2.6 Diagrams and Examples

The following diagrams illustrate the six accepted MAP Framework objectives using the scenarios, activities, and coverage analysis in Sections 2.4 and 2.5. They complement Figures 2-1 through 2-3, which establish business and technical actor relationships. These conceptual illustrations do not assert compatibility of any RTC GenTXDef absent the evaluation described in Section 2.4.2.

2.6.1 O1 — Establish a common Use Case Foundation

This diagram needs to pictorially represent the two part MAP Use Case Framework to show the common structure for the Use Case Summary with explicit headings, and common framework for every transaction with Transaction Entities, Transaction Participant Roles, Technical Actors, and Transaction Payloads, for each Transaction.

Figure 2-4. O1 — MAP Use Case Framework

2.6.2 O2 — Reusable transaction behaviors

This diagram needs to show how generalized TXs in the RTC can be used and specialized in a Use Case Guide (with the same name) and how TXs defined in a UC IG could be generalized as brought into the RTC for future use.

Figure 2-5. O2 — Reusable transaction catalog

2.6.3 O3 — Endpoint capability discovery

This diagram needs to show the MAP Endpoint Capability Framework defines the needed human readable information to make available so that others can know what an endpoint is established to support and optionally how to express that in machine readable format. Additionally the diagram needs to show how the url to the endpoint capability statement is carried in the DirectTrust Aggregated Directory for each endpoint listed.

Figure 2-6. O3 — Endpoint capability discovery

2.6.4 O4 — Improve information usability and processability

This may be one diagram or multiple. It needs to show

Requirements for all transactions to support human readability in the message body and carried in the structured package.

Option to request a workflow-status report to be returned to indicate if the transaction’s payload was accepted into the intended workflow or not.

Guidance provided on Provenance Responsibilities across an information exchange transaction and how to include relevant Provenance attestations to accompany the transaction.

Figure 2-7. O4 — Usability and outcomes

2.6.5 O5 — Support progressive interoperability

Diagram to show Minimally structured documents

Figure 2-8. O5 — Progressive interoperability

2.6.6 O6 — Support clear testable implementation expectations

Diagram needs to show how the MAP Transaction Framework includes cardinality and conformance verbs to establish clear implementer requirements.

Figure 2-9. O6 — Requirements traceability