web developer who's motivated to combine design with programming. I like translation of the UX design wireframes to actual code that will produce visual elements of the application. I also enjoy working with web designers closely and bridge the gap between graphical design and technical implementation, taking an active role on both sides and defining how the application looks as well as how it works. Currently, I'm working as a web developer in northern California.
Feel free to email me about my projects, what I can do for your company, or just a friendly hello.


CapStones and ZebraWidgets:
Sensing Stacks of Building Blocks, Dials and Sliders on Capacitive Touch Screens
Recent research proposes augmenting capacitive touch pads with tangible objects, enabling a new generation of mobile applications enhanced with tangible objects, such as game pieces and tangible controllers. In this paper, we extend the concept to capacitive tangibles consisting of multiple parts, such as stackable gaming pieces and tangible widgets with moving parts. We achieve this using a system of wires and connectors inside each block that causes the capacitance of the bottom-most block to reflect the entire assembly. We demonstrate three types of tangibles, called CapStones, Zebra Dials and Zebra Sliders that work with current consumer hardware and investigate what designs may become possible as touchscreen hardware evolves.
Introduction
In 2002, Rekimoto demonstrated how to track tangible objects on a capacitive sensing platform (capacitance tags [6]). More recent research transfers the concept to tablets (CapWidgets [4]) and demonstrates how to extend the idea into tangible game controllers attached to capacitive touch screens (Clip-on Gadgets [10]).
Many applications, however, require more complexity. Many board games allow users to stack gaming pieces; construction kits involve assembling objects in three dimensions; and complex navigation tasks require widgets with multiple degrees of freedom [8].
In this paper, we present how to create capacitive tangibles that address this by allowing for moving parts and stacking. We build on the concept of structured transparency [2,3] originally designed for tabletop computers based on diffuse illumination.
CapStones
CapStones are tangible blocks that allow the underlying capacitive touchscreen to identify blocks and to sense how they are arranged in 3D. Figure 1 shows one specific block design that uses a 2!2 grid of contacts. The capacitance of these contacts informs the touchscreen about the block’s identity, the stacking height, or both.
Figure 1: Enabling a game of tangible checkers, the capacitive touchscreen distinguishes a stack of two CapStones from the single CapStones surrounding it.
As illustrated by Figure 2, stacks of CapStones appear to the sensing platform as specific arrangements of contact points. A single block of the 2!2 design appears as two contact points. When blocks are added on top, additional contact points on the bottom CapStone become active, so that the sensing platform can determine stacking height of up to three blocks based on the number of active contact points (Figure 3).
Figure 2: Stacks of one, two, and three CapStones appear to the sensing platform as (a) two, (b) three, or (c) four contacts. (the black contacts indicate the number of blocks, the contact marked with the white dot connects blocks with each other)
CapStones “hand down” capacitance
CapStones work as follows. Without being touched by the user, blocks are invisible to the sensing platform. When users place or rearrange a CapStone, however, they touch an area around its side, labeled user connector in Figure 3. Wires inside a CapStone connect its user connector to one or more screen connectors located at the bottom of the block. Thus, a user’s touch causes these screen connectors to assume high capacitance, causing the block to become visible to the sensing platform.
Figure 3: Each CapStone features three types of connectors (here a design featuring 2x2 screen connectors).
In order to allow the sensing platform to sense a stack of CapStones, we add contacts to the top of each block. When stacked, these inter-block connectors link up with the screen contacts of the block on top. Figure 4a shows how we wire up these contacts to achieve the functionality of the blocks shown in Figure 3.
Figure 4: (a) The blocks from Figure 3 were implemented by wiring contacts so as to activate one additional screen contact for every additional block stacked on top. (b) The wiring behind the 3x3 CapStone design shown in Figure 5.
Figure 5: This 3x3 contact design can identify each block as either red or green and can pass down the color of up to 2 blocks above.
Figure 5 shows a larger design that offers additional functionality. As illustrated by Figure 4b, it uses three dedicated contacts to allow the sensing platform to determine the position and rotation of the block. The remaining 5 contacts identify the block as either red or green and hand down the color information of up to two blocks located on top.
Zebra Dials and Zebra Sliders
All block designs presented so far enforce strict alignment between blocks by using magnets for connectors. The following designs are not subject to this limitation but can be rotated or translated continuously.
Figure 6a shows a Zebra Dial. In the shown scene, a user uses it to adjust the brightness of a picture. Placing a second Zebra Dial on top adds a second degree of freedom (Figure 6b). The user can now spin both dials independently to adjust brightness and contrast.
Figure 6: (a) A single Zebra Dial allows users to adjust the brightness of the underlying image. (b) Placing a second Zebra Dial on top allows adjusting brightness and contrast.
Figure 7a shows a Zebra Slider. A single slider again allows adjusting brightness. As with the dials, we can increase functionality by placing a second widget on top (Figure 7b). The combined slider now allows users to adjust brightness and contrast.
Figure 7: (a) A single Zebra Slider allows users to adjust brightness. (b) A second Zebra Slider allows also adjusting contrast.
Slider and dial based on zebra rubber
Figure 8a illustrates the inner workings of the Zebra Dial. Similar to a CapStone, each dial has a user connector along the side and four screen connectors at the bottom. The four connectors are organized in a unique pattern, thereby forming a marker that allows the sensing platform to identify the dial. The orientation of the marker also communicates the rotation of the dial, e.g., determining the brightness parameter.
Figure 8: (a) The inner workings of a Zebra Dial and (b) a Zebra Slider. Block sides serve as user connectors.
Unlike a CapStone, however, each dial also holds a ring-shaped strip that extends all the way from the dial’s top to its bottom. It is this element that makes the dials stackable. It transmits the ID and rotation of the dial above down to the touchscreen, independent of the dials’ rotation. The strip thereby plays the role that screen connectors, inter-block connectors, and the internal wires play for CapStones.
The strip is made of a high-resolution conductive material called elastomeric connectors or zebra rubber and is shown in Figure 9a. It consists of thin alternating layers of conduc- tive (black) and non-conductive (white) rubber and was originally designed to connect an LCD to a printed circuit board without soldering. The material we use (from Top-Bound Enterprise, $20/pound) offers a resolution of 40 connections per cm. As shown in Figure 9b, we can use the material to effectively “transmit touch”.
Figure 9: (a) Zebra rubber consists of alternating layers of conductive and non-conductive material and therefore (b) effectively “transmits touch”. Here we are unlocking a touchscreen phone through the zebra rubber.
As illustrated by Figure 8a, the strip of zebra rubber allows the underlying touchscreen to “see” the connectors of the dial above. The same holds for the slider (Figure 8b).
Limitations of Today's Consumer Hardware
All designs shown above were designed to work on current consumer hardware, in particular the iPad. At the same time, this hardware is subject to two main limitations that limit the complexity of the designs we can achieve with it.
First, the limited spatial resolution of the capacitive sensor requires a minimum distance between the centers of the contact points (1.7cm for our block design on the iPad). Consequently, resulting block designs are larger than desirable and/or limited to a small number of contacts, thus less functionality. Short block IDs, for example, allow distinguishing only few types of blocks.
Second, the device thresholds capacitance. Rather than delivering an array of raw capacitance values, these devices clip capacitance against a threshold and merely deliver “contact” or “no contact”. This is a problem, because:
1. The threshold is calibrated for touch recognition. Blocks can therefore not be detected unless touched by the user. This requires workarounds. In order to distinguish between a CapStone being removed from the surface and the user merely letting go of the block, we proceed as follows: when the platform sees all contacts disappear at the same time, we conclude that the CapStone has been removed. If contacts fade one at a time, we conclude that it is still there.
Still, some limitations remain: when blocks are moved without the user picking them up, e.g., when a user accidentally bumps into the touchscreen, blocks slide, but the touch screen will be unaware of this, so that physical and virtual representations will be out of sync.
2. The device cannot sense beyond a certain stacking height. The reason lies in the way capacitance accumulates. When we stack multiple CapStones, the wires inside of them combine into a single long wire. At a certain stacking height, wires become long enough that their capacitance reaches the touchscreen’s threshold. The touchscreen now registers “contact” whether or not the user touches the end of the wire. Consequently, we do not obtain any information from this contact anymore, which prevents us from sensing beyond a certain height. On an iPad, this applies to stacks of four or more CapStones.
These limitations, however, are platform-specific and will go away as capacitive technology evolves. The track pad shown in Figure 10, for example, has a higher threshold for detecting “contact”, which increases the maximum stacking height to six.
Figure 10: Switching to a less sensitive capacitive sensor allows us to stack 6 CapStones (touch pad of a MacBook Pro).
Analog Capstones on a Future Touch Screen
To illustrate the potential of CapStones on future capacitive platforms, we made the simple prototype shown in Figure 11a.  The sensing resolution of 5mm distance between contacts is thereby several times higher than the non-interpolated sensing resolution of the iPad. This platform is for experimentation only, so we wired up only a small area of 8!4 contacts.
The prototype delivers raw capacitance data, which we calibrate for high sensitivity using 30 mega ohm resistors. This allows us to detect blocks without the user touching them (Figure 11b). Note that this block has no user contact.
Receiving raw capacitance values allows us to distinguish multiple levels of capacitance, which allows us to extract more than a single bit of information per contact. The simple design shown in Figure 11b exploits this. These analog CapStones use only two types of elements: (1) contacts that go straight through and (2) no contact, i.e., simply a blank space. The contacts form a marker that identifies the block.
Figure 11: (a) Our prototype of a capacitive sensor offers 5mm sensor resolution and reports raw capacitance values. (b) A blue block recognized by the prototype.
At the same time, contacts allow the pad to “see” blocks on top, because connected contacts have higher capacitance. To maximize this ability to sense what is on top, analog CapStones use mostly contacts and only very few holes. The larger block design shown in Figure 12, for example, consists of three segments each of which has a hole in a different location.
However, capacitance values are noisy and respond to environmental factors such as the proximity of a hand or other blocks, which limits how many levels can be distinguished.
Figure 12: Bridge made from two 1x1 analog CapStones with one 3x1 analog CapStone on top.
Conclusion
In this paper, we demonstrated stackable building blocks, dials, and sliders for current capacitive touch screens and for what we expect to be future touchscreens. The presented tangibles are designed to provide additional functionality to tangible-enhanced applications, such as tangible board games or applications with tangible controls.As future work, we plan to study capacitive blocks on very high-resolution capacitive sensors (> 100dpi), such as those currently used in capacitive fingerprint scanners.


Emmentaler or Emmental is a yellow, medium-hard cheese that originated in the area around Emmental, Switzerland. It is one
of the cheeses of Switzerland, and is sometimes known as Swiss cheese.
ShareExplore!
Emmentaler or Emmental is a yellow, medium-hard cheese that originated in the area around Emmental, Switzerland. It is one
of the cheeses of Switzerland, and is sometimes known as Swiss cheese.
ShareExplore!
Emmentaler or Emmental is a yellow, medium-hard cheese that originated in the area around Emmental, Switzerland. It is one
of the cheeses of Switzerland, and is sometimes known as Swiss cheese.
ShareExplore!
Emmentaler or Emmental is a yellow, medium-hard cheese that originated in the area around Emmental, Switzerland. It is one
of the cheeses of Switzerland, and is sometimes known as Swiss cheese.


- Actions also triggered through a helper library
- we do not know if/who will deal with the action
- local validation happens in the view component
- Any of the processing activities may signal failure
- error/completion is communicated through the promise,
but this is directly traceable to response events.
- `onDomAvailable` triggers the initial render.


Please find hereby your information for you variables that are needed for the various labs that you are running.
| Title | Value |
|---|---|
| Attendee Name | {{ user.attendee_name }} |
| Cluster Name | {{ user.cluster_name }} |
| Prism Element VIP | {{ user.pe_vip }} |
| Cluster username | admin |
| Password | {{ user.password }} |
| Prism Central VIP | {{ user.pc_vip }} |
| Data Services | {{ user.data_service_ip }} |
| vCenter IP | {{ user.vcenter_ip }} |
| CVM 1 | {{ user.cvm1 }} |
| CVM 2 | {{ user.cvm2 }} |
| CVM 3 | {{ user.cvm3 }} |
| CVM 4 | {{ user.cvm4 }} |
| VLAN ID User Network | {{ user.vlan_id }} |
| Gateway IP User Network | {{ user.gw_ip }} |
| User Network Address/Prefix | {{ user.user_nw_sub }} |
| DHCP Start | {{ user.dhcp_strt }} |
| DHCP End | {{ user.dhcp_end }} |
Please use this form to search for your information
{% endif %} {% endif %}


Absolutely Absurd
"Absolute Power" Clint Eastwood, Gene Hackman, Ed Harris Directed by Clint Eastwood Castle Rock Pictures, rel. 2-14-97 New to video in July
In "Absolute Power", the latest entry into the ever-expanding genre of White House scandal movies, Clint Eastwood and Gene Hackman reteam in an attempt to duplicate the success of their Oscar-winning masterpiece, "Unforgiven". While it is likely that no effort could recapture the critical and commercial praise of the first, the failure of "Absolute Power" largely reflects upon the paths their respective careers have taken since their first teaming. Eastwood, while remaining one of Hollywood's true giants, built upon his introspective performance in "Unforgiven" with "The Bridges of Madison County", another sensitive, mature picture which won critical raves as well as an Oscar nomination for his costar, Meryl Streep. Hackman, meanwhile, has moved away from the types of roles which made him famous as well. However, his bad-guy-with-ideology roles in such underwhelming productions as "Extreme Measures" and "The Chamber" have evinced no sign of a maturing performer; rather, they seem more stale each time out. These two patterns come together in "Absolute Power" with unspectacular results. Eastwood plays Luther Whitney, and aging, recently-out-of-jail burglar who has resumed his criminal activities. Since he's played by Eastwood, it goes without saying that Luther is the very best recently-out-of-jail burglar in the business. In the midst of robbing the mansion of a wealthy political insider, he is interrupted by the unexpected entrance of a couple - whom we immediately recognize as Hackman and an unknown female acquaintance - returning from a late-night rendezvous. When the flirtation turns violent, the woman pulls a knife. At this point, two men break into the room and save the drunken, battered Hackman. Only then does Luther, and we the audience, realize that the two men are Secret Service agents, the woman is the wife of the insider, and Hackman is (surprise!) the President of the United States. When the Chief of Staff (a flustered Judy Davis) shows up, predictable, the coverup goes into motion.  Predictably, Da visrealizes the mistake, finds out about Luther, and decides to pin the murder on him. Thus we have "Absolute Power"'s biggest problem: its highly implausible, often ridiculous plot. And it doesn't stop there. Eastwood is hereafter hounded by lonely D.C. homicide cop Ed Harris (whose earnest performance lends the film a much-needed jolt of credibility), who naturally suspects the involvement of the ex-convict. Rather than flee the country, Eastwood decides to stay in Washington and expose the coverup, unfazed by the idea of taking on the most powerful man in the world. Sure. Eastwood does everything we would expect him to do, and does it well. He gets angry, scowls, furrows his brow, jokes about his age, protects his estranged daughter (Laura Linney) and eludes both the cops and the Secret Service. In Hackman's defense, his slimy-President character really doesn't have all that much to do, as the overwrought plot and overabundance of name actors cut his scenes and lines to the bare minimum. The real bad guys here are Davis in her silly Hillary Clinton-meets-Al Haig caricature, and the Secret Servicemen, played by Scott Glenn and Dennis Haysbert. Glenn, deserving of more on-screen time as usual (see "Courage Under Fire", "Silverado", etc.) plays the one with the conscience. Haysbert's character, all deep voice and sneer, is so ridiculously, cold-bloodedly evil that it stretches the imagination to think that this man would be charged with protecting the President of the U.S. Eastwood's air-tight direction and his and Harris' solid performances give you the feeling that this movie is better than it really is, but in the end, it's a mishmash of too many characters and too many plot-necessitated leaps of faith spoiling the already-iffy soup.
Stars: B/B+ Story: D Script: C
Overall: C
Copyright 1997
The review above was posted to the
rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup (de.rec.film.kritiken for German reviews).
The Internet Movie Database accepts no responsibility for the contents of the
review and has no editorial control. Unless stated otherwise, the copyright
belongs to the author.
Please direct comments/criticisms of the review to relevant newsgroups.
Broken URLs inthe reviews are the responsibility of the author.
The formatting of the review is likely to differ from the original due
to ASCII to HTML conversion.
Related links: index of all rec.arts.movies.reviews reviews


{% extends 'base.html'%} {% load staticfiles %} {% load bootstrap4 %} {% block content %} {{block.super}}
{{neighborhood.neighborhood_name}}
{{neighborhood.neighborhood_location}}
{{ neighborhood.population|length}} businesses are here
{{ neighborhood.comments }}
{{ neighborhood.comments }}


URL:
{Developer:
[
//////
]}
World Jump Demo with WebPanel
Preparing... (only works with VRChat)
page source: https://naqtn.github.io/vrcspikes/jump-demo.html
twitter: @naqtn


I am an Ethiopian born, Dallas native, and an enthusiatic student-of-life. I am currently
a student with SMU for a full-stack web development program. The program includes, but is not limited
to, html, css, javascript, jquery, node.js, and react.js. I am also a BJJ student under Professor
Vinicius at Gracie Gym Richardson. Within the next 10 years, I plan on recieving my black belt in
BJJ. I also dable in gardening. I intern at Dallas Master Gardner and volunteer in a variety of
the beautiful gardens we have her in DFW. Prior to the SMU program, I was teaching Environmental
Science and Art at a Wallas Foundation Funded research site in partnership with the non-profit
Big Thought. In the coming future I hope to become a Master black-belt coding gardner.


Constructor
new MusicMaster()
The root object of this library.
Create a MusicMaster object that points to your musicmaster server:
var master = new MusicMaster("http://www.example.com/musicmaster/");
- Source:
Members
(static) accessToken
Certain operations require authorization. For these operations a valid access token is required. This token can be obtained through oauth and set here.
The access token is global for all musicmasters.
- Source:
Methods
(static) delete()
Does an ajax DELETE request and aprses the results as JSON
- Source:
(static) get()
Does an ajax GET request and aprses the results as JSON
- Source:
(static) post()
Does an ajax POST request with the given data and aprses the results as JSON
- Source:
(static) put()
Does an ajax PUT request with the given data and aprses the results as JSON
- Source:


TO-DO (or not to-do) LIST
Please enter task name:
Enter any task details:
Select priority of task
Important
Not Important
Procrastinate On This
Add to my to-do list
High Priority tasks:
Low Priority tasks:
Procrastination tasks:


--- layout: post title: SeisMac date: 2006-07-10 00:00:00 ---
SeisMac: "SeisMac is a Mac OS X Cocoa application that makes your MacBook or MacBook Pro into a seismograph. It access your laptop's Sudden Motion Sensor in order to display real-time, three-axis acceleration graphs."


Mongrel2 is a modern web server that is protocol and language agnostic.
Build it on most Linux and OSX systems, with other platforms on the way. Get started now.
LanguagesRead more |
AutomationRead more |
ProtocolsRead more |
DesignRead more |
|
|
|
|
| Download | Download | Download | Download |


MyBlog
Title
text
-
Leave your comment
Name
Looks good!
Message
You are set.
Submit form
Your message was sent successfully. Thanks.
An error occurred, please try again later.
Comments
Comments


CRYPTOSQUARE
This is classic method for composing secret messages called a square code.
Please enter message to be encoded :
Submit


Gecode::Int::GCC::VVGNode Class Reference
Inherited by Gecode::Int::GCC::ValNode, and Gecode::Int::GCC::VarNode.Detailed Description
Base class for nodes in the variable-value-graph.
Definition at line 34 of file graphsup.icc.
Constructors and initialization | |
| VVGNode (void) | |
| Default constructor. | |
Access | |
| Edge ** | adj (void) |
| return reference to the incident edges | |
| Edge * | first (void) |
| return pointer to the first incident edge | |
| Edge * | last (void) |
| return pointer to the last incident edge | |
| Edge * | inedge (void) |
| return pointer to the node's inedge | |
| bool | get_type (void) |
| return the type of the node | |
| template<BC > | |
| bool | get_match_flag (void) |
| access the matching flag of the node | |
| virtual int | get_info (void)=0 |
| get the information on the node (either var-index or value) | |
| virtual bool | is_matched (BC)=0 |
| test whether the node is matched | |
| virtual bool | removed (void)=0 |
| check whether a node has been removed from the graph | |
Update | |
| void | first (Edge *p) |
| set the first edge pointer to p | |
| void | last (Edge *p) |
| set the last edge pointer to p | |
| void | inedge (Edge *p) |
| set the inedge pointer to p | |
| void | set_type (bool t) |
| set the node type to t | |
| template<BC > | |
| void | set_match_flag (bool f) |
| set the matching flag to f | |
| virtual void | set_info (int i)=0 |
| set the node information to i | |
Public Member Functions | |
| virtual | ~VVGNode (void) |
| Destructor. | |
| void * | operator new (size_t, void *) |
| Create a new node. |
Constructor & Destructor Documentation
|
|
Default constructor.
Definition at line 602 of file graphsup.icc. |
|
|
Destructor.
Definition at line 57 of file graphsup.icc. |
Member Function Documentation
|
|
Create a new node.
Definition at line 605 of file graphsup.icc. |
|
|
return reference to the incident edges
Definition at line 610 of file graphsup.icc. |
|
|
return pointer to the first incident edge
Definition at line 615 of file graphsup.icc. |
|
|
return pointer to the last incident edge
Definition at line 620 of file graphsup.icc. |
|
|
return pointer to the node's inedge
Definition at line 645 of file graphsup.icc. |
|
|
return the type of the node
Definition at line 635 of file graphsup.icc. |
|
|
access the matching flag of the node
Definition at line 666 of file graphsup.icc. |
|
|
get the information on the node (either var-index or value)
Implemented in Gecode::Int::GCC::VarNode, and Gecode::Int::GCC::ValNode. |
|
|
test whether the node is matched
Implemented in Gecode::Int::GCC::VarNode, and Gecode::Int::GCC::ValNode. |
|
|
check whether a node has been removed from the graph
Implemented in Gecode::Int::GCC::VarNode, and Gecode::Int::GCC::ValNode. |
|
|
set the first edge pointer to p
Definition at line 625 of file graphsup.icc. |
|
|
set the last edge pointer to p
Definition at line 630 of file graphsup.icc. |
|
|
set the inedge pointer to p
Definition at line 650 of file graphsup.icc. |
|
|
set the node type to t
Definition at line 640 of file graphsup.icc. |
|
|
set the matching flag to f
Definition at line 656 of file graphsup.icc. |
|
|
set the node information to i
Implemented in Gecode::Int::GCC::VarNode, and Gecode::Int::GCC::ValNode. |
The documentation for this class was generated from the following file:
- gecode/int/gcc/graphsup.icc (Revision: 3512)


Test your JavaScript Knowlege
To Begin the quiz click the Start Quiz button on the right. Good Luck!
Game Over! Thank you for playing!
Enter your name in the box...
Final Score:
Winner Winner
High Scores
Start Over
Time remaining:
Score:
Start Quiz


3D PRINTER
1
2
3
4
5
Level one info
Level two info
Level three info
Level four info
Level five info
VINYL CUTTER
1
2
3
4
5
COFFEE MAKER
1
2
3
4
5