€¦ · Web viewControl/Query Working Group Meeting Agenda May 2 – May 6, 2005 Noordwijkerhout, The Netherlands. General Editor: Grahame Grieve. Note about Attendances

Control/Query Working Group Meeting AgendaMay 2 – May 6, 2005

Noordwijkerhout, The Netherlands

General Editor: Grahame Grieve

Note about AttendancesThe attendance records were left behind in the Noordwijkerhout hotel (by the general editor) and could not subsequently be retrieved. The actual minutes remain intact but the list of who was at each meeting was lost. Since the minutes list some – but not all – attendees of a given quarter, the names of those people known to be in attendance have been collated at the head of each quarter. Except for Friday Q1, these lists should be expected to be incomplete. See the minutes of the CQ telecons that followed the Noordwijkerhout meeting for further resolution of this issue

Quarter 1, Monday, May 2, 2005Topic: Meeting Overview, Ballot/Proposal Overview, Host XML last 30 minutes

Known Attendees

Doug Pratt [email protected]

Joann Larson [email protected]

Rene Spronk [email protected]

Andrew Cripps [email protected]

Tony Julian [email protected]

Charlie McCay [email protected]

Sandy Stuart [email protected]

Agenda

# Key Description Presenter Action Needed Time

1 Call to Order

2 Agenda approval – this session

Page 1 of 111

3 Orlando Review 5 ( 1- 3)

4 Agenda approval – summary for the week

5

5 Announcements 5

6 Mission Statement Review

7 Decision Making Practices Highlights 5 (7 -8)

8 V3 Ballot Overview 10

9 V2 Ballot status 10

10 V3 proposal overview 10

11 XML issues 30

12 Adjournment

Action Items

# Description Who History/Update Status Area1 20030114: We

need to document difference between abstract specification and XML ITS DataTypes. Andrew H will get list of differences from Paul.

Grahame Grieve

20040105: CQ Telcon: Grahame reported that this is still in progress20040506: Still open – slated for release 220040930: CQ WGM: deferred and slated for R220050124 CQ WGM Orlando: no change20050502: CQ WGM Noordwijkerhout: no change

Deferred

XML

102 20040122: Charlie will Consult with PA (Gregg Seppala) r.e. codes from V2 to see if there are use cases (#80 postal address use)

Charlie 20040506: Still open20040930: CQ WGM: still open with guilt20050124 CQ WGM Orlando: email has been sent to Gregg S20050502: CQ WGM Noordwijkerhout: no change

Open XML

103 20040122: Potential Action: if there are use cases (#80 postal address use), then a harmonization proposal will be crafted by GG.

Grahame G 20040506: Dependent on 4Q1-02 above20040930: CQ WGM: still open with guilt20050124 CQ WGM Orlando: dependent on 10220050502: CQ WGM Noordwijkerhout: no change

Open XML

Page 2 of 111

216 20050127: need to discuss arrangements for XML SIG at May – in committee or telecon

20050127: CQ/XML WGM Orlando: Added. Need to discuss arrangements for XML SIG at May – in committee or telecom20050502: CQ WGM Noordwijkerhout. They wish to remain a SIG. Closed

new XML

217 20050127: C/Q will establish a taskforce to work on how attachments should be encoded in different circumstances.

Charlie 20050127: CQ/XML WGM Orlando: Added. C/Q will establish a taskforce to work on how attachments should be encoded in different circumstances.20050329 CQ Telcon: René reported. Charlie has started the Taskforce. There is a separate email list20050502: CQ WGM Noordwijkerhout: Established, but no activity as yet.

open XML

240 20050328: Apply editorial changes to XML ITS Data Types document and submit to HL7 HQ.

Grahame G 20050328: Item added by Larson, Action Item List editor, based on recent email thread entitled Data types in ballot. 20050328: Email from Grahame G clarifying status: I'm still trying to get time to finish the edits to the XML document, though I certainly won't object if someone else want's to work on themThe abstract data types are in a very stable condition20050329 CQ Telcon: Deferred until such time as Grahame is on the call.

open XML

328 20040930: Produce Implementation Guide

20040930 WGM: not being worked on20050124 CQ WGM Orlando: not being worked on. Underlying negative line issue may need to be revisited.20050502: CQ WGM Noordwijkerhout: in progress. New content has been identified having to do with xsi. This is an extra constraint people want to have on XML instances. This would be a substantive change and would have to go back to ballot. The other approach is to publish ITS as is and put a paragraph in an Implementation Guide regarding xsi.

Open XML

901 20040524: Telcon: Create list of editorial changes for XML ITS Data Type

Grahame G 20040607: CQ Telcon: Grahame G reported that the list of editorial corrections in progress.20040930: CQ WGM: still open. The editorial changes while doing 8 below. In progress.20050124 CQ WGM Orlando: in progress

Open XML

902 20040524: CQ Telcon: Schema

Paul Knapp and Paul

20040930: CQ WGM: In progress Open XML

Page 3 of 111

fragments to be removed from ITS document to the Appendix

Biron 20050124 CQ WGM Orlando: in progress20050502: CQ WGM Noordwijkerhout: in progress

903 20040524: CQ Telcon: Submit XML ITS Data Type document by July 2 to CQ TC and XML SIG for e-mail straw vote closing July 9 establishing the committees’ view that the changes made are not substantive.

Paul Knapp 20040930: CQ WGM: Schedule needs to be revised. 20050124 CQ WGM Orlando: still needs to be re-scheduled20050127: CQ WGM Orlando: Edited version for normative release20050329 CQ Telcon: Deferred until such time as Grahame is on the call.20050405 CQ Telecon: Depends on Item 24020050502: CQ WGM Noordwijkerhout depends on 901 and 240

Open XML

904 20040524: CQ Telcon: Submit changes to XML ITS Data Type document to ARB for binding confirmation if CQ believes they are NOT substantive

Paul Knapp 20040930: CQ WGM: Still open. Dependent on the other items20050124 CQ WGM Orlando: still open20050329 CQ Telcon: Deferred until such time as Grahame is on the call.20050405 CQ Telecon: Depends on Item 240

Open XML

905 20040524: CQ Telcon: Create list of editorial changes to the XML ITS Structures document

Charlie McCay

20040930: CQ WGM: In progress with guilt20050124 CQ WGM Orlando: in progress without guilt.20050502: CQ WGM Noordwijkerhout: List has been made. Under review in XML.

Open XML

921 20040921: SLITS<T>:Add a way to represent NULL values in the sequence.

Grahame G 20040921: Email from G. Shadow: SLITS<T>: add a way to represent NULL values in the sequence.We wanted to add something about using the symbol “\NA” in the SLIST<T> datatype to mean “no value”. This may actually be just an XML ITS question.20040927: CQ WGM Atlanta: Proposal required.20050127: CQ WGM Orlando: Refer to XML SIG. Action item for Grahame to refer.

Open XML

Call to OrderThe meeting was called to order by the chair, Doug Pratt, at 0933 GMT +2. Joann Larson was the scribe. Quorum attained.

Page 4 of 111

Agenda approval – this sessionApproved as modified upon a motion by Joann Larson and second by Andrew Cripps.

Orlando Minutes ReviewCorrection to action item 331 as documented in Q1 Jan 24. According to the report from Karen Van, the XML ITS Data Types has been submitted to ANSI. Doug will make correction and post to website.

Action Items

# Description Who History/Update Status Areanew

20050502: Apply correction to Orlando minutes for Q1 Jan 24

Doug Pratt 20050502: CQ WGM Noordwijkerhout: According to the report from Karen Van, the XML ITS Data Types has been submitted to ANSI. Doug will make correction and post to website.

new Admin

Minutes were approved upon as amended by Rene Spronk; second by Joann Larson (5)-0-0.

Agenda approval – summary for the weekAgenda has had 4 changes. Tuesday Q2 and Wednesday Q2 re-slated for WebServices; Thursday Q2 MLLP, ebXML, Physical Media proposal; Transport Overview. These changes have been posted. There is also an evening session planned for Data Types for Tuesday evening. This needs to be posted.

Approved as updated upon a motion by Joann Larson and second by Sandy Stuart.

Announcementsnone

Mission Statement ReviewThe Mission Statement needs to be changed to reflect orientation to v3. Rene presented some slides showing analysis of interest in v3 as opposed to v2. This reflected interest of developers as opposed to implementers. To be discussed further on Friday.

Decision Making HighlightsRene reported on the highlights of the CQ Decision Making document. Our document is very similar to the PIC boilerplate, but we have have some additional items regarding the handling of proxy votes and new proposals.

V3 Ballot Overview

Page 5 of 111

Document Status Outstanding Negatives

Comment

MFMI -Registry wrappers

2 line items to resolve

MLLP 3 line items

Webservices DSTU yes 99 line items to resolve plus 3 previous. There is an open question as to what CQ plans to do with the original DSTU.

Transport Overview open line items Not in ballot. New version submitted; ballot reconciliation needs to be completed

UML ITS 10 line items - Grahame has indicated that they are close to resolution.

Abstract Transport Specification

In ballot 24 line items -

V2 Ballot Overview Close to resolution, but there are questions for the ARB and John Quinn and a handful of line items to take up next quarter.

V3 Proposal OverviewCharley McCay joined.

An Attachments document / ED.reference and II/Irefer will be available for tomorrows Q3 session.

XML IssuesITS version attribute issue: MnM does not want this attribute to be in the RIM. ITS defines it as a mandatory attribute, but it is not in the schemas. Is this a tooling issue? As a practical matter, can there be an amendment to the ITS >to reflect what the schemas say. After some discussion the committee agreed that the schemas should be updated to implement the mandatory attribute as specified in the ITS specification.

AdjournmentThe meeting was adjourned at 10:36 GMT+2 upon a motion by Charlie McCay and second by Andrew Cripps.

Page 6 of 111

Quarter 2, Monday, May 2, 2005Topic: Planning for next Release of MCCI (30 min) +V2 Ballot Reconciliation

Known Attendees



Grahame Grieve [email protected]




Gaby Jewell [email protected]

Agenda


1 Call to Order


3 Announcements 5 (1-3)

4 Action Items 10

5 Planning for next Release of MCCI

6 Infrastructure Version

7 V2 ballot reconciliation

8 Adjournment

Action Items

# Description Who History/Update Status Area

221 20050128: the detectedIssue CMET should be moved to the CMET domain,

20050128: CQ WGM Orlando: Added. When creating the next version of MCAI, the detectedIssue CMET should be moved to the CMET domain, and not be defined

New IM

Page 7 of 111

and not be defined locally in MCAI

locally in MCAIPharmacy has a use-case for a message that shows all controlActs(+detectedIssue) related to a single order. This can be implemented today as a shared message. If implemented as a wrapper this would require that the tools support stubs with exit points. (transmission wrapper - controlAct - order - 1..n - historic control acts)These issues popped up during a discussion with the Pharmacy group in Orlando.20050319: Open, this hasn’t happened in ballot 10.

222 20050128: Need to create a controlAct wrapper for “event replay”.

20050128: CQ WGM Orlando: Added. Need to create a controlAct wrapper for “event replay”. Pharmacy has a use-case for a message that shows all controlActs(+detectedIssue) related to a single order. This can be implemented today as a shared message. If implemented as a wrapper this would require that the tools support stubs with exit points. (transmission wrapper - controlAct - order - 1..n - historic control acts)These issues popped up during a discussion with the Pharmacy group in Orlando.

New IM

228 20050308: CQ wrapper document format

20050308: CQ Telcon: Joann has an action item from v3 Publishing. They are standardizing document formats. They want to know if we have special needs. Perhaps this should be an agenda item. Their question is: Is it necessary/desirable to have a different structure for the wrapper domains – maybe excluding the dynamic model sections? We need more information about the standard format before we can answer the question.

IM

231 20050322: Seek approval of proposal to reverse the direction of the association between Message and ControlAct, and confirm instantiation in RIM.

20050322: CQ Telcon: Item added to manage the monitoring of the proposal to reverse the direction of the association between Message and ControlAct, and confirm instantiation in RIM. The original action item (219) to bring the discovered error to the attention of the facilitators’ roundtable in Orlando was completed. Grahame Grieve subsequently submitted a RIM harmonization proposal to Karen Van and MnM on February 20 stating: “CQ requests that the following assocation name be fixed in the UML representation

New IM

Page 8 of 111

of the RIM:The name payload on the association between Message and ControlAct is on the wrong end, though the cardinalities are correct.”. In an email to the CQ list on that same date, he pointed out that the current situation makes for an incoherent UML RIM diagram. The correct situation is this: a relationalExpression must have one leftSide SelectionExpression a relationalExpression must have one rightSide SelectionExpression

He went on to say: Regarding the reverse relationships, I propose that the reverse relationships should not be named as they exist in a theoretical sense but not in any useful practical sense.Lloyd McKenzie responded to the email and concurred with this statement.On March 11, Darius K made the same observation regarding the placement of “payload” in the Message/ControlAct association and asked for clarification of the intended XML representation. Rene responded that the current XML structure is:<Message>

<controlActProcess> <Payload

message type/> </controlActProcess>

</Message>This entire structure is called a Composuite Message Type (=payload + 2 wrappers)

232 20050323: Seek approval of proposal to add The EMAUTH code to the ActDetectedIssueManagementCode vocab, and confirm instantiation

20050323: Added by Larson, list editor: This CQ proposal was on the agenda for the Harmonization meeting in Las Vegas in March. We need to track the outcome. This was part of the original proposal #802 which asked for new codes for errorcode related vocabularies. CQ intends to add codes to the ActDetectedIssueManagementCode value set of the ActCode vocab domain.The Emergency authorization override (EMAUTH) code is used by a user to request a temporary override of the normal

IM

Page 9 of 111

authorization rules to gain access to data in a case of medical emergency. Use of this override code will typically be monitored, and a procedure to verify its proper use may be triggered when used.

233 20050323: Seek approval of proposal to add 4 error codes to the AcknowledgementDetailCode, and confirm instantiation

20050323: Added by Larson, list editor: This CQ proposal was on the agenda for the Harmonization meeting in Las Vegas in March. We need to track the outcome. This was part of the original proposal #802 which asked for new codes for errorcode related vocabularies. CQ intends to add codes to the AcknowledgementDetailCode as follows:RTUDEST: Error: Message routing error, unknown destination.RTWDEST: Message routing warning, destination unreachable.NOSTORE: No storage space for message.RTEDEST: Message routing error, destination unreachable

IM

234 20050323: Seek approval of proposal to Add a new attribute “responseModeCode CS CNE[1..1]” to the Transmission RIM class, and confirm instantiation

20050323: Added by Larson, list editor: This CQ proposal was on the agenda for the Harmonization meeting in Las Vegas in March. We need to track the outcome. This was part of the original proposal 806 regarding the dynamic model. Add a new attribute “responseModeCode CS CNE[1..1]” to the Transmission RIM class. This attribute identifies the responsemode as defined by proposal statement 806.4. The attribute is added to the Transmission class (instead of the message class), because response modes apply to Batches as well as Messages. The attribute is associated with the vocabulary domain responseModeCode.

IM

235 20050323: Seek approval of proposal to Add a new Add a new vocabulary domain “responseModeCode” to be associated with the proposed new responseModeCode attribute, and confirm

20050323: Added by Larson, list editor: This CQ proposal was on the agenda for the Harmonization meeting in Las Vegas in March. We need to track the outcome. This was part of the original proposal 806 regarding the dynamic model. Add a new vocabulary domain “responseModeCode” with the following values:

•“I” Immediate (The receiver is required to assume that the sender is blocking and

IM

Page 10 of 111

instantiation behave appropriately by sending an immediate response.) •“D” Deferred (The receiver may respond in a non-immediate manner. Note: this will be the default value)

•“Q” Queue (The receiver shall keep any application responses in a queue until such a point in time the queue is polled)

236 20050323: Seek approval of proposal to Change Message.attachmentText 0..* SET(ED) to a class with cardinality 0..* and attributes id (1..1) II and value (1..1) ED, and confirm instantiation

20050323: Added by Larson, list editor: This CQ proposal was on the agenda for the Harmonization meeting in Las Vegas in March. We need to track the outcome. Change Message.attachmentText 0..* SET(ED) to a class with cardinality 0..* and attributes id (1..1) II and value (1..1) EDRationale: attachmentText is for carrying attachments that are to be referred to from within the body of the message using the reference functionality of the ED datatype, however without an identifier this linkage can only be established in an ITS specific way.Discussion: The linkage between the message and the attachments is semantically significant, and so should be maintained in the abstract data model. As well as following the basic V3 principle of separating the semantics from the technology, in practice this is required so that the reference to the attachment can be maintained without having to modify the contents of the message as it moves from one ITS to another or is processed in receiving systems.The current text describing the use of attachmentText does not indication how the reference from the ED within the message to the message.attachmentText should be expressed, on the assumption that this would be addressed by an ITS. This is inappropriate for the reasons given above. There is a similar requirement for pointers from within a CDA text block to an HL7 class, and providing a consistent mechanism for both would be attractive.Action Items: MnM to implement the proposed solution.CQ to extend the datatype component

IM

Page 11 of 111

ED.reference to allow a URN schemes for this purpose (eg urn:uuid)

237 20050323: Seek approval of proposal to Move the versionCode attribute from the Message class to the Transmission class, and confirm instantiation

20050323: Added by Larson, list editor: This CQ proposal was on the agenda for the Harmonization meeting in Las Vegas in March. We need to track the outcome. The proposal seeks to Move the versionCode attribute from the Message class to the Transmission class. This change allow versionCode to be used in both Message and Batch.

Proposal is motivated by the need to have a versionCode in the batchwrapper, in order for the receiver to know what attributes the Batch class has.Companion to item #238.

IM

238 20050323: Seek approval of proposal to Move the interactionId attribute from the Message class to the Transmission class, and confirm instantiation

20050323: Added by Larson, list editor: This CQ proposal was on the agenda for the Harmonization meeting in Las Vegas in March. We need to track the outcome. The proposal seeks to Move the interactionId attribute from the Message class to the Transmission class. This change allow interactionId to be used in both Message and Batch.

The interactionId is desirable for reasons of consistency; batches (like accept NAKs) will have a fixed interactionID, batch acknowledgements (itself a batch) will have a different interactionID.

Companion to item #237.

Email from Charlie M to Rene: This proposal has backwards compatibility issues associated with it -- is there any overpowering reason why versionCode and interactionId must be removed from Message class -- rather than being left there as well, and being inherited from the Transmission class when that is used? One thing that we have already learnt in the UK implementations is that version compatibility is a big deal -- particularly in the wrappers that affect all implementations.I have not been following the transmission

IM

Page 12 of 111

developments closely but this looks to me like a change that will leave implementations being unable to support existing wrappers with new payloads that require other changes that have been approved in the RIM -- thus making it more difficult for affiliates that have a growing installed base to support the needs of their members in a way that minimises the impact of version change.I have copied this to Karen in the hope that it can be logged as a comment against the harmonisation request and if it is not closed beforehand can be brought to the attention of those voting at the harmonisation meeting. Charlie

239 200409: Create a proposal for the polling message transmission topic.

20050325: Item added by Larson, Action Item List editor, upon discovery of an email from Rene Spronk to Lloyd McKenzie last December stating as follows:In Atlanta you took a CQ action item for the Orlando meeting: to create a proposal for the Polling Message Transmission topic.This to prepare for the introduction of the processingModeCode value of Q. The current polling topic would then largely be replaced by a single QBP query..20050325: Email from Larson to Lloyd and CQ co-chairs: I don't find this in either our closed or active Action Items. Has this been done? Do we need to add it?20050325: Response from Lloyd M: It should go in the active column.

IM

302 20040927: Check for vocabulary gaps in V3 Infrastructure Management.

Andrew Hinchley

20040927: New action item.20041109: CQ Telcon: No update. René Spronk will talk to Andrew.20041214: CQ Telcon: No update.20050127: CQ WGM Orlando: no update20050501: CQ WGM Noordwijkerhout: Andrew wil attempt to create it during the WGM.

Open IM

337 20040930: Split current model and bring forward the result to CQ

Miroslav Koncar

20040930: CQ WGM Atlanta. Item added. Nicu Goga, Andrew Hinchley, Darius Kemeklis, Miroslav Koncar and René Spronk will work jointly on this activity.20041109: CQ Telcon: René Spronk reported that some members in Europe are thinking about doing an un-official acceleration meeting

Open IM

Page 13 of 111

20041214: CQ Telcon: René reported that Miroslav Koncar has created a new draft of the state model but it is not ready for CQ review yet. Miroslav will take the lead on this item.20050127: CQ WGM Orlando: work in progress, the draft is documented in 901. Message Adapter state model is included, needs to be finalized before pub of the ballot.

945 20050110 Guidelines for Attachments proposal status

Charlie McCay

20050110: email received from Charlie McCay to reinstate item nbr 935. entered as new item instead.

New IM

946 20050112 Explore Single set of rules for sending Attachments with v3 messages and documents

Charlie McCay

20050112 Added by Larson in response to email thread between CQ, CDA and XML.20050329 CQ Telcon: This is being followed by the Attachments Taskforce cited in item 217. This is a multi-group issue: XML, IM and Transports. Will be coded as XML.

open IM

I. Call to OrderThe meeting was called to order by the chair, Tony, 11:05 GMT+2. Rene was the scribe. Quorum attained.

Agenda approval – this sessionApproved upon a motion by Joann and second by Sandy; Unanimous.

AnnouncementsGrahame: MnM agreed to a set of new Backwards Compatibility rules for infrastructure artifacts Q1, created by Lloyd McKenzie and Grahame. Infrastructure arfetacts include Structural Vocabularies, Datatypes, the RIM and ITSs. Domain models would still be subject to the original backwards compatibility rules. Whether wrappers are infrastructure arfetacts wasn’t discussed.

MnM requests CQ to determine how “infrastructure version” can be carried in a message.

Motion by Grahame (seconded by Andrew) to add an agenda item related to “infrastructure versions”. Accepted unanimously.

Rene: harmonization minutes still haven’t been published. From informal notes taken by participants in the recent meeting (Sandy and Hugh Glover) we have a good idea of what the formal outcome is, but formal minutes have not been published. Maybe this should be noted during the TSC meeting.

Page 14 of 111

Action ItemsAction item 302 was updated. Most of the other action items are related to Control Acts, they will be discussed again during the general IM quarter later this week.

Planning for next Release of MCCIRene presents the contents of the “Transitioning MCCI to Release 2” document. The document describes the process of updating MCCI R1 to R2. (the document can be found as an appendix to these minutes).

Grahame: wrappers very likely won’t be part of the foundation/infrastructure domains (which are subject to the new backwards compatibility rules). This means that the process described in the transitioning document (introducing new artifacts) is the correct one.

Vote

SEQ

Key Motion Moved/second

Y-N-A Comment

take the suggested approach and to create new MCCI R2 ballot material for publication in next cycle

Rene/Joann 9-0-0

Infrastructure versionGrahame reviews the “Interversion Compatibility” document (created by Lloyd and Grahame) which was discussed this morning in MnM.

MnM discussion: need proper definitions for versions, edition, release.

MnM to CQ: identify (quickly) where infrastructure version is in the message. This is needed so that receivers can check (and generate errors on) if they support the infrastructure version. A note needs to be added to the Normative Edition to notify people what’s going to happen in future editions with regard to infrastructure versions.

Grahame: there are several options:

move versionCode in Transmission, add new attribute foundationVersion in Transmission

change datatype of versionCode from CS to something which covers

change cardinality of versionCode to 0..*

Question needs to be revisited with MnM.

Page 15 of 111

Vote

SEQ


Y-N-A Comment

Grahame moves that we ask MnM to clarify the issue, the relationship interactionversion and version, and what they independently mean. Gaby seconds.

Grahame/Gaby

9-0-0 Discussion: Grahame to take this up. Andrew: from implementation viewpoint this needs to be discussed within a wider scope. Grahame: CQ is concerned that discussion needs to take place within a proper scope. Doug: should be part of MDF.

Grahame moves that we ask MnM to provide a formal interversion-framework, for implementers to identify differences between versions. Doug seconds.

Grahame / Doug

9-0-0 Discussion: Joann: FYI: v3 pubs is also looking at this. Pubs implements what MnM decides. 9-0-0

Action Items


after further discussion with MnM: do we need to make versionCode mandatory ? Required once we have multiple versions/Editions.

V2 Ballot reconcilliationNot discussed due to a lack of time.

Vote

SEQ


Y-N-A Comment

1 find the line-items 63 and 64 as mentioned below tobe considered, and that v3 contains an equivalent to a v2

Larson/Knapp Mostly put their own codes or free text in. move to table.

Page 16 of 111

concept which is CNE in nature. The documentation will be changed to be CNE.Note this would be Persuasive with Mod to change the data type to CNE for line items 63 and 64 to be consistent with v3.Withdraw motion and table.

1a 63 Considered. CP.5 "Range Units" correlates to "Unit ofMeasure (CS datatype)" in v3. The datatype CS is more CNE than CWE in nature. The documentation will be changed to be CNE.

Background: The definition in chapter 2A, section 2.A.10.5, reads as follows:Definition: A coded value, data type CWE, defined by the standard table of units for either time or quantity (see for example, the tables in Section 7.1.4, "Coding schemes"). This describes the units associated with the range, e.g., seconds, minutes, hours, days, quantity (i.e., count); it is required if <from value> and <to value> are present.

1b 64 Considered. CQ.2 "Units" correlates to "Unit ofMeasure (CS datatype)" in v3. The datatype CS is more CNE than CWE in nature. The documentation will be changed to be CNE.

Background: The definition in chapter 2A, section 2.A.11.2, reads as follows:Definition: This component species the units in which the quantity is expressed. Field-by-field, default units may be defined within the specifications. When the quantity is measured in the default units, the units need not be transmitted. If the quantity is recorded in units different from the default, the units must be transmitted.

2 find the line-items 65, 66, 68, 69 and 71 as mentioned below to be considered, and that v3 either doesn't contain an equivalent to a v2 concept, or that the v3 concept is CWE in nature. No further action is needed.

Page 17 of 111

2a 65 Considered. DIN.2 "Institution Name" correlates to "II" identifier datatype in v3. II is CWE in nature. No further action needed. The data type change will stand.

Background: The definition in chapter 2A, section 2.A.16.2, reads as follows:Definition: Specifies the institution where a staff member is or was active. Refer to User-Defined Table 0531 - Institutions for suggested values

2b 66 Considered. ELD.4 "Code identifying Error" correlates tothe AcknowledgementDetail.location attribute in v3. The datatype is SET<ST>, which is definitely CWE in nature. No further action needed. The data type change will stand.

Background: The definition in chapter 2A, section 2.A.27.4, reads as follows:Definition: A code that describes the nature of the error. Refer to HL7 Table 0357 - Message error condition codes for valid values.

2c 68 Considered. PIP.1"Privilege" correlates to the PRPMdomain Privilege.code attribute, which is defined as a CWE. Nofurther action needed. The data type change will stand.

Background: The definition in chapter 2A, section 2.A.52.1, reads as follows: Definition: Specifies the institutional privilege itself. Refer to user-defined table 0525 ? Privilege for suggested values.

2d 69 Considered. PIP.2 "Privilege Class" correlates to thePRPM domain PrivilegeCategorization.code attribute in v3, which isdefined as being CWE. No further action needed. The data type change will stand.

Background: The definition in chapter 2A, section 2.A.52.2, reads as follows:Definition: Specifies the class category of institutional privilege. Refer to User-Defined Table 0526 ? Privilege Class for suggested values.

2e 71 Considered. PRL.1 "Parent Observation identifier"correlates to a II datatype in v3, whis is CWE in nature by definition. No further action needed. The data type change will stand.

Background: The definition in chapter 2A, section 2.A.56.1, reads as follows:Definition: Contains the unique identifier of the parent observation as defined in the OBX-3 of the parent result. The value is the same as the OBX-3 of the parent.

Open items

67 Considered. MOC.2 "Charge Code" correlates to What

Background: The definition in chapter 2A, section 2.A.42.2, reads as follows:

Page 18 of 111

Definition: The code identifying the charge to the ordering entity for the services performed.

9 72 Considered. TQ.11 "Occurrence Duration" correlates to WHAT in v3. No further action needed. The data type change will stand.

Background: The definition in chapter 2A, section 2.A.76.11, reads as follows:Definition: This component contains the duration for a single performance of a service, e.g., whirlpool twenty minutes three times per day for three days. It is optional within TQ and does not repeat.

AdjournmentThe meeting was adjourned at 1230 GMT+2 upon a motion by Gaby and second by Joan.

Quarter 2, Monday, APPENDIX ATransitioning MCCI from R1 to R2

Over the past 1.5 years a new dynamic model has been discussed within CQ. Its main components are documented in proposal documents 806 and 901. The contents of 901 have been published in the form of the Abstract Transport Specification. The contents of 806 will have to be published in the form of new Release of the MCCI domain.

In addition to the above: the material as present in proposal 601, the Batch wrapper, will have to be published

as a new Topic. the changes with regard to respondTo as contained in section 1.1.2 of proposal 803

have to be made to the new D-MIM/R-MIMs. the suggested changes in naming as described by proposal 907 have to be applied; the outcome of the attachmentText attribute/class harmonization issue has to be

added.

The update process essentially consists of 2 steps, followed by 1 additional step once the update itself is complete:

1. Cleansing: removing all non-normative content from MCCI2. Extending: adding new wording/content to the cleansed version 3. Migration by other domains

Cleansing

From the DMIM section Remove the DMIM, and the DMIM walkthru (both are not normative content)

From the Generic Message Transmission topic: Remove all Storyboards (storyboards are not normative) Remove all Application Roles (application roles are not normative)

Page 19 of 111

Remove all Trigger Events except MCCI_TE000002. All other trigger events are for example purposes only.

Keep the 3 existing RMIMs: MCCI_RM000100, MCCI_RM000200 and MCCI_RM000300. Keep the 3 existing HMDs: MCCI_HD000100, MCCI_HD000200 and MCCI_HD000300. Keep 1 existing Interaction: MCCI_IN000002. Remove all other interactions, these are

present in MCCI for example purposes only. To ensure that no domain has mistakenly implemented/referred to non-implementable MCCI interactions ballot 7 and ballot 10 have been checked for references to MCCI_000000, MCCI_000001, and MCCI_000003 up to MCCI_000017. Ballot 10 contains two informational references from the Web Services profile to MCCI_IN00004 and MCCI_IN000007. These will be removed during ballot reconcilliation. No other references to the example arfetacts were found.

From the Message Polling Topic: Remove all Storyboards (storyboards are not normative) Remove all Application Roles (application roles are not normative) Keep interactions MCCI_IN100001, MCCI_IN100003, MCCI_IN100004 and

MCCI_IN100001, remove MCCI_IN100002 which is for illustration purposes only. Keep the MCCI_RM100100 and MCCI_RM100200 RMIMs, remove MCCI_RM100300. Remove all trigger events and HMDs unless related to the aforementioned interactions.

All remaining R1 artefacts will be clearly marked „Included for backwards compatibility only. New interactions shall not be based on this artefact. This artefact will be deprecated in due time.“.

Extending:

Add the contents of proposal 601 (Batch wrapper) as a separate MCCI Topic.

Create a new MCCI D-MIM, which is a version of the existing D-MIM, extended by:1. The batch class and a secondary D-MIM entry point2. A new optional Message.responseModeCode attribute (mandatory in new R2 RMIMs,

not permitted in old R1 RMIMs)3. An existing acceptAckCode attribute (value fixed to ER in R2 RMIMs).4. A new attachmentText class will be added, associated with Message. (the

Message.attachmentText attribute will be set to not permitted in R2 RMIMs, the attachmentText class won’t be permitted in R1 RMIMs)

5. Changes with regard to respondTo as contained in section 1.1.2 of proposal 803

Extend the generic Message Transmission Topic Create 3 new RMIMs: MCCI_RM002100, MCCI_RM002200 and MCCI_RM002300. Change

the association of Message to Acknowledgement to 1..* in MCCI_RM002300 (vote pending).

Create 3 new HMDs: MCCI_HD002100, MCCI_HD002200 and MCCI_HD002300. Create a new Interaction: MCCI_IN002002 (Message Adapter Reject), and a related

trigger event. Document the Transmission dynamic patterns in the form of Topic-level storyboards. Add descriptions of the dynamic model to the Introduction section of MCCI. Add a

“backwards compatibility section” describing the differences between R1 and R2.

Extend the Message Polling Topic: Create a new interactions MCCI_IN102001 (Query for Queued Interactions), based on a

new Keep interactions MCCI_RM102001 RMIM. Create a new Trigger Event. Document the polling Transmission dynamic pattern in the form of Topic-level

storyboards. Add descriptions of the dynamic model to the Overview section of MCCI. Add a

“backwards compatibility section” describing the differences between R1 and R2.

Page 20 of 111

Migration

Once MCCI R2 has reached normative status (but hopefully even before that) other domains should be encouraged/forced to use the new R2 wrappers instead of the (then) for-backwards-compatibility-only R1 version of the wrappers.

The backwards-and-forwards compatibility rules for v3 are rather underdeveloped:1. see Section 5.2 in the “Package Note to Readers”, and2. section 1.5 of the CDA domain

It is unclear if the switch of Transmission wrapper (as referenced by an Interaction in one of the Administrative or Health&Clinical domains) will be regarded as a substantive change, forcing the domain to assign new interaction identifiers.

Quarter 3, Monday, May 2, 2005Topic: UML ITS Ballot Reconciliation

Known Attendees








Agenda


1 Call to Order



4 Action Items 10

5 UML ITS reconciliation

7 Adjournment

Page 21 of 111

Action Items


II. Call to OrderThe meeting was called to order by the chair, Doug Pratt, at 14:01 GMT+2. Grahame was the scribe. Quorum attained.

Agenda approval – this sessionApproved upon a motion by Tony Julian and second by Sandy Stuart. (8-0-0)

Announcementsnone

Action ItemsNone

UML ITS Ballot ReconciliationVote

SEQ Key Motion Moved/second Y-N-A Comment

2 Add support for xsi:nil, repeat comments concerning schema location from XML ITS and ignore xsi:include since no one knows what it is, (subject to contrary advice from Paul).

Grahame/Joann 7-0-1

3 The schema is not normative, and the text will be modified to make this clear

Grahame/Charlie

8-0-0

4 Remove this type from the specification

Grahame/Charlie

8-0-0 My apologies for not taking this out in the first place

10 Extend introduction to further detail why the UML Object Definition ITS exists. Paul agrees to this. Subject to later approval via teleconference when details are published

Grahame/Charlie

8-0-0

11 Accept with modification: add “a part of the foundation”

Grahame/Joann 8-0-0

Page 22 of 111

instead of “the foundation”

12 Use the URN urn:hl7-org:v3/umlits/r1. The URN will change with foundation releases

Grahame/Charlie

8-0-0 Persuasive-with-mod

13 This is not related. The UML ITS is an implementation of the accepted modeling as represented in the RIM and Data types

Grahame/Charlie

8-0-0

4 Persuasive with Mod: withdraw the field in question and add links to the abstract data types and RIM from the UML ITS and link the UML ITS to specific versions of those documents

Grahame/Andrew

8-0-0

9 Motion: Grahame to extend the document in the fashion described and go back to committee level ballot

Grahame/Sandy 8-0-0

AdjournmentThe meeting was adjourned at 15:04 GMT+2 upon a motion by Charlie and second by Gaby

Page 23 of 111

Quarter 4, Monday, May 2, 2005Topic: Host Joint meeting with Conformance; V2 Ballot Reconciliation

Known Attendees






Robert Snelick [email protected]

Len Gallagher [email protected]

Lisa Carnahan [email protected]

Frank Oemig [email protected]


Agenda


1 Call to Order



4 Evaluate need for joint meeting in San Diego

5 Message Maker Demo and Discussion

Rob Snelick

5 Action Items (Conformance) 10

6 Conformance Issues

7 Action Items (v2)

8 V2 Ballot Reconciliation

9 Adjournment

Page 24 of 111

III. Call to OrderThe meeting was called to order by the chair, Doug Pratt, at 1533 GMT +2. Joann Larson was the scribe. Quorum attained.

Agenda approval – this sessionApproved upon a motion by Joann Larson and second by Sandy Stuart 7-0-0). Gaby Jewell and Andrew Cripps left the meeting.

AnnouncementsNone.

Evaluate need for joint meeting in San DiegoContinue meeting but might not need whole quarter.

Message Maker Demo and DiscussionRobert Snelick presented a demo of Message Maker which is a prototype tool developed by NIST and intended for the public domain. Given a profile, the tool will generate a set of test messages either in XML or ER7. This is a follow-on to Messaging Workbench. The URL is: www.NIST.gov/messagemaker.

Feedback on the tool thus far has been very positive. Suggestion was made to update examples.

Action ItemsAction Items


220 20050127: CQ WGM: ask the Conformance SIG to work on a dynamic discovery message for supported features by the receiver (profile ids, application roles, interactions, responseModeCodes)

CQ co-chairs

20050127: CQ WGM Orlando: Added. Ask the Conformance SIG to work on a dynamic discovery message for supported features by the receiver (profile ids, application roles, interactions, responseModeCodes)20050502: Clarified that this is v3, not v2. Len Gallagher has been writing a white paper on the dynamic model which may have some bearing on this item.

Open conform

.

Page 25 of 111

http://www.NIST.gov/messagemaker

Conformance IssuesChapter 2B: Do we need to have consistent terminology for example, regarding value set, code set, table and coding system. Need to discuss this with Vocab on Wednesday.

Action Items (v2)

# Description Who History/Update Status Areanew

20050502: Lisa Carnahan

20050502: CQ WGM: Will provide list of terms

new

20050502: Provide definition for realm

Lisa Carnahan

20050502: CQ WGM

What is the next step with chapter 2B. Need list of changes.

Can the concept of “Realm” be introduced in v2? Defer to Vocab. It appears in the definition of CNE in chapter 2A as well as other places. The term “realm” itself is not defined.

Vote


Action Items - v2Action Items (v2)

# Description Who History/Update Status Area8 20030912: take

length discrepancies for certain item numbers to ARB. Our feeling is that it is legitimate to have different lengths.

Joann Larson

20041214: CQ Telcon: not done20050124: CQ WGM Orlando: still open20050502: CQ WGM Noordwijkerhout: Want to ask a new question of the ARB - see motion

Open V2

9 20030912: Determine format for metadata tables

20041214: CQ Telcon: not done20050124: CQ WGM Orlando: still pending20050502: CQ WGM Noordwijkerhout: Close. At present we do not have a specific instance.

Open V2

200

20050124: Advise John Quinn of length consistency decision

20050124: WGM Orlando. Decision made to make fields with complex data types like XCN consistent in length. This is substantive. Does this mean v 2.7 is forced? If yes, can it be done at

open V2

Page 26 of 111

membership level

201 20050124: Add language to Chapter 2 to the effect that “Instances of messages are transient by nature and cannot be expected by transmitter and/or receiver to be persistent after acknowledgement.”

Tony Julian 20050124: CQ WGM Orlando: Motion approved

open V2

202 20050124: Add language to Chapter 2, §2.8.1.f. to the effect that “It is acceptable to add a field that alters the intent of a segment, provided that the field is conditional on not being used with pre-existing trigger events.”


open V2

203 20050124: For Version 2.7, add language to Chapter 2 to the effect that “CQ does not express an opinion at this time on the restarting of set IDs relative to groups or message.”


open V2

204 Add to §2.A.13.1 the first sentence from the immediately preceding paragraph – in the coding system designated by CWE.3

Doug Pratt 20050124: CQ WGM Orlando: Motion approved

open V2

208 20050125: Bring length consistency for complex data types to ARB for resolution

Grahame G 20050125: CQ WGM Orlando: added. Considered whether to set XCN to maximum length of 3220 for consistency across chapters. We need some kind of cross-domain resolution of this item.

New V2

209 20050125: Add discovered item to add the newly defined message structures to HL7

Joann L 20050125: CQ WGM Orlando: added. Decision to add missing message structures to messages in chapter 5 means that these messae structures will also need to be added to HL7 table 0354 -

New V2

Page 27 of 111

table 0354 - Message Structures

Message Structures in chapter 2 lest there be further negative line items in the next ballot.

210 20050125: Check with the Chairs of OO, FM, PA to ensure that they are handling their chapter 8 line items.

Grahame G / Joann L

20050125: CQ WGM Orlando: added. Rene agreed to track down Klaus regarding the PA items

New V2

223 20050201: Revisit length changes

20050201: CQ Telcon: Need to revisit lengths that we had agreed to change in response to Frank Oemig’s votes to make consistent with datatype definition in Chapter 2a. Graham approached ARB and they thought that the ARB guidelines would stand, would be big change, recommended that we don’t do it. PUBs meeting; Pubs opposed to making the change too. Don’t want this to force a new ballot. 20050208: CQ Telcon: M/M/S Julian/Pratt To leave sizes as they are, and fix in 2.7. 4-0-2

V2

224 20050201: Revisit CNE/CWE changes for substantivity

20050201: CQ Telcon: CNE/CWE - need to revisit the minutes from Orlando from Graham. Want to defer most change to 2.7 but may do some tweaking for 2.6. Prospect of tweaking is making others nervous; need to revisit. 20050208: CQ Telcon: Rene suggested we will research until next week. Doug will do the research.20050215: CQ Telcon: Approved caution note for CWE.1.

V2

225 20050201: Follow-up on Mood code discussion

20050201: CQ Telcon: Mood code discussion - FLUP: need to do follow up from meeting in Orlando per minutes (i.e., logistics of updating standard).20050208: CQ Telcon: Updated narrative approved.

V2

226 20050201: Follow-up on Missing Message Structures

20050201: CQ Telcon: Message structures changes for Chapter 5 could be substantive. Take another look at it and see if we can declare it errata. Some deprecated. Graham has more info. Need to avoid another ballot if at all possible. 20050208: CQ Telcon: Add the proper message structure identification to all deprecated message structures in Chapters 5 and 8.

V2

Page 28 of 111

Explanation: These messages have been deprecated, so no changes have been made. But they are still valid V2.6 messages, and it should be possible to encode the messages in XML. This cannot be done unless structures are assigned to them. So we give them structures.

227 20050201: Follow-up on missing UAC segments

20050201: CQ Telcon: Same with forgetting UAC segment (we forgot in deprecated messages only). Said we can't add them to a deprecated message. FLUP Joann to announce that we will address this on next week's telcon, include TSC on announcement.

V2

Vote


Straw poll of intention to make a change in v2.7 to remove length information from the standard and include it as part of conformance profile. Conformance would add language to chapter 2B as appropriate from chapter 2 or 2A regarding the minimum length needed.

Joann Larson / Frank Oemig

8-0-0

V2 Chapter 2 Ballot Reconciliation

Vote

SEQ


Y-N-A Comment

1 defer line-items 63 and 64 as mentioned below to joint meeting with Vocab

1a 63 Background: The definition in chapter 2A, section 2.A.10.5, reads as follows:Definition: A coded value, data type CWE, defined by the standard table of units for either time or quantity (see for example, the tables in

Page 29 of 111

Section 7.1.4, "Coding schemes"). This describes the units associated with the range, e.g., seconds, minutes, hours, days, quantity (i.e., count); it is required if <from value> and <to value> are present.

1b 64 Background: The definition in chapter 2A, section 2.A.11.2, reads as follows:Definition: This component species the units in which the quantity is expressed. Field-by-field, default units may be defined within the specifications. When the quantity is measured in the default units, the units need not be transmitted. If the quantity is recorded in units different from the default, the units must be transmitted.

2 find the line-items 65, 66, 68, 69 and 71 as mentioned below to be considered, the v3 concept is CWE in nature. No further action is needed.

Joann Larson / Tony Julian

8-0-0

2a 65 Considered. DIN.2 "Institution Name" correlates to "II" identifier datatype in v3. II is CWE in nature. No further action needed. The data type change will stand.

Background: The definition in chapter 2A, section 2.A.16.2, reads as follows:Definition: Specifies the institution where a staff member is or was active. Refer to User-Defined Table 0531 - Institutions for suggested values

2b 66 Considered. ELD.4 "Code identifying Error" correlates tothe AcknowledgementDetail.location attribute in v3. The datatype is SET<ST>, which is definitely CWE in nature. No further action needed. The data type change will stand.

Background: The definition in chapter 2A, section 2.A.27.4, reads as follows:Definition: A code that describes the nature of the error. Refer to HL7 Table 0357 - Message error condition codes for valid values.

2c 68 Considered. PIP.1"Privilege" correlates to the PRPMdomain Privilege.code

Background: The definition in chapter 2A, section 2.A.52.1, reads as follows:

Page 30 of 111

attribute, which is defined as a CWE. No further action needed. The data type change will stand.

Definition: Specifies the institutional privilege itself. Refer to user-defined table 0525 ? Privilege for suggested values.

2d 69 Considered. PIP.2 "Privilege Class" correlates to thePRPM domain PrivilegeCategorization.code attribute in v3, which isdefined as being CWE. No further action needed. The data type change will stand.

Background: The definition in chapter 2A, section 2.A.52.2, reads as follows:Definition: Specifies the class category of institutional privilege. Refer to User-Defined Table 0526 ? Privilege Class for suggested values.

2e 71 Considered. PRL.1 "Parent Observation identifier"correlates to a II datatype in v3, whis is CWE in nature by definition. No further action needed. The data type change will stand.

Background: The definition in chapter 2A, section 2.A.56.1, reads as follows:Definition: Contains the unique identifier of the parent observation as defined in the OBX-3 of the parent result. The value is the same as the OBX-3 of the parent.

Open items

67 Defer to FM Joann Larson / Frank Oemig

8-0-0 Background: The definition in chapter 2A, section 2.A.42.2, reads as follows:Definition: The code identifying the charge to the ordering entity for the services performed.

9 72 Considered. TQ.11 "Occurrence Duration" does not map directly to v3. Fits loosely with GTS and Interval of Time. No further action needed. The data type change will stand.

Joann Larson / Tony Julian

8-0-0 Background: The definition in chapter 2A, section 2.A.76.11, reads as follows:Definition: This component contains the duration for a single performance of a service, e.g., whirlpool twenty minutes three times per day for three days. It is optional within TQ and does not repeat.

AdjournmentThe meeting was adjourned at 1704 GMT +2 upon a motion by Joann Larson and second by Tony Julian.

Page 31 of 111

Page 32 of 111

Quarter 1, Tuesday, May 3, 2005Topic: Host joint CQ/PM/PA v3 Master File / Registry project

Known Attendees


Leon Salvail [email protected]


June Rosploch [email protected]

Louise Brown [email protected]

Bob Grant [email protected]

Mark Tucker [email protected]


Agenda


1 Call to Order Chair

2 Agenda approval Chair

3 Action Items Louise Brown 5

4 White Paper on Registry and Master File Characteristics

Bob Grant / Rene Spronk

5 Confirm Dynamic Model Rene Spronk

6 Location Registry (time permitting)

7 Next Steps

8 Adjournment

Action Items


305 20040928: Clean up the list of terms

Robert Grant 20041118: CQ Telcon: No update available

Open Reg

Page 33 of 111

definitions after business models have been described

20050125: Open. Waiting for models to be finalized.

20050503: No change

306 20040928: Upload current draft docs to new project specific docs page

Jean Spohn 20050125: CQ WGM Orlando: Dependant on 307; not done. Docs currently list serve distribution (issue with size)

20050503: Size increased but still waiting on Mike for website setup before uploading docs

open Reg

307 20040928: Ask Mike to create a new registry project webpage for uploading

Gregg Seppala

20041118: CQ Telcon: Gregg has talked to Mike. Mike agreed to do this. Would show at the bottom of the SIG list. Not done yet. Gregg to follow-up. 20050125: CQ WGM Orlando:Still waiting on Mike.

20050503: Waiting on Mike for website

Open Reg

Call to OrderThe meeting was called to order by the chair, Doug Pratt, at 0911 GMT +2. Leon Salvail was the scribe. Quorum attained.

Agenda approval – this sessionApproved upon a motion by Sandy Stewart and second by June Rosploch; 19-0-0.

Approve MinutesNo comments or additions.

Approved upon a motion by Leon Salvail and second by Louise Brown 23-0-1.

(24 people now as 6 walked in).

Review action items and IssuesSee table above

New Action Items:

New Item in agenda is done (see Louise Brown agenda)

White Paper on Registry and Master File CharacteristicsRene provided some descriptions of the four registry types.

Page 34 of 111

Bob gave overview of what was in white paper and found to date.

Discussion on whether it is important to distinguish between Registry / Master File versus Repository (more glossary idea) – really just guidelines / definitions.

Discussion about on whether or not access rights / roles impact on the definition of Registry versus Repository.

Application role ideas presented as possible hierarchy for definitional qualities.

Discussion of Notifications versus Requests (sidebar).

White paper will be used to create glossary definitions; but wanting to see it non-technical definitions and needs to soften slightly. Question of whether there is a wrapper difference between the definitions is next step.

Approved accepting the document upon a motion by Mark Tucker and second by Rene Spronk; 26-0-0.

Confirm Dynamic ModelCurrent ballot.

Discussion of notification and request differences. Dynamic model issues should be referred to Dynamic Model people. Discussion of Interaction patterns; perhaps differences between business patterns (informative) and interactions (balloted). Do the patterns represent wrapper distinctions? Yes.

Vote


“Add the following to the pattern storyboard as part of Pattern B and D: 1) query registry, 2) request update of registry based on query results.”

Rene motioned, Louise seconded

26-0-0 This is from the ballot comments.

Line item number 1. Find it persuasive and ask HQ to issue a patch to deal with updating the diagrams.

Rene motioned, Mark Tucker seconded

26-0-0 This is from the ballot comments.

Action Items

# Description Who History/Update Status AreaPost issue regarding notifications with receiver

Rene Spronk

Page 35 of 111

responses to Dynamic Model list

Location Registry (time permitting)Not discussed.

Next StepsClarification from Dynamic Model

Discuss wrapper and other artifact issues with regards to definitions

Finalize characteristic document

Outstanding issue re unmerge / unlink

Location Registry

Revisit Project Plan / End Date

Bi-weekly conference calls for above (Wednesdays 1:00pm EST)

Meet Tuesday Q2 in San Diego

AdjournmentThe meeting was adjourned at 1030 GMT +2 upon a motion by Rene and second by Bob Grant.

Quarter 2, Tuesday, May 3, 2005Topic: Web Services Issues and Ballot Reconciliation

Known Attendees





Roberto Ruggeri [email protected]


Darius Kemeklis [email protected]

Page 36 of 111

Agenda


1 Call to Order

2 Agenda approval


4 Action Items 10

5 Web Services and Normative Edition

6 Outstanding negatives from previous ballot

7 Web Services ballot overview

8 Web Services ballot reconciliation

9 Adjournment

IV. Call to OrderThe meeting was called to order by the chair, Rene Spronk, at 1106 GMT +2. Doug Pratt was the scribe. Quorum attained.

Agenda approval – this sessionApproved.

AnnouncementsNone.

Action Itemstext.

Action Items


211 20050126: Determine what backwards compatibility requirements a specification has when it moves from DSTU to normative.

20050126: CQ WGM Orlando: added. New Action Item for the Web Services DSTU: We need to decide how to manage a normative specification – what backwards compatibility requirements it should have.20050503: To be addressed today

New Trans

214 20050126: Revise the basic profile according the

Roberto Ruggeri

20050126: CQ WGM Orlando: added. Interaction ID’s no longer map to application roles so this is may be a

New Trans

Page 37 of 111

changes in the modeling and cascade the changes to the other profiles

discovered issue: Action Item: Roberto to follow up on Motion (Revise the basic profile according the changes in the modeling and cascade the changes to the other profiles)20050317: Larson: This was, in part, as a response to line item 24 against Webservices Addressing: Submitter comment: The SENDER has no way of knowing what the receiving Application Role will be. If it knows the interaction, then this may be supported by a multitude of receiving application roles.This will at least need clarification on how this mapping is to be done. Given the fact that Application Roles (as a concept) has been redefined in HL7, some reqording may be in order in the basic WS profile.20050503: Still open, but will be factored into Release 2

230 20050308: Present introduction to Services Oriented Transport and gain approval to continue work

Darius K 20050308: CQ Telcon: Need to have discussion of service oriented transport. Darius K agreed to put together a presentation20050315: This is a new work item. It was suggested on the transport list that service oriented transports such as JMS or Webservices offer a lot more functionality than just a "transport". Should we create a new ITS and/or Transport to fully use the services offered by these environments?Darius took the group through a slide show presentation he had prepared.20050322: CQ Telcon: Change item description from “Service Oriented Transport” to a description that reflects the action to be taken. The initial presentation has been done. It is unclear if the next step is clear. Assume that interested parties wish to continue this discussion and perhaps come forward with a proposal. Will change description to: Present introduction to Services Oriented Transport and gain approval to continue work

open trans

241 20050329: Define the term SDO so that it includes OASIS but excludes workshop consortium.

Pete Wenzel 20050329: CQ Telcon. Item added to define the term SDO so that it includes OASIS but excludes workshop consortium.Pete Wenzel agreed to take an action item to create a definition of an SDO which will distinguish between what he considers to be an SDO (ISO/ANSI-accredited, OASIS)

Closed Trans

Page 38 of 111

and that which he doesn’t consider to be an SDO (the workshop consortium). He'll sent an initial version of a definition to the CQ list.20050405 CQ Telecon: This will be taken to the TSC, and Pete will re-do the definition.20050503: Closed. Pete has sent a definition to the email list.

319 20040929: Provide documentation of use case in 508.

Mark Tucker 20040929: Provide documentation of use case in 3Q2-01[506] above.20041207 not done; don’t know status20050127: CQ WGM Orlando: Related to 508, not 506.20050317: Description updated.20050503: Closed; proposed architecture supports use Mark Tucker needed, withdrawn.

Closed trans

321 20040929: Clarify concept of session in context of transport documents (as opposed to session as defined by SIGSecure)

Andrew Hinchley

20041207 no update20050127: CQ WGM Orlando: Still open with guilt.20050503: Skip (not relevant for this session)

Open Trans

322 20040929: Review document for conflicts or alignments with JMS.

Darius Kemeklis

20041207 no update20050127: CQ WGM Orlando: Still open with guilt.20050503: Skip (not relevant for this session).

Open Trans

508 20040505: Evaluate need to include an end-to-end commit ack in the transport requirements documentation.

Paul Knapp 20040505: Mark Tucker identified a use case for an end-to-end commit ack. This needs to be discussed by the (future) transport taskforce for possible inclusion in the transport requirements documentation.20041207: remains open20050127: CQ WGM Orlando: No update. Mark not present.20050319: Rene: remains open. Abstract Transports document needs more wording related to commit acks & bridges/intermediaries.20050503: Skip (not WS)

Open trans

Web Services and Normative Edition

Page 39 of 111

Text

Action Items


242 20050419: Decide whether or not to withdraw the original Web Services DSTU

20050419: CQ Telcon: Roberto R and Paul K expressed the opinion that the original DSTU should be scrapped in favor of a new document. The new spec would incorporate 80% or so of the original content, but it would be a different spec. The question arose as to whether or not we really wanted to include an “obsolete” document in the about to be published normative edition. It was not clear what our options are.20050420: J Larson attended the v3 publishing telcon and inquired if CQ had the option of not including the original DSTU in the normative edition. The matter was referred to Karen Van.20050427: email from J Larson to Karen Van:Hi Karen:This is to confirm our phone conversation on Tuesday, April 26.CQ does have the option of withdrawing the DSTU Web Services document from the about to be published normative edition.This document, which was approved last year, is about to be scrapped based on recommendation of the author Roberto Ruggeri and Paul Knapp, the author of our other Transport spec. A new document is under development that will replace the first. Some, but not all, of the content of the first document will be carried forward to the new document.CQ will make a final decision on this matter at Noordwijkerhout. It is very helpful to know that there is no requirement that it be included. 20050427: email from Karen Van to Joann L:Joann:I am confirming that we can withdrawn this from ANSI. You'll need to work out the details of withdrawing it from the edition with Woody andHelen.

New transport

Page 40 of 111

Meanwhile, I will file the paperwork with ANSI to declare out intent to withdraw this standard. I assume that it will not be revived as something else? 20050427: email from Joann L to Karen V:Karen:Don't do anything yet. I was just gathering information. CQ still needs to decide if, in fact, that is what we want to do. We have discussed possibilities but have not voted on a course of action. We will do that next week.2005027: email from Karen Van to Joann L:OK--I wouldn't have had time to do this before Amsterdam--just time to put it on my action list. I'll wait to hear from you what the outcome of the committee vote is.20050503: Motion 1

Vote


1 Publish basic profile from Release 1 as is in the normative edition and to proceed with release 2 material in the next ballot cycles. (Roberto/Sandy) Amendment: reflect status of ballot prior to last January so there is no question about open ballot issues.

Roberto/Sandy 4-2-6

Outstanding Negatives from Previous ballot cycleJoann took the gavel for discussion of Pete Wenzel’s negative. Tony took from Joann.

Vote


1 Motion of clarification: the fact that a Webservices Transport Protocol specification has been balloted as a HL7 document doesn't conflict with HL7 bylaw 2.03.01.

Rene/Roberto 10- 0-3

Create action item to follow up with the BOD.

Page 41 of 111

Rationale:Bylaw 2.03.01 is as follows:"2.03.01 METHODOLOGY - HL7 shall develop and publish protocol specifications based upon the knowledge of existing and evolving methods and systems, but shall not establish protocol specifications that intentionally favor the proprietary characteristics or interests of specific systems or entities." Both Transport Specifications as well as ITSs have a special role within the HL7 specifications:1. There are multiple alternative specifications, one of which can be chosen by an implementation; The choice of specification is up to the implementer.2. Implementers are free to ignore the existing HL7 ITS/Transport specifications and to create their own (variation thereof);3. Any group of stakeholders is free to create new ITSs and Transport Specifications, or even to create alternative flavors of existing ITSs or Transport Specifications, and to bring these forward for discussion by HL7, and for inclusion in the standard. It is perfectly acceptable that multiple flavors of Webservices Transport Specifications exist in paralel. HL7 doesn't favor any ITS or Transport Specification. It will allow discussion of, and inclusion in the standard of any ITS or Transport Specification which meets the criteria for inclusion: a significant body of interested parties (representing multiple

Page 42 of 111

organizations), a reasonable number of volunteer authors, and a quorum of balloters willing to ballot the document.

2 Motion: Release 1 is at the end of the development cycle, it shall be removed from the balloting process with the exception of the normative basic profile from pre-January. Ballot comments from January will be considered in Release 2.

Doug/Roberto 11-0-1 Since this is a DSTU, backwards compatibility is not an issue.

Rene took back gavel after motion 1 passed.

Discussed Paul Biron’s negatives.

Action Items

# Description Who History/Update Status AreaFollow up with BOD regarding applicability of HL7 by-law 2.03.01 to ITS and transport protocols.Get formal interpretation of Legal Affairs committee regarding open standards and ITS (by-law on copyrights to referenced material).Follow up with Pete Wenzel on today’s vote, ask he withdraw negative.Ask for change to by-law 2.3.1 to permit proprietary ITS.

Page 43 of 111

Ballot Overview

All Basic Profile

Addressing Security Reliability Total

Neg Mj 1 1 1 1 4

Neg Mi 1 3 4 18 6 32

Neg unspec

Total Neg 2 3 5 19 7 35

Suggest 4 7 18 13 42

Question 2 2 1 5

Typos 2 3 10 15

Not spec 1 1

Total Affirm 6 10 23 24 63

Grand Total 2 9 15 42 31 99

Web Services Ballot ReconciliationText

Vote


1 Find #1 persuasive, make changes suggested by balloter

Roberto/Joann 12-0-0

Action Items


Page 44 of 111

AdjournmentThe meeting was adjourned at 12:30 GMT +2 upon a motion by Gaby and second by Joann.

Page 45 of 111

Quarter 3, Tuesday, May 3, 2005Topic: Attachments and II/IIRef issues

Known Attendees




Kepa Zubeldia [email protected]



Lee Coller [email protected]

Jude Kitching [email protected]

Agenda

- Overview

- References to II

- Use case from Claims attachment - Multiple references to the same attachment from different messages

- [optional] Which of the ways to reference attachments do we want to support?

V. Call to OrderThe meeting was called to order by the chair, Tony Julian, at 13:48 GMT+2. Grahame Grieve was the scribe. Quorum attained.

OverviewCharlie reviewed the agenda. The attachments group was instituted at Orlando, but nothing has happened since. A harmonization proposal went through to change attachment text to an attachment class with 2

Page 46 of 111

attributes, id : II and value : ED.. it was approved with modification – names were changed.

References to II + Use case from Claims attachmentCharlie presented a document (See Appendix)

Discussion ensued about the document.

Requirements:

1. The content of the URI (when using II by identity reference) must be independent of transport and packaging considerations

2. ?(desirable but not necessary) The content of the URI (when using II by identity reference) must be able to identity a portion of the resource

3. The content of the URI (when using II by identity reference) must allow for the implementation specification to describe how or whether the resource is made available or persisted

4. It should be easy to understand and implement in multiple technologies

Option #1 (xpointer) fails requirement 4 or 1. It could be used independently of Xpointer by taking the Xpointer path apart but this is confusing

Option #2: The downside is that we have to define our own URN namespace, but we have already done that. Option #2 gives us the most flexibility to meet the requirements above. (though the urn would not actually use the representation shown in the attached document). We would add a new section following the extension to allow for references into the resource identified by the root/extension combination.

Clarification: We are not preventing users from referring to attachments by any other method as suitable. This mechanism defines how attachments are referred to by pointing to the identifier in the II on the attachment.

It would be useful to add some attributes regarding persistence control to the AttachmentClass.

Action Item: Suggest that Claims Attachments develops a proposal for modification to the attachmentClass and advance it for harmonization. (Kepa)

Action Item: Complete the documentation for Option #2 and resolve the format of the URN (Charlie)

Clarification: this URI scheme can be used to point to any II value. How this may be used and what kind of thing can be identified by the identity reference will be constrained by the context in which it is used.

Page 47 of 111

Motion: We ask that MnM endorse option #2 and that this should be added to the abstract data types document where the use of reference in ED (and to allow URN here) is discussed for Release #2 (moved Mark, seconded Kepa) Vote: 13-0-0

How to reference attachmentsThe issue was presented by Charlie then abandoned due to lack of time

AdjournmentThe meeting was adjourned at 15:06 GMT+2 upon a motion by Sandy and second by Lee.

New Action items:

Kepa Suggest that Claims Attachments develops a proposal for modification to the attachmentClass and advance it for harmonization

Charlie Complete the documentation for Option #2 and resolve the format of the URN

Page 48 of 111

Q3 Appendix: How we point to an attachment class

A reference in anyAct/reference/@href must be dereferenceable. But that is what II is for - to provide an identifier that can be used to reference the attachment.

I do have a concern that if we use xPointer [4] we are expressing the reference in an ITS specific form, and while that may be OK it does seem a bit of a hack to me. What is less ok is that it seems unlikely that many implementations will use it directly anyway -- the point of putting the attachment separately is that it can be processed separately, in which case it is unlikely that the dereferencing will be done in a native XML environment anyway.

I rather like the idea of using urn:uuid [6] and urn:oid [7] to reference classes that have II identifiers without extensions, and then cross the bridge of referencing an II where there is a root and extension when we come to it. This has the advantage of using well defined and registered schemes [5] that in a way that is ITS independent.

So the options are:

#xpointer(//*/id[ @root='1.3.6.1.2.1.27' and @extension='acme']) Urn:hl7II:root#extension (or some such - defined and maybe registered by hl7) Hl7ii:root#extension (or some such - defined and maybe registered by hl7)urn:uuid:f81d4fae-7dec-11d0-a765-00a0c91e6bf6 (where the root is a uuid and there is no extension)urn:oid:1.3.6.1.2.1.27 (where the root is an oid and there is no extension)

I propose that MnM endorse the last two as appropriate ways to reference classes that have an id without an extension, and that this should be added to the abstract datatypes document where the use of reference in ED is discussed for the next release of that document.

[1] http://www.gbiv.com/protocols/uri/rfc/rfc3986.html"An individual scheme does not have to be classified as being just one of "name" or "locator". Instances of URIs from any given scheme may have the characteristics of names or locators or both, often depending on the persistence and care in the assignment of identifiers by the naming authority, rather than on any quality of the scheme. Future specifications and related documentation should use the general term "URI" rather than the more restrictive terms "URL" and "URN" [RFC3305]."[2] http://www.w3.org/Addressing/[3] http://www.iana.org/assignments/uri-schemes[4] http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/CR-xptr-20010911/[5] http://www.iana.org/assignments/urn-namespaces[6] http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-mealling-uuid-urn-05.txt[7] http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc3061.html

Page 49 of 111

http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc3061.html

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-mealling-uuid-urn-05.txt

http://www.iana.org/assignments/urn-namespaces

http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/CR-xptr-20010911/

http://www.iana.org/assignments/uri-schemes

http://www.w3.org/Addressing/

http://www.gbiv.com/protocols/uri/rfc/rfc3986.html

Quarter 4, Tuesday, May 3, 2005Topic: Host Joint meeting with Security and Accountability

Known Attendees


Glen Marshall [email protected]


John Murphy ??


Agenda


1 Call to Order




5 Action Items 10

6 Role-Based Access Control status Dawn Rota

7 Integrating the Health Care Enterprise (IHE) Report

Glen Marshall

8 Common Audit Message document:IETF and IHE actions

Glen Marshall

9 ISO/TC 215 activity report, proposals for HL7 coordination

Bernd Blobel

10 Other S&A Activity

11 Adjournment

Action Items


Page 50 of 111

VI. Call to OrderThe meeting was called to order by the chair, Grahame Grieve, at 3:30 PM GMT +2. Tony Julian was the scribe. Quorum attained.

Agenda approval – this sessionApproved upon a motion by Glenn Marshall and second by Miroslav.

AnnouncementsNone

Evaluate need for joint meeting in San DiegoBased on current information, we need to discuss the work on ws-security, face to face. We will schedule the same quarter next meeting – be sure Roberto is available.

Action ItemsNone carried forward.

Role-Based Access Control status Glenn reported that one of the activities includes updating each other on the activities in various venues. The big thing now is permission access infrastructure, with role management being the most important. (ASTM 31.20) is coordinating with ISOTC215 Working group four

Personnel management owns the relationship between persons and role. Security controls the role-access relationship. Will meet with M&M tomorrow to discuss access control operations: the permission of an entity operating in a security role to create, read, write, update, delete, and otherwise access data. The word role has been overloaded by concepts that are unrelated. A security role defines what you are a member or, or not a member of, specifically to binds the person to their access rights. In ANSI the concept of permission, the action of an object on an object, is granular. Roles in the sense of permissions are arbitrary collections of permissions. The atom of permission is the role-act relationship.

HL7 lacks the grammar to support the administrative traffic- to define and manage those objects in a federated space. Yes they are aware of ASTM and ISO, so they will avoid destructive overlaps. Expect to roll out within a year.

ISO has approved Technical Specification ISO2260 part 1 and 2, their permission management specification.

Page 51 of 111

Healthcare PKI comes from TC215, is very robust. It includes identity management as well as attribute certificates. They have also done some work with overlaps personnel management: ISO TS 21091. ISO17799 is a collection of administrative standards that occur in a healthcare sphere.. It lacks things needed for healthcare which are provided within– ISO27799 produced ISTC215WG4. Glenn has not seen the document yet.

Vote


Action Items


Integrating the Health Care Enterprise (IHE) Report The TC is doing work toward implementation. Have had successful connectathons and demos this year. Two work items this next year.

1. Cross enterprise user identification and accountability. Based on SAML20 (Security Assertion Markup Language). It is aimed at dealing with user id and authentication management and communicating the data associated among trading partners. It is a protocol for sending assertions. SAML20 fits in the blank space in the EBMS wrapper especially in our DSTU that says herein lies security. John Murphy is the task leader.

2. Digital Signatures: All of the standards we need to produce healthcare digital signatures exist. – HL7 should adopt the existing work. IHE is restricting the standard for e-prescribing use cases. Signature is over the entire payload. Using the W3c digital signature standard. The intent is to deal with e-pharmacy this year, tougher cases next year.

Action Items


Vote


Common Audit Message document: IETF and IHE actions Published as IHE Audit Trail and Node Authentication profile, tested in European connectathon that happened last week here, at this hotel.

Page 52 of 111

Editorial corrections will be made and it will be published at the end of May. It is a published XML schema. Audit records are a distinct product- with concepts larger than those the rim captures. It has seen normalized use in DICOM supplement 95 DSTU See RFC3881. There may be a white paper or something within HL7 describing rim items that may be used to populate the record.

Action Items


Vote


Other S&A Activity Question: Are you tracking the services project out of EHR TC. The notion of distributed services is to develop it parallel with the other content. There is a committee informing the EHR committee on security topics. The current EHR DSTU has not had security professional involved.

The BOF group should become an official project, and go to SIG status.

Question: Are you tracking the web services security? Yes. It is in the wrong committee. It is a transport ITS, for that reason it is in the right committee. I would like to bring the Web services ITS into Security for a lookover, first bringing the bandwidth requirements to Glenn.

Roberto has been asked for the requirements, but has not responded.

Motion that we believe that WS-Security should be developed as a joint work item between CQ and Security and that we should set up some process. Glenn Marshall/Sandy Stewart 12-0-0

Note: http://www.nema.org/prod/med/security/ has white papers on certificate management, dealing with node identification. Work in progress to identify threats to medical equipment. White paper on anti-virus patching, in re Medical device. Another paper on patching commercial software that might be used in medical equipment. John wrote a break glass scenario for permissions.

Design artifact documents are being shared on groove, a collaboration tool.

Action Items

# Description Who History/Update Status AreaSchedule a joint 20050503 Noorwijkerhout: Motion

Page 53 of 111

meeting between CQ and Security to work on WS-security

that we believe that WS-Security should be developed as a joint work item between CQ and Security and that we should set up some process. Glenn Marshall/Sandy Stewart 12-0-0

Vote


AdjournmentThe meeting was adjourned at 4:15 P.M. GMT +2 upon a motion by Glenn and second by Sandy.

Page 54 of 111

Quarter 1, Wednesday, May 4, 2005Topic: Abstract Transport Specification: Ballot reconciliation, and proposals

Known Attendees






Miroslav Koncar [email protected]

Agenda


1 Call to Order

2 Agenda approval


4 Action Items 10

5 Abstract Transport Ballot Overview

6 Abstract Transport Ballot Reconciliation

7 Abstract Transport Proposals

8 Adjournment

Call to OrderThe meeting was called to order by the chair, Joann, at 0905 GMT +2. Rene was the scribe. Quorum attained.

Agenda approval – this session

Page 55 of 111

The updated version was approved upon a motion by Doug and second by Sandy.

AnnouncementsNone Known.

Action ItemsThe action items were updated where applicable.

Action Items


230 20050308: Present introduction to Services Oriented Transport and gain approval to continue work

Darius K 20050308: CQ Telcon: Need to have discussion of service oriented transport. Darius K agreed to put together a presentation20050315: This is a new work item. It was suggested on the transport list that service oriented transports such as JMS or Webservices offer a lot more functionality than just a "transport". Should we create a new ITS and/or Transport to fully use the services offered by these environments?Darius took the group through a slide show presentation he had prepared.20050322: CQ Telcon: Change item description from “Service Oriented Transport” to a description that reflects the action to be taken. The initial presentation has been done. It is unclear if the next step is clear. Assume that interested parties wish to continue this discussion and perhaps come forward with a proposal. Will change description to: Present introduction to Services Oriented Transport and gain approval to continue work20050504: open, no nupdate.

open trans

321 20040929: Clarify concept of session in context of transport documents (as opposed to session as defined by SIGSecure)

Andrew Hinchley

20041207 no update20050127: CQ WGM Orlando: Still open with guilt.20050504: no status change.

Open Trans

322 20040929: Review document for conflicts or alignments with JMS.

Darius Kemeklis

20041207 no update20050127: CQ WGM Orlando: Still open with guilt.20050504: same.

Open Trans

Page 56 of 111

508 20040505: Evaluate need to include an end-to-end commit ack in the transport requirements documentation.

Paul Knapp 20040505: Mark Tucker identified a use case for an end-to-end commit ack. This needs to be discussed by the (future) transport taskforce for possible inclusion in the transport requirements documentation.20041207: remains open20050127: CQ WGM Orlando: No update. Mark not present.20050319: Rene: remains open. Abstract Transports document needs more wording related to commit acks & bridges/intermediaries.

Open trans

Abstract Transport Ballot Overview

Total

Neg Mj 1

Neg Mi 15

Neg unspec

Total Neg 16

Affirmative Suggestion 18

Affirmative Question

Affirmative Typos

Affirmative Not spec

Total Affirmative 18

Grand Total 34

Abstract Transport Ballot Reconciliation.

Page 57 of 111

Vote


7 Motion to find non-persuasive. A SOA architecture may have implications in many areas. The balloter is requested to create a SOA proposal to detail the requirements, at which time it will be harmonized with the Abstract transport Specification.

Rene/Gaby 8-0-2

28 Motion to find non persuasive, it is the mission of HL7 to provide plug and play interoperability, and this also applies to middleware.

Miroslav/Rene 6-2-2

29 Motion to find persuasive with mod. Interface engines are an application which may play the role of both a Bridge as well as a Gateway. A gateway has been explicitely defined to be a destination. CQ will add clarifying wording to the document to explain that an application may play multiple roles at the same time.

Miroslav/Sandy 8-0-2

30 Motion to find non persuasive. This was discussed on the MnM list. ANY change results in a new composite message object with a new ID. There is no reason why code transformations would be a different category than any other translation changes.

Miroslav/Rene 7-0-3

Action Items

# Description Who History/Update Status Area1 Follow up with

MnM to see if some of the requirements of

Rene 20050504: created for resolution of a negative line-item.

Page 58 of 111

the Abstract Transports doc should be in the HDF

Abstract Transport ProposalsMiroslav presents an overview of the abstract transport spec, with a list of issues that should be addressed in a future release. The document will be circulated. It will be updated mainly by Miroslav and Roberto Ruggeri.

Strawvote: have layered architecture, create independence between HL7 wrappers and transports. 9-0-0.

Miroslav will be the primary author of the document, and volunteers to do so.

AdjournmentThe meeting was adjourned at 1035 GMT +2 upon a motion by Rene and second by Sandy.

Quarter 2, Wednesday, May 4, 2005Topic: Web Services Ballot Reconciliation

Known Attendees







Agenda


1 Call to Order

2 Agenda approval

Page 59 of 111


4 Action Items 10

5 WebServices Ballot Reconciliation

6 Adjournment

VII. Call to OrderThe meeting was called to order by the chair, Tony Julian, at 1102 GMT +2. Joann Larson was the scribe. Quorum attained.

Agenda approval – this sessionApproved upon a motion by Roberto Ruggeri and second by Joann Larson; 3-0-0.

AnnouncementsNone.

Action Items.

Action Items


211 20050126: Determine what backwards compatibility requirements a specification has when it moves from DSTU to normative.

20050126: CQ WGM Orlando: added. New Action Item for the Web Services DSTU: We need to decide how to manage a normative specification – what backwards compatibility requirements it should have.20050504: CQ Noordwijkerhout: Backwards compatability is not a requirement. We are moving forward with developing Release 2. Close.

New Trans

214 20050126: Revise the basic profile according the changes in the modeling and cascade the changes to the other profiles

Roberto Ruggeri

20050126: CQ WGM Orlando: added. Interaction ID’s no longer map to application roles so this is may be a discovered issue: Action Item: Roberto to follow up on Motion (Revise the basic profile according the changes in the modeling and cascade the changes to the other profiles)20050317: Larson: This was, in part, as a response to line item 24 against Webservices Addressing: Submitter comment: The SENDER has no way of knowing what the receiving Application

New Trans

Page 60 of 111

Role will be. If it knows the interaction, then this may be supported by a multitude of receiving application roles.This will at least need clarification on how this mapping is to be done. Given the fact that Application Roles (as a concept) has been redefined in HL7, some reqording may be in order in the basic WS profile.20050504: CQ Noordwijkerhout: Will be in the next iteration of the document.

241 20050329: Define the term SDO so that it includes OASIS but excludes workshop consortium.

Pete Wenzel 20050329: CQ Telcon. Item added to define the term SDO so that it includes OASIS but excludes workshop consortium.Pete Wenzel agreed to take an action item to create a definition of an SDO which will distinguish between what he considers to be an SDO (ISO/ANSI-accredited, OASIS) and that which he doesn’t consider to be an SDO (the workshop consortium). He'll sent an initial version of a definition to the CQ list.20050405 CQ Telecon: This will be taken to the TSC, and Pete will re-do the definition.20050504: CQ Noordwijkerhout: Co-chairs need to post the definition supplied as well as the ANSI definition forwarded by Roberto.

open Trans

Web Services Ballot Reconciliationtext.

Vote


1 33 Persuasive: revise the documents once merged in release 2 for accuracy in definitions and their use

Roberto Ruggeri / Sandy Stuart

9-0-0

2 93 20050504 CQ WGM Noordwikerhout: Persuasive with MOD: HL7-WSS013) SENDERS SHOULD encrypt the body of each HL7 WS MESSAGE. HL7-WSS014) If the body of the HL7 WS MESSAGE is not encrypted, then


7-0-2

Page 61 of 111

message confidentiality MUST be provided by the messaging transport or the application.Proposed change:HL7-WSS013) [MESSAGING ADAPTER WITHIN THE SENDER APPLICATION] SHOULD encrypt the body of each HL7 WS MESSAGE. If confidentiality needs to be preserved and the body of the HL7 WS MESSAGE is not encrypted, then message confidentiality MUST be provided by the messaging transport layer or the application layer.Find a better name for SENDER that means [MESSAGING ADAPTER WITHIN THE SENDER APPLICATION]

3 7 retracted by Tony Julian who was present. No further action or vote indicated.

4 14 Persuasive: change will be made in release 2 of this DSTU


9-0-0

5 13 Persuasive: changes to be applied in rel 2 of this DSTU


9-0-0

6 9 Persuasive: the changes could not be applied without increasing the release number as these would have been substantive. These changes will be applied to release 2 of this DSTUThe meaning of release 2 was clarified


9-0-0

7 / 8 19 32

Persuasive with MOD: review the definition in the glossary and consider harmonizing the definitions or change the nomenclature in the profile for rel 2 of this DSTU


9-0-0

Page 62 of 111

(same as 32)

9 20 Persuasive: change in rel 2 of this DSTU


10-0-0

10 25 Persuasive: change in rel 2 of the DSTU to a SHOULD


10-0-0

11 3 Persuasive with MOD: it is a responsibility of the SENDER and RECEIVER to configure the messaging adapter to execute specific functions. Revise the guidance section to be sure that responsibility is explicitly called out and the nomenclature/definitions used in the WS profiles


10-0-0

12 43 Persuasive with MOD: turn the statement into text and merge with the preceeding paragraph


10-0-0

13 34 Persuasive with MOD: the section is specific to RM and it will be revised for consistency and redundancy with the other Workflow sections in the other WS profiles.


10-0-0

14 35 Persuasive with MOD: change the "must" to "should" and strike the fist sentence.


10-0-0

15 8 NOT Persuasive: the commit ack at the messaging infrastructure layer is embedded in the protocol definition and detailed in the WS-RM specification


10-0-0

AdjournmentThe meeting was adjourned at 1230 GMT +2 upon a motion by Joann Larson and second by Sandy Stuart.

Page 63 of 111

Quarter 3, Wednesday, May 4, 2005Topic: Host joint CQ/Vocab meeting on v2 issues

Known Attendees






Ted Klein [email protected]

Stan Huff [email protected]

Agenda


1 Call to Order



4 Action Items 10

5 Ballot Reconciliation Item for v2.6

6 CNE and CWE strategy for v 2.7

7 Adjournment

Action Items


317 20040929 Approach ARB to make changes to the substantive change document. The table 396 is a special use-case.

Stan Huff 20050112: Larson: The table 0396 “Coding Systems” issue was discussed at the ARB meeting on December 2nd. Agreement was reached that changes to the table would not be considered substantive. Unfortunately, the issue got a little clouded by the CNE/CWE issue, but the minutes

Closed vocab

Page 64 of 111

from the ARB read as follows: “chapter 2, section 2.16.4 - Table 0396 - Coding Systems. Placeholder entries were made for the German Procedure Codes and DRG Codes. The intent is that these will be clarified in Orlando; there are some outstanding questions regarding versions. The issue before the ARB is: we would like for changes to table 0396 Coding Systems to be ruled not substantive and allowed at any point in the ballot cycle.

ARB decision – The purpose of this table is a shared, defined meaning of code systems in the standard. For realm-bound systems, the CWE allows the freedom to choose the code system of their choice for this element. Thus, adding codes to this table will not be considered substantive.”We still need to have language added to the Subtantive Change Guide so will keep this item open. 20050504: CQ Noordwijkerhout: Stan will send email to ARB. Close

318 20040929 Draft procedure for agreeing to updates to 396. Will bring draft to CQ.

Stan Huff 20050112: Larson: The procedure should incorporate the decision made at the Atlanta WGM as follows: “All changes to sections for which Vocab is the steward, must be submitted to the v2 change proposal database.”20050504: CQ Noordwijkerhout: Stan will wridte procedure. It will include 1) submit to database ; 2) vocab reviews and makes decision taking in to account such things as redundancy, version and other policy requirements; 3) once approved is immediately valid; 4) notify CQ editorPolicy needs good definitions but also need to focus on operational factors. Table number acts

Open vocab

947 20050112: Add/register two new MIME types

20050112: Added by Larson following receipt of email from Bob Dolin on as follows: “We’ve created two new MIME types for use with structured documents that we’d like to officially register with CQ. The first (text/x-hl7-text+xml) is used to constrain Act.text. The second (text/x-hl7-title+xml) is used to constrain Act.title, which was changed from ST to ED datatype at the last harmonization meeting. Each of these types are undergoing ballot - the former is part of CDA and SPL, the latter is part of SPL.

New Vocab

Page 65 of 111

Can you let me know how to proceed?.”Later conversation with Bob revealed these 2 new MIME types were heard and approved in RIM Harmonization. What do we do with them now? Is this a v3 or a v2 issue or both? Should these items be added to v2 t Imported Table 0834 “MIME Types” for use in component 3 “Type of Data” in the RP Reference Pointer data type? If so, it would be an HL7 added value to an external table. Or, should it be added to External Table 0291 “Subtype of Referenced Data” as an HL7 enhancement. It would live there alongside our other HL7 enhancement “x-hl7-cda-level-one” for use in component 4 “Subtype” of the RP data type. Ordinarily we require a proposal before adding values to tables.Perhaps this is strictly a v3 issue? If so, where are these values registered?Are these even Vocab issues?20050126: CQ/Vocab WGM: Add them to v2.7. Grahame will add to the data types document for release 2.20050504: CQ/Vocab WGM Noordwijkerhout: Confirmed that these are planned for v2.7 and release 2 of v3 data types.

VIII. Call to OrderThe meeting was called to order by the chair, Grahame Grieve, at 1350 GMT +2. Joann Larson was the scribe. Quorum attained.

Agenda approval – this sessionApproved upon a motion by Joann Larson and second by Sandy Stuart.

AnnouncementsNone.

Action Items

Page 66 of 111

Action Items


317 20040929 Approach ARB to make changes to the substantive change document. The table 396 is a special use-case.

Stan Huff 20050112: Larson: The table 0396 “Coding Systems” issue was discussed at the ARB meeting on December 2nd. Agreement was reached that changes to the table would not be considered substantive. Unfortunately, the issue got a little clouded by the CNE/CWE issue, but the minutes from the ARB read as follows: “chapter 2, section 2.16.4 - Table 0396 - Coding Systems. Placeholder entries were made for the German Procedure Codes and DRG Codes. The intent is that these will be clarified in Orlando; there are some outstanding questions regarding versions. The issue before the ARB is: we would like for changes to table 0396 Coding Systems to be ruled not substantive and allowed at any point in the ballot cycle.

ARB decision – The purpose of this table is a shared, defined meaning of code systems in the standard. For realm-bound systems, the CWE allows the freedom to choose the code system of their choice for this element. Thus, adding codes to this table will not be considered substantive.”We still need to have language added to the Subtantive Change Guide so will keep this item open. 20050504: CQ Noordwijkerhout: Stan will send email to ARB. Close

Open vocab

318 20040929 Draft procedure for agreeing to updates to 396. Will bring draft to CQ.

Stan Huff 20050112: Larson: The procedure should incorporate the decision made at the Atlanta WGM as follows: “All changes to sections for which Vocab is the steward, must be submitted to the v2 change proposal database.”20050504: CQ Noordwijkerhout: Stan will wridte procedure. It will include 1) submit to database ; 2) vocab reviews and makes decision taking in to account such things as redundancy, version and other policy requirements; 3) once approved is immediately valid; 4) notify CQ editorPolicy needs good definitions but also need to focus on operational factors.

Open vocab

947 20050112: Add/register two new MIME types

20050112: Added by Larson following receipt of email from Bob Dolin on as follows: “We’ve created two new MIME types for use with structured documents

New Vocab

Page 67 of 111

that we’d like to officially register with CQ. The first (text/x-hl7-text+xml) is used to constrain Act.text. The second (text/x-hl7-title+xml) is used to constrain Act.title, which was changed from ST to ED datatype at the last harmonization meeting. Each of these types are undergoing ballot - the former is part of CDA and SPL, the latter is part of SPL. Can you let me know how to proceed?.”Later conversation with Bob revealed these 2 new MIME types were heard and approved in RIM Harmonization. What do we do with them now? Is this a v3 or a v2 issue or both? Should these items be added to v2 t Imported Table 0834 “MIME Types” for use in component 3 “Type of Data” in the RP Reference Pointer data type? If so, it would be an HL7 added value to an external table. Or, should it be added to External Table 0291 “Subtype of Referenced Data” as an HL7 enhancement. It would live there alongside our other HL7 enhancement “x-hl7-cda-level-one” for use in component 4 “Subtype” of the RP data type. Ordinarily we require a proposal before adding values to tables.Perhaps this is strictly a v3 issue? If so, where are these values registered?Are these even Vocab issues?20050126: CQ/Vocab WGM: Add them to v2.7. Grahame will add to the data types document for release 2.20050504: CQ/Vocab WGM Noordwijkerhout: Confirmed that these are planned for v2.7 and release 2 of v3 data types.

Ballot Reconciliation Item for v2.6

Vote

SEQ


Y-N-A Comment

1 New motion: Find line items 63 and 64 Persuasive with Mod. Range Units and Units as they appear in the data type components CP.5 and

Joann Larson / Doug Pratt

14-0-1

Page 68 of 111

CQ.2 respectively correlate to “Unit of Measure” (datatype CS) in v3. Although the datatype CS is more CNE than CWE in nature, current practice in the v2 world is to use free text or local codes. Therefore, the v2 data type is more appropriately CWE. Add language to each section pointing out the variation from v3 and advise use of UCUM if possible.

1a 63 Considered. CP.5 "Range Units" correlates to "Unit of Measure (CS datatype)" in v3. Although the datatype CS is more CNE than CWE in nature, current practice in the v2 world is to use free text or local codes. Therefore, the v2 data type is more appropriately CWE.

Background: The definition in chapter 2A, section 2.A.10.5, reads as follows:Definition: A coded value, data type CWE, defined by the standard table of units for either time or quantity (see for example, the tables in Section 7.1.4, "Coding schemes"). This describes the units associated with the range, e.g., seconds, minutes, hours, days, quantity (i.e., count); it is required if <from value> and <to value> are present.

1b 64 Considered. CQ.2 "Units" correlates to "Unit of Measure (CS datatype)" in v3. The datatype CS is more CNE than CWE in nature. Although the datatype CS is more CNE than CWE in nature, current practice in the v2 world is to use free text or local codes. Therefore, the v2 data type is more appropriately CWE.

Background: The definition in chapter 2A, section 2.A.11.2, reads as follows:Definition: This component species the units in which the quantity is expressed. Field-by-field, default units may be defined within the specifications. When the quantity is measured in the default units, the units need not be transmitted. If the quantity is recorded in units different from the default, the units must be transmitted.

Question arose as to whether “Units” in v3 should really be a CS data type. Deferred to Q4.

CNE and CWE Strategy for v2.7

Page 69 of 111

Most of the strategy was put into effect in v2.6. Doug displayed the new version of the CWE definition, usage notes.

A lengthy discussion ensued regarding the proposed table that clarifies how the CWE should be populated. There still appears to be some confusion about the usage notes, particularly regarding the handling of local codes. The discussion was tabled and will be taken up again via email and Vocab Telcon.

Action Items


new 20050504: Bring CWE usage notes to next Vocab Telcon for further examination

20050504 CQ WGM Noordwijkerhout: There still appears to be some confusion about the usage notes, particularly regarding the handling of local codes. Bring CWE usage notes to next Vocab Telcon for further examination

new Vocab

AdjournmentThe meeting was adjourned at 15:08 GMT+2 upon a motion by Tony Julian and second by Sandy Stuart.

Quarter 4, Wednesday, May 4, 2005Topic: Host Joint CQ/Vocab meeting on v3 issues

Known Attendees



Stan Huff [email protected]


David Markwell [email protected]

Cecil Lynch [email protected]

Tom Oniki [email protected]


Page 70 of 111

Ted Klein [email protected]

Lee Coller [email protected]

Agenda


1 Call to Order




5 Action Items 10

6 Data types R2 proposals

7 CS Datatype Attributes

8 PQ Issues

9 Adjournment

IX. Call to OrderThe meeting was called to order by the chair, Grahame Grieve, at 15:37 GMT +2. Doug Pratt was the scribe. Quorum attained.

Agenda approval – this sessionApproved upon a motion by Stan Huff and second by Andrew.

Announcementstext.

Evaluate need for joint meeting in San Diego2 quarters at the usual time Wed q3 q4

Action Itemstext.


215 20050126: Present Units proposal to Facilitators Roundtable on Jan

Grahame 20050126: CQ/Vocab WGM Orlando: Agreed to prepare a proposal for Faciliator’s Roundtable. Within the PQ datatype Unit: change from CS to CV and

Open vocab

Page 71 of 111

27 allow the domain to be set in the model. Could set a domain and call it Units. This could have sub domains such as UCUM, ISO etc.20050504: Changed from New to Open, assigned Grahame.

503 20040505: Stan to send the originalText and displayname changes

Stan Huff 20050126: CQ/Vocab WGM: on the agenda20050127: CQ WGM Orlando: Definitions received from Stan Huff.20050329 CQ Telcon: Joann stated that the definitions have been posted. What should we do with them now. René asked why we asked Vocab for them in the first place. Joann said she didn’t know, but this was asked for in May of 2004. No one on today’s call knows why this was needed. Assumption is that it needs to go into a data types document

Open vocab

504 20040505: CTS document and Java SIG use same package name org.hl7.types

20050126: CQ/Vocab WGM: still open20050504: Closed, part of CTS release 2.

Close vocab

Data types R2 proposals: Add group to CD:LIST<CRG>Grahame presented suggested implementation from BOF meeting the night before. David Markwell expressed a concern with the recommendation: that it would not work with SNOMED.

Vote


1 1 Motion: adopt adding a group to CD:LIST:<CRG>.

David Markwell, Cecil Lynch

15-0-4

1. Detail for motion 1:

group LIST<CRG>Specifies groups of logically related qualifiers that increase the specificity of the the primary code.

CRG – Concept Role Group Definition: A group of logically related concept qualifiers. The logical grouping of qualifiers must be defined by the coding system of the CD containing the concept qualifier.

Page 72 of 111

For example, SNOMED CT defines Cholecystectomy and exploration of bile duct as:

Groupo Method = Explorationo Procedure site = Bile duct structure

Groupo Method = Excisiono Procedure site = Gall bladder structure

Refinement of the method of excision would be grouped with the “bile duct structure” to avoid it being wrongly interpretted as existing of the “gall bladder”

qualifier LIST<CR> Specifies additional codes that increase

the specificity of the the primary code.

Data types R2 proposals: Add GTS.codeGTS does not have original text, this proposal is to add it as type SC (code-able string). Use case for simple timings such as TID – do we need to carry all of the GTS overhead?

A lot of discussion, at the end Grahame tabled this for discussion on teleconference/email.

Vote


Data types R2 proposals: Expressions in CDTalked about “messy” datatypes.

PQHow to handle imprecise units like “puffs.” Still very contentious. Tabled.

AdjournmentThe meeting was adjourned at 17:00 GMT +2 upon a motion by Tony and second by Doug.

Quarter 1, Thursday, May 5, 2005Topic: CQ hosts joint CQ/XML meeting

Page 73 of 111

Known Attendees




Paul Knapp [email protected]


Agenda


1 Call to Order

2 Agenda approval


4 Evaluate Need for joint session in San Diego

5 Action Items 10

6 XML ITS Structures Update

7 XML ITS Data Types Update

8 Planning

9 Adjournment

Call to OrderThe meeting was called to order by the chair, Joann Larson, at 0907 GMT +2. Grahame Grieve was the scribe. Quorum attained.

Agenda approval – this sessionApproved upon a motion by Charlie and second by Paul Knapp

AnnouncementsNone Known.

Evaluate Need for Joint Session

Page 74 of 111

Meet in San Diego: ½ hour Q3 Monday and ½ hour Q1 Thurs

Action ItemsSee list below agenda.

Action Items


102 20040122: Charlie will Consult with PA (Gregg Seppala) r.e. codes from V2 to see if there are use cases (#80 postal address use)

Charlie 20040506: Still open20040930: CQ WGM: still open with guilt20050124 CQ WGM Orlando: email has been sent to Gregg S20050502: CQ WGM Noordwijkerhout: no change20050505: Discovered Agenda Item

Open XML

103 20040122: Potential Action: if there are use cases (#80 postal address use), then a harmonization proposal will be crafted by GG.

Grahame G 20040506: Dependent on 4Q1-02 above20040930: CQ WGM: still open with guilt20050124 CQ WGM Orlando: dependent on 10220050502: CQ WGM Noordwijkerhout: no change

Open XML

328 20040930: Produce Implementation Guide

Charlie 20040930 WGM: not being worked on20050124 CQ WGM Orlando: not being worked on. Underlying negative line issue may need to be revisited.20050502: CQ WGM Noordwijkerhout: in progress. New content has been identified having to do with xsi. This is an extra constraint people want to have on XML instances. This would be a substantive change and would have to go back to ballot. The other approach is to publish ITS as is and put a paragraph in an Implementation Guide regarding xsi. 20050505 – xsi in notes from 20050502 means xsi:nil. Issue is a little broader than xsi:nil, includes xsi:type. We propose to have an R2 changes proposal for comment in the next ballot or the one after that will cover proposed changes, both documentation and substance. Schema requirements will be included in the multi-cache schema page in the ballot pack (under downloads).

Open XML

217 20050127: C/Q will establish a taskforce to work on how attachments should be encoded in

Charlie 20050127: CQ/XML WGM Orlando: Added. C/Q will establish a taskforce to work on how attachments should be encoded in different circumstances.20050329 CQ Telcon: René reported.

Closed see 945

XML - A

Page 75 of 111

different circumstances.

Charlie has started the Taskforce. There is a separate email list20050502: CQ WGM Noordwijkerhout: Established, but no activity as yet. 20050505: Closed – track under 945

945 20050110 Guidelines for Attachments proposal status

Charlie McCay

20050110: email received from Charlie McCay to reinstate item nbr 935. entered as new item instead.20050505: Gregor has produced some documentation. Need agenda time at the next meeting.

Open XML - A

946 20050112 Explore Single set of rules for sending Attachments with v3 messages and documents

Charlie McCay

20050112 Added by Larson in response to email thread between CQ, CDA and XML.20050329 CQ Telcon: This is being followed by the Attachments Taskforce cited in item 217. This is a multi-group issue: XML, IM and Transports. Will be coded as XML.20050505: Closed – track under 945

Closed see 945

XML - A

236 20050323: Seek approval of proposal to Change Message.attachmentText 0..* SET(ED) to a class with cardinality 0..* and attributes id (1..1) II and value (1..1) ED, and confirm instantiation

20050323: Added by Larson, list editor: This CQ proposal was on the agenda for the Harmonization meeting in Las Vegas in March. We need to track the outcome. Change Message.attachmentText 0..* SET(ED) to a class with cardinality 0..* and attributes id (1..1) II and value (1..1) EDRationale: attachmentText is for carrying attachments that are to be referred to from within the body of the message using the reference functionality of the ED datatype, however without an identifier this linkage can only be established in an ITS specific way.Discussion: The linkage between the message and the attachments is semantically significant, and so should be maintained in the abstract data model. As well as following the basic V3 principle of separating the semantics from the technology, in practice this is required so that the reference to the attachment can be maintained without having to modify the contents of the message as it moves from one ITS to another or is processed in receiving systems.The current text describing the use of attachmentText does not indication how the reference from the ED within the message to the message.attachmentText should be expressed, on the assumption

Closed IM

Page 76 of 111

that this would be addressed by an ITS. This is inappropriate for the reasons given above. There is a similar requirement for pointers from within a CDA text block to an HL7 class, and providing a consistent mechanism for both would be attractive.Action Items: MnM to implement the proposed solution.CQ to extend the datatype component ED.reference to allow a URN schemes for this purpose (eg urn:uuid)20050505: Yet to edit data in types

1 20030114: We need to document difference between abstract specification and XML ITS DataTypes. Andrew H will get list of differences from Paul.

Grahame Grieve

20040105: CQ Telcon: Grahame reported that this is still in progress20040506: Still open – slated for release 220040930: CQ WGM: deferred and slated for R220050124 CQ WGM Orlando: no change20050502: CQ WGM Noordwijkerhout: no change20050505: we still think this is a good idea, but no progress yet. May happen as part of R2

Deferred

XML - DT

240 20050328: Apply editorial changes to XML ITS Data Types document and submit to HL7 HQ.

Grahame G 20050328: Item added by Larson, Action Item List editor, based on recent email thread entitled Data types in ballot. 20050328: Email from Grahame G clarifying status: I'm still trying to get time to finish the edits to the XML document, though I certainly won't object if someone else want's to work on themThe abstract data types are in a very stable condition20050329 CQ Telcon: Deferred until such time as Grahame is on the call.20050505: Grahame promises to give HQ the normative edition by 20050506 without the edits to remove the schemas. Edits to remove XML Schemas will still be done before the document is released to ANSI as final.

open XML - DT

901 20040524: Telcon: Create list of editorial changes for XML ITS Data Type

Grahame G 20040607: CQ Telcon: Grahame G reported that the list of editorial corrections in progress.20040930: CQ WGM: still open. The editorial changes while doing 8 below. In progress.20050124 CQ WGM Orlando: in progress

Closed XML - DT

Page 77 of 111

20050505 Closed – Overtaken by events and job is done

902 20040524: CQ Telcon: Schema fragments to be removed from ITS document to the Appendix

Paul Knapp and Paul Biron

20040930: CQ WGM: In progress20050124 CQ WGM Orlando: in progress20050502: CQ WGM Noordwijkerhout: in progress20050505: This is still in progress. See notes for 240 for status

Open XML - DT

903 20040524: CQ Telcon: Submit XML ITS Data Type document by July 2 to CQ TC and XML SIG for e-mail straw vote closing July 9 establishing the committees’ view that the changes made are not substantive.

Paul Knapp 20040930: CQ WGM: Schedule needs to be revised. 20050124 CQ WGM Orlando: still needs to be re-scheduled20050127: CQ WGM Orlando: Edited version for normative release20050329 CQ Telcon: Deferred until such time as Grahame is on the call.20050405 CQ Telecon: Depends on Item 24020050502: CQ WGM Noordwijkerhout depends on 901 and 24020050505 still waiting on 901

Open XML - DT

904 20040524: CQ Telcon: Submit changes to XML ITS Data Type document to ARB for binding confirmation if CQ believes they are NOT substantive

Paul Knapp 20040930: CQ WGM: Still open. Dependent on the other items20050124 CQ WGM Orlando: still open20050329 CQ Telcon: Deferred until such time as Grahame is on the call.20050405 CQ Telecon: Depends on Item 24020050505 still waiting on 901

Open XML - DT

921 20040921: SLITS<T>:Add a way to represent NULL values in the sequence.

Grahame G 20040921: Email from G. Shadow: SLIST<T>: add a way to represent NULL values in the sequence.We wanted to add something about using the symbol “\NA” in the SLIST<T> datatype to mean “no value”. This may actually be just an XML ITS question.20040927: CQ WGM Atlanta: Proposal required.20050127: CQ WGM Orlando: Refer to XML SIG. Action item for Grahame to refer.20050505: Closed – this is now part of the datatypes R2 proposal process

Closed XML - DT

905 20040524: CQ Telcon: Create list of editorial changes to the XML ITS Structures document

Charlie McCay

20040930: CQ WGM: In progress with guilt20050124 CQ WGM Orlando: in progress without guilt.20050502: CQ WGM Noordwijkerhout: List

Closed XML - S

Page 78 of 111

has been made. Under review in XML.20050505: closed – document exists, ballot reconciliation package done, emails done, times expired.

XML ITS Structures Update Letters were sent to all outstanding negative balloters from previous rounds. Time has expired and so they are considered satasified according to ANSI procedures. In addition, the negative from Australia has been verbally withdrawn by Grahame in this session.

The document was reviewed and voted on by XML SIG yesterday and agreed to be ready for publication subject to the addition of some links – referred to publishing.

Vote


1 C/Q approves the final document for publication

Charlie/Sandy 10-0-0

2 Fix example interaction instance

Charlie/Sandy 9-0-0

3 Drop section 2.4 Charlie/Paul 8-0-0

4 Section 2.5.2 and 2.2 need to reconciled – apply correction to 2.2

Charlie/Sandy 8-0-0

5 Change 3rd paragraph of the Section 2.3 of the Structures document to read “The use of namespaces within the ED datatype is discussed in the XML datatypes ITS document”

Charlie/Sandy 8-0-1

6 Drop the last sentence of the first paragraph of section 2.3 of the structures document. In the preceding sentence, change “In addition the namespace…” to “In addition the attribute ‘type’ in the namespace…”

Grahame/Charlie

9-0-0

7 Eclipse motion 6 with the following content All XML elements and attributes (except for informal extensions and thecontents of ED datatypes) are to be

Grahame/Charlie

8-0-1

Page 79 of 111

represented in the namespace definedby "urn:hl7-org:v3".

Attributes "type" and "nil" from the"http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance<http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance> " namespace may be used.The "type" attribute will be used to indicate the datatype of elementswhere this could be ambiguous.

There is no urgent requirements identified. There is consideration being given to reshaping the mapping from the static model structure to the XML following on from Fred Behlens earlier proposals. This will be explored further by XML SIG.

Late discovered item: To ensure that the example interaction instance is valid against the current version of the ballot and is properly named and contains proper content

Even later discovered item: More issues from Paul. See Motions 3-6

XML ITS Data Types Update XML Normative edition is being released without the updates to remove the schema. This will happen tomorrow. The final edition for ANSI will have the schema corrections applied

There is 2 R2 data proposals that are specifically about how the XML data types work. Motions concerning these are below

Vote


Approve Changes to SLIST Grahame/Charlie

9-0-0

Specify in the XML ITS that if the collection contains a single item that has a nullFlavor and no other attributes or elements, then the nullFlavor applies to the list, not to the first item of

Grahame / Sandy

9-0-0

Page 80 of 111

http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance






the list

AdjournmentThe meeting was adjourned at 1044 GMT +2 upon a motion by Charlie and second by Sandy.

Quarter 2, Thursday, May 4, 2005Topic: Transports ballot reconciliation: MLLP, ebXML, Physical Media proposal, Transport Overview document

Known Attendees



Vassil Peytchev [email protected]






Agenda


1 Call to Order

2 Agenda approval


4 Action Items 10

5 MLLP Ballot Reconciliation

6 Transport Overview Reconciliation

7 ebXML Update

8 Physical Media proposal

9 Adjournment

Page 81 of 111

Action Items


X. Call to OrderThe meeting was called to order by the chair, Joann Larson , at 1100 AM GMT +2. Tony Julian was the scribe. Quorum attained.

Agenda approval – this sessionApproved upon a motion by Vassil and second by Sandy

AnnouncementsAbstract transport specification has negative line items from Canada, which could not be uploaded. Renee will follow up to Ally.


MLLP Ballot Reconciliation

Vote


1 1 Move to find Not persuasive. This is not the intent of the language, the committee does not intend to impose restrictions on the use of MLLP in the scope of the network.

Vassil/Sandy 8-0-0

2 1.2.1

Item 1:Persuasive. Paul/Sandy 8-0-0

2 1.2.1

Item 2:There is no change from the written text.

2 1.2.1

Item 4:Persuasive Rene/Vassil 8-0-0

2 1.2.1

Item 3:Persuasive with mod:3. If case of Negative

Commit Acknowledgement the subsequent step is subject to

Rene/Roberto 8-0-0

Page 82 of 111

implementation decisions. The default behavior is

a. If the preset number of retries has been reached, notify sender of delivery failure, with reason code.

b. Otherwise go to step 1 to resend the block.

2 1.2.1

Item : Persuasive. The text See the abstract … as submitted.

Paul/Rene 8-0-0

3 Not Persuasive. Tabled until Grahame is in the room.

3 Motion: Persuasive with MOD: To put sequence or UML diagrams to clarify the two use cases: one way sending 2. Query/Response.

Grahame/Sandy 9-0-0 Grahame will withdraw.

Action Items

# Description Who History/Update Status AreaNegative Items from Canada

Rene 20050505: CQ WGM. HL7 Canada could not upload negatives.

Open

Transport Overview ReconciliationVote


1,2,7,12

T-1: Motion to find line-items 1, 2, and 7 persuasive, and to update the table in section 2.1.

Rene/Roberto 9-0-0

3 T-2: Motion to find line-item 3 Considered. A statement to this

Rene/Paul 9-0-0

Page 83 of 111

effect has been added to the MLLP transport document. In a generic sense the comment is however true for all transports, not just for MLLP, we therefore won't add a row to the features table in section 2.1.

4,5 T-3: Motion to find line-items 4 and 5 persuasive, and to update table as suggested.

Rene/Paul 9-0-0

6 T-4: Motion to find line-item 6 persuasive with mod. We'll add a statement to the table which states that the table shows the maximum features of all parts of a transport, including optional features.

Rene/Mark 9-0-0

Discovered item in re line item 3: To add clarifying text to the abstract transport specification:Some transports may not be applicable to some HL7 version 3 ITSs. ITS's

Rene/Paul 9-0-0

Page 84 of 111

(such as CORBA) may require an inherent protocol stack that precludes their use of some transports.

Action Items


ebXML UpdateVote


Take the ebXML transport to normative track.

Paul/Rene 10-0-0 It was used during DSTU. There have been no negative comments. It has been tried in three settings. In 1 or 2 settings some modification was done. Paul will incorporate any feedback he receives.

Action Items

# Description Who History/Update Status AreaProject Plan for ebXML

Paul Knapp

Paul will submit a project plan prior to submitting for ballot

Open

Physical Media proposal text.

Vote


Action Items


Page 85 of 111

AdjournmentThe meeting was adjourned at 12:35 P.M. GMT +2 upon a motion by Sandy and second by Grahame..

Page 86 of 111

Quarter 3, Thursday, May 5, 2005

Topic: v3 datatypes (abstract/XML ITS), v3 IM proposals

Known Attendees





Agenda


1 Call to Order



4 Action Items 10

5 Abstract Data Types

6 IM Proposals

7 Adjournment

Action Items - Abstract Data types


919 20040921: Review action items from previous ballot reconciliations.

20040921: Email from G. Shadow: review of action items from previous ballot reconciliations. Some may imply further changes.20040927: Gunther thinks Grahame has a spreadsheet. We may need to phone him to find it. Mike Henderson took this action item.20050127: CQ WGM Orlando: open. Hard to reconcile ballot records. Confusion between HQ and those working on ballot reconciliation.20050505: Grahame will work with HQ on this tomorrow

Open DT

922 20040921: PIVL<TS> add a

20040921: Email from G. Shadow: PIVL<TS> add a property called

Closed DT

Page 87 of 111

property called frequency.

frequency. This property will co-exist with period and will have type RTO<INT, PQ of time>It will be made clear in the narrative that frequency is semantically equivalent to period, but is available as an alternative representation. In the XML ITS, only one of the components frequency and period can be valued in any instance.20040927: CQ WGM Atlanta: Proposal required.20050127: CQ WGM Orlando: same status, no proposal yet20050505: Closed – part of R2 data types

923 20040921: EIVL<TS>: Deprecate many of the current event codes that are of the form Ax, Px, Ix (ante-x, post-x, inter-x), such as ACV, PCV, ICV.

20040921: Email from G. Shadow: EIVL<TS>: Deprecate many of the current event codes that are of the form Ax, Px, Ix (ante-x, post-x, inter-x), such as ACV, PCV, ICV. Instead put in codes for simply C, CM, CD, CV, etc. to indicate the event. Then the offset interval would be interpreted as follows: negative offsets are measured from the start of the event (e.g., 30 min before breakfast) and positive offsets are measured from the end of the event (e.g., 2 hours after meals.) The problem with the present definition is that the offset direction (whether it is before or after) is indicated by the sign AS WELL AS the event code.20040927: CQ WGM Atlanta: Proposal required.20050127: CQ WGM Orlando: Pharmacy issue. They will get back to us to say whether still relevant.

20050505: Closed – part of R2 data types

Closed DT

924 20040921: EIVL<TS> add event codes

20040921: Email from G. Shadow: EIVL<TS> add the following event codes (with the offset semantics as specified in previous change) COIT Sexual intercourse DIAP Diaper change DEFEC Defecation20040927: CQ WGM Atlanta: Proposal required.20050127: CQ WGM Orlando: see 923.20050505: Closed – part of R2 data types

Closed DT

925 20040921: ANY: add 20040921: Email from G. Shadow: ANY: Closed DT

Page 88 of 111

originalText property to (most) any data types.

add originalText property to (most) any data types, so that they would be just inherited to CD or PQR, and available for all data types. The XML ITS does not need to allow for originalText for each and everything, but most RIM attributes end up having a place to put original text.20040927: CQ WGM Atlanta: Proposal required.20050127: CQ WGM Orlando: open20050505: Closed – part of R2 data types

926 20040921: GTS literal form: add another specialization of SXCM<TS> in the XML ITS for GTS with literal forms.

20040921: Email from G. Shadow: GTS literal form: add another specialization of SXCM<TS> in the XML ITS for GTS with literal forms. It would actually look like a CE: <effectiveTime code=”JHUSMEM”/> <effectiveTime code=”JHUSLBR” operator=”P”/> Which would be the all the seasons between memorial day and labor day. CodeSystem would be an optional attribute to override the default standard GTS codes for local codes.20040927: CQ WGM Atlanta: Proposal required.20050127: CQ WGM Orlando: no update20050505: Closed – part of R2 data types

Closed DT

927 20040921: PPD<T>: Revamp PPD to address two interests in the PPD data type extension.

Gunther S 20040921: Email from G. Shadow: PPD<T>: we have two interests in the PPD data type extension. One group of people (Paul Schluter, GE, from LABPOCT SIG and IEEE/MIB group) wants more distribution types and more parameters. Another group, represented by many, many casual users, need a simple confidence-interval like form. Those are people who now prefer to use IVL<T> rather than PPD because PPD seems alien to them. Proposal is to revamp PPD (which had been left on status informative for the ballot) and accomplish both of these above goals. Review and extend the distributions and parameterization model, and at the same time add a confidence interval form and potentially a percentile form.The goal is to make PPD/confidence interval and IVL compatible types with the same XML rendition. That way we can

Closed DT

Page 89 of 111

gently stir people to using PPD for ranges with “pick one” semantics and away from IVL which has “all of those” semantics.20040927: CQ WGM Atlanta: Proposal required.20050127: CQ WGM Orlando: no update20050505: Closed – part of R2 data types

940 Need status on reconciliation of Abstract Data Types from last ballot

Paul Knapp 20041102: CQ Telcon. New Item added as replacement for closed item 301. Gunther appears to be managing Abstract DT rather than Grahame.20041109: CQ Telcon: Paul K will investigate20050127: CQ WGM Orlando: open. Hard to reconcile ballot records. Confusion between HQ and those working on ballot20050505: Closed – defer 919

Closed DT

Action Items - IM


221 20050128: the detectedIssue CMET should be moved to the CMET domain, and not be defined locally in MCAI

20050128: CQ WGM Orlando: Added. When creating the next version of MCAI, the detectedIssue CMET should be moved to the CMET domain, and not be defined locally in MCAIPharmacy has a use-case for a message that shows all controlActs(+detectedIssue) related to a single order. This can be implemented today as a shared message. If implemented as a wrapper this would require that the tools support stubs with exit points. (transmission wrapper - controlAct - order - 1..n - historic control acts)These issues popped up during a discussion with the Pharmacy group in Orlando.20050319: Open, this hasn’t happened in ballot 10.20050505: no information (interested parties not at meeting)

New IM

222 20050128: Need to create a controlAct wrapper for “event replay”.

20050128: CQ WGM Orlando: Added. Need to create a controlAct wrapper for “event replay”. Pharmacy has a use-case for a message that shows all controlActs(+detectedIssue) related to a single order. This can be implemented today as a shared message. If implemented as a wrapper this would

New IM

Page 90 of 111

require that the tools support stubs with exit points. (transmission wrapper - controlAct - order - 1..n - historic control acts)These issues popped up during a discussion with the Pharmacy group in Orlando.20050505: no information (interested parties not at meeting)

228 20050308: CQ wrapper document format

20050308: CQ Telcon: Joann has an action item from v3 Publishing. They are standardizing document formats. They want to know if we have special needs. Perhaps this should be an agenda item. Their question is: Is it necessary/desirable to have a different structure for the wrapper domains – maybe excluding the dynamic model sections? We need more information about the standard format before we can answer the question. 20050505 closed – has been done

Closed IM

231 20050322: Seek approval of proposal to reverse the direction of the association between Message and ControlAct, and confirm instantiation in RIM.

20050322: CQ Telcon: Item added to manage the monitoring of the proposal to reverse the direction of the association between Message and ControlAct, and confirm instantiation in RIM. The original action item (219) to bring the discovered error to the attention of the facilitators’ roundtable in Orlando was completed. Grahame Grieve subsequently submitted a RIM harmonization proposal to Karen Van and MnM on February 20 stating: “CQ requests that the following assocation name be fixed in the UML representation of the RIM:The name payload on the association between Message and ControlAct is on the wrong end, though the cardinalities are correct.”. In an email to the CQ list on that same date, he pointed out that the current situation makes for an incoherent UML RIM diagram. The correct situation is this: a relationalExpression must have one leftSide SelectionExpression a relationalExpression must have one rightSide SelectionExpression

He went on to say: Regarding the reverse relationships, I propose that the reverse relationships should not be named as they

Closed IM

Page 91 of 111

exist in a theoretical sense but not in any useful practical sense.Lloyd McKenzie responded to the email and concurred with this statement.On March 11, Darius K made the same observation regarding the placement of “payload” in the Message/ControlAct association and asked for clarification of the intended XML representation. Rene responded that the current XML structure is:<Message>

<controlActProcess> <Payload

message type/> </controlActProcess>

</Message>This entire structure is called a Composuite Message Type (=payload + 2 wrappers)2005050: done – RIM proposal was approved

232 20050323: Seek approval of proposal to add The EMAUTH code to the ActDetectedIssueManagementCode vocab, and confirm instantiation

20050323: Added by Larson, list editor: This CQ proposal was on the agenda for the Harmonization meeting in Las Vegas in March. We need to track the outcome. This was part of the original proposal #802 which asked for new codes for errorcode related vocabularies. CQ intends to add codes to the ActDetectedIssueManagementCode value set of the ActCode vocab domain.The Emergency authorization override (EMAUTH) code is used by a user to request a temporary override of the normal authorization rules to gain access to data in a case of medical emergency. Use of this override code will typically be monitored, and a procedure to verify its proper use may be triggered when used.20050505: Done

Closed IM

233 20050323: Seek approval of proposal to add 4 error codes to the AcknowledgementDetailCode, and confirm instantiation

20050323: Added by Larson, list editor: This CQ proposal was on the agenda for the Harmonization meeting in Las Vegas in March. We need to track the outcome. This was part of the original proposal #802 which asked for new codes for errorcode related vocabularies. CQ intends to add codes to the AcknowledgementDetailCode as follows:

Closed IM

Page 92 of 111

RTUDEST: Error: Message routing error, unknown destination.RTWDEST: Message routing warning, destination unreachable.NOSTORE: No storage space for message.RTEDEST: Message routing error, destination unreachable20050505: Done

234 20050323: Seek approval of proposal to Add a new attribute “responseModeCode CS CNE[1..1]” to the Transmission RIM class, and confirm instantiation

20050323: Added by Larson, list editor: This CQ proposal was on the agenda for the Harmonization meeting in Las Vegas in March. We need to track the outcome. This was part of the original proposal 806 regarding the dynamic model. Add a new attribute “responseModeCode CS CNE[1..1]” to the Transmission RIM class. This attribute identifies the responsemode as defined by proposal statement 806.4. The attribute is added to the Transmission class (instead of the message class), because response modes apply to Batches as well as Messages. The attribute is associated with the vocabulary domain responseModeCode.20050505 – no information

IM

235 20050323: Seek approval of proposal to Add a new Add a new vocabulary domain “responseModeCode” to be associated with the proposed new responseModeCode attribute, and confirm instantiation

20050323: Added by Larson, list editor: This CQ proposal was on the agenda for the Harmonization meeting in Las Vegas in March. We need to track the outcome. This was part of the original proposal 806 regarding the dynamic model. Add a new vocabulary domain “responseModeCode” with the following values:

•“I” Immediate (The receiver is required to assume that the sender is blocking and behave appropriately by sending an immediate response.) •“D” Deferred (The receiver may respond in a non-immediate manner. Note: this will be the default value)

•“Q” Queue (The receiver shall keep any application responses in a queue until such a point in time the queue is polled)20050505 – no information

IM

237 20050323: Seek approval of proposal to Move the

20050323: Added by Larson, list editor: This CQ proposal was on the agenda for the Harmonization meeting in Las Vegas in

Closed IM

Page 93 of 111

versionCode attribute from the Message class to the Transmission class, and confirm instantiation

March. We need to track the outcome. The proposal seeks to Move the versionCode attribute from the Message class to the Transmission class. This change allow versionCode to be used in both Message and Batch.

Proposal is motivated by the need to have a versionCode in the batchwrapper, in order for the receiver to know what attributes the Batch class has.Companion to item #238.200050505 No information

238 20050323: Seek approval of proposal to Move the interactionId attribute from the Message class to the Transmission class, and confirm instantiation

20050323: Added by Larson, list editor: This CQ proposal was on the agenda for the Harmonization meeting in Las Vegas in March. We need to track the outcome. The proposal seeks to Move the interactionId attribute from the Message class to the Transmission class. This change allow interactionId to be used in both Message and Batch.

The interactionId is desirable for reasons of consistency; batches (like accept NAKs) will have a fixed interactionID, batch acknowledgements (itself a batch) will have a different interactionID.

Companion to item #237.

Email from Charlie M to Rene: This proposal has backwards compatibility issues associated with it -- is there any overpowering reason why versionCode and interactionId must be removed from Message class -- rather than being left there as well, and being inherited from the Transmission class when that is used? One thing that we have already learnt in the UK implementations is that version compatibility is a big deal -- particularly in the wrappers that affect all implementations.I have not been following the transmission developments closely but this looks to me like a change that will leave implementations being unable to support existing wrappers with new payloads that require other changes that have been

Closed IM

Page 94 of 111

approved in the RIM -- thus making it more difficult for affiliates that have a growing installed base to support the needs of their members in a way that minimises the impact of version change.I have copied this to Karen in the hope that it can be logged as a comment against the harmonisation request and if it is not closed beforehand can be brought to the attention of those voting at the harmonisation meeting. Charlie 200050505 No information

239 200409: Create a proposal for the polling message transmission topic.

20050325: Item added by Larson, Action Item List editor, upon discovery of an email from Rene Spronk to Lloyd McKenzie last December stating as follows:In Atlanta you took a CQ action item for the Orlando meeting: to create a proposal for the Polling Message Transmission topic.This to prepare for the introduction of the processingModeCode value of Q. The current polling topic would then largely be replaced by a single QBP query..20050325: Email from Larson to Lloyd and CQ co-chairs: I don't find this in either our closed or active Action Items. Has this been done? Do we need to add it?20050325: Response from Lloyd M: It should go in the active column.20050505 No information

IM

302 20040927: Check for vocabulary gaps in V3 Infrastructure Management.

Andrew Hinchley

20040927: New action item.20041109: CQ Telcon: No update. René Spronk will talk to Andrew.20041214: CQ Telcon: No update.20050127: CQ WGM Orlando: no update20050505 – No information

Open IM

337 20040930: Split current model and bring forward the result to CQ

Miroslav Koncar

20040930: CQ WGM Atlanta. Item added. Nicu Goga, Andrew Hinchley, Darius Kemeklis, Miroslav Koncar and René Spronk will work jointly on this activity.20041109: CQ Telcon: René Spronk reported that some members in Europe are thinking about doing an un-official acceleration meeting 20041214: CQ Telcon: René reported that Miroslav Koncar has created a new draft of the state model but it is not ready for CQ review yet. Miroslav will take the lead on

Open IM

Page 95 of 111

this item.20050127: CQ WGM Orlando: work in progress, the draft is documented in 901. Message Adapter state model is included, needs to be finalized before pub of the ballot.20050505 – No information

XI. Call to OrderThe meeting was called to order by the chair, Doug Pratt, at 13:51 GMT +2. Grahame Grieve was the scribe. Quorum attained.

Agenda approval – this sessionApproved upon a motion by Gaby and second by Sandy. 7-0-0.

AnnouncementsSandy: Joann has been appointed as the publisher for CQ for V3, but she cannot take on that role. It does not need to be a co-chair. Responsibilities: the person must be aware of the publishing process and involved in the CQ publishing cycle.

Action ItemsSee tables below agenda. Resolved

Abstract Data types UpdateReviewed Release 2 data Types proposals sent to the list.

R2 data type proposals will be dealt with by telecom through to the next meeting with hot-topic issues resolved F2F at San Diego, then committee level ballot following that meeting.

ISO/CEN update summary: CEN and HL7 are exploring creating a joint task-force to work on datatypes with a view to sharing the datatypes as a common standard. C/Q may need to work with this task force and various board committees to work out how this would be handled with regard to process.

IM ProposalsThere was no IM proposals presented

AdjournmentThe meeting was adjourned at 14:53 GMT +2 upon a motion by Sandy Stuart and second by Gaby Jewell.

Page 96 of 111

Page 97 of 111

Quarter 4, Wednesday, May 4, 2005Topic: Hot Topics (walk in session, v3 and v2)

Known Attendees


Michael Van Campen [email protected]



Gary Cruikshank [email protected]



Bob Grant [email protected]



Agenda


1.1

Call to Order

2.2

Agenda approval – this session

3.3

Announcements 5 (1-3)

4. Addressable file queue Bob Grant 10

5.4

PRA.5

6. Shared Messages (Canadian prop)

7.7

Versioning

8. Evaluate need for Hot Topics session

Page 98 of 111

5 in San Diego

9.8

Adjournment

Action Items


XII. Call to OrderThe meeting was called to order by the chair, Rene Spronk, at 15:35 GMT +2. Doug Pratt was the scribe. Quorum attained.

Agenda approval – this sessionApproved upon a motion by Doug and second by Sandy.

Announcements

Addressable File QueueBob grant reviewed a Shared Messages proposal to retrieve HL7 messages from a server-based queue; “query for a named item.”

Vote


CQ shall accept this proposal as a work item for the Shared Messages domain.

Bob Grant/Michael Van Camp

15-0-0

PRA-5Currently specialty name is type ST, would like it changed to CWE to support coded entries with alternate values. Discussion about backwards compatibility; in general, cannot change ST to CWE.

Vote


To add a 5th component, “Specialty Code” of CWE datatype to the SPD datatype, and deprecate the

Grahame/Gabby 15-0-0 Needs to be added as action item for 2.7. Doug to add to

Page 99 of 111

1st component of this SPD datatype.

2A, Helen Drijfout/June Rosploch (Chapter 15).

Shared MessagesVote


Accept proposal 962 (4 Canadian shared message proposals) as work for the shared message domain.

Michael Van Camp/Paul Knapp

15-0-0

Institute further review of and confirmation of the detected issue classes as they relate to HL7 Canada, Rx and unspecified other issues.

Michael Van Campen/ Gary Cruickshenk

15-0-0

Mask an act (Revise Act.confidentialityCode)

Undo Action (Nullify ControlActEvent)

Record Note (Complete AnnotationObservationEvent with subject Act)

Patient Note (Complete AnnotationObservationEvent with subject Role)

VersioningVote


Grahame explained how versioning currently works insofar as the relationships among wrappers and CMETs are concerned. There are numerous problems with this - it is a big issue. Lloyd and Grahame will write and publish storyboard explanation of this.

Evaluate need for Hot Topics Session in San DiegoYes, there exists this need.

Action Itemstext.

Vote


Page 100 of 111

Action Items


Topictext.

Vote


Action Items


AdjournmentThe meeting was adjourned at 17:01 GMT +2 upon a motion by Sandy and second by Gabby.

Quarter 1, Friday, May 6, 2005Topic: V2.7 Proposals and Meeting Evaluation

Confirmed Attendees


Charlie McKay [email protected]






Page 101 of 111


Agenda


1 Call to Order

2 Agenda approval


4 Action Items 10

5 V2.7 proposals

6 Meeting Evaluation

7 Direction of CQ

8 Co-chair responsibilities?

9 Preparation of Noordwijkerhout minutes?

10 Adjournment

Action Items


335 20040930: contact PIC and develop a procedure to track action items that are referred to other committees

CQ co-chairs.

20050506: no update Open admin

339 20041001: Find out the impact of Services Architecture on CQ (is a new TC/SIG/project needed?)

Joann 20041001: Alan Honey and Ken Rubin are the points of contact on the Services Architecture side.20050402: Update from Larson: In January, Ken Rubin described the project as follows:“Name: Healthcare Services Specification ProjectPurpose: To identify, specify and document functionality for services that are computationally-relevant to healthcare organizationsContext: This is being proposed as a project to be executed under the HL7 EHR TC and in collaboration with the Object Management Group(The Object Management Group is a

Closed admin

Page 102 of 111

standards group that does a significant amount with services and service architecture)In an effort to kick this project off properly, we have secured several formal letters of commitment from organizations expressing their support and intent to contribute resources to this effort.”From another email: A decision has been reached that the Services Project will not become an HL7 Special Interest Group, instead opting to become a formal, chartered project. This is a direction that HL7 migrating towards, and we will be among the front-runners in this regard. This approach has been discussed and ultimately endorsed by Mark Shafarman (HL7 Chair), John Quinn (TSC Chair), Mead Walker (ARB Chair), Ed Hammond (prior HL7 Chair and prior EHR Co-Chair) and the co-chairs of the EHR TC, which will be our sponsoring committee. A number of committees within HL7 were considered as candidates for hosting this work, and based upon discussions with the above individuals among many others, it was determined that it was to the maximum advantage of this effort to be hosted by EHR. Alan Honey and I support this recommendation and look forward to working within EHR on it.30050506: Joann: SIG is sponsored by EHR TC. They selected 3 topics to be detailed as a proof of concept: record locator, master person registry, terminology (overlap with CTS II). Closed.

340 20041001: Ask Grahame if he can continue to act as ARB Representative.

Mike Henderson

30050506: Tony is now the ARB rep. Closed.

Closed admin

341 20041001: Can a stick/CD be pre-loaded with TC materials for WGM session participants?

Mike 20050506: good idea, but there’s little need to do it in practice. close.

Closed admin

343 20041001: Research how requirements for committee membership and voting may be enforced.

René 20041109: CQ Telcon: in progress20050112: email from Rene as follows:“From our DMP: “Committee meetings are open to all interested parties including but not limited to members of HL7, HL7 affiliates, and guests of HL7 as referenced

Open admin

Page 103 of 111

in the HL7 Bylaws – Article 3.02.”.“Guests are welcome to participate in the work of the committee and are recognized as either guests of HL7, e.g., not a member of HL7, or guests of the CQ TC, e.g., a member of HL7 but not a declared member of the CQ TC.”“When formal votes are taken the chair will explain the eligibility for voting. Registered CQ TC members shall always receive a vote in keeping with ANSI openness rules. (.. snip ..). For non-binding decisions only, all meeting participants may have the opportunity to vote at the discretion of the presiding chair.” - Note that this means that non-declared CQ members that participate in a CQ meeting don’t have a vote.

From the bylaws: “3.03.03 TECHNICAL COMMITTEE AND SPECIAL INTEREST GROUP MEMBERSHIP - Members shall have the opportunity to declare themselves members of any one or more Technical Committees and Special Interest Groups. Maintaining membership in a Technical Committee requires that the member participate in at least 60% of the Technical Committee ballots pertaining to approval or adoption of HL7 protocol specifications, or any portion thereof, cast during the period of one year from the date of declaration.”However, the bylaws also state this: “5.01 PARTICIPANTS - Non-members and representative members of all categories and affiliations in good standing and present in assembly shall be deemed participants and, except as otherwise specifically provided in the bylaws or policy and procedures, shall have the right to cast a vote in meetings of the Technical Committees and Special Interest Groups.” - 3.03.03 is contained elsewhere in the bylaws, so it takes precedence over the more generic statement in 5.01

From this one can conclude the following:-Only self-declared registered members of CQ have a vote. The lose their right to vote if they don’r 104ollowing104e in at least 60% of all ballots in the year 104ollowing their sign-up.

Page 104 of 111

-The often quoted rule that “all those signed up to the CQ e-mail list” automatically are to be seen as “registered CQ members” doesn’t exist.It seems that at least we’ll have to ask HQ for a list of persons that have indicated they want to be a member of CQ.”20050319: rene: needs follow up on a steering call.20050506: Bylaw review is in process, this will be part of it. Joann is following up with them.

344 20041001: Schedule times for co-chair meetings during the week.

Steering Committee

20041001: CQ WGM Atlanta: added.20050112: email from Rene: “We now have planned:-post-TSC meeting Monday evening-Tuesday morning breakfast meeting-Friday Q1/Q2.Maybe we should add a meeting on Thursday to this (breakfast Thursday ? I have a conflict with Lunch).”20050506: Planning for SanDiego: Wednesday breakfast, Friday AM.

Open admin

346 20041001: Add minutes compilation to planning process for WGMs. (Compile planning process document.)

Steering Committee

20041001: CQ WGM Atlanta: added.20050506: Joann: close, put in agenda for a WGM.

Closed admin

347 20041001: Include agenda item table in the published paper agenda for WGM week.

Joann 20050506: desirable, but impractical: mostly the agenda items are unknown. Close.

Closed admin

518 2004007 Request PIC to create a process to ensure that those that bring forward v2 proposals should include a v3 mapping analysis

Doug 20041001: Not always possible (some elements are V2 artifacts) but the analysis needs to be done always.20050506: Doug will ask PIC about status.

Open admin

201 20050124: Add language to Chapter 2 to the effect that “Instances of messages are transient by nature and cannot be expected by


Open V2

Page 105 of 111

transmitter and/or receiver to be persistent after acknowledgement.”

202 20050124: Add language to Chapter 2, §2.8.1.f. to the effect that “It is acceptable to add a field that alters the intent of a segment, provided that the field is conditional on not being used with pre-existing trigger events.”

Tony Julian 20050124: CQ WGM Orlando: Motion approved20050506: closed, done, need to take this to ARB

Closed V2

203 20050124: For Version 2.7, add language to Chapter 2 to the effect that “CQ does not express an opinion at this time on the restarting of set IDs relative to groups or message.”

Tony Julian 20050124: CQ WGM Orlando: Motion approved20050506: edit needs to be done in 2.7

Open V2

204 Add to §2.A.13.1 the first sentence from the immediately preceding paragraph – in the coding system designated by CWE.3

Doug Pratt 20050124: CQ WGM Orlando: Motion approved20050506: done

Closed V2

209 20050125: Add discovered item to add the newly defined message structures to HL7 table 0354 - Message Structures

Tony J 20050125: CQ WGM Orlando: added. Decision to add missing message structures to messages in chapter 5 means that these message structures will also need to be added to HL7 table 0354 - Message Structures in chapter 2 lest there be further negative line items in the next ballot.20050506: To be added to the chapter 2 2.6 rec. database for inclusion in v2 material.

Open V2

210 Ensure that the Chairs of OO, FM, PA have handled their chapter 8 line items, and receive feedback.

Grahame G / Joann L

20050125: CQ WGM Orlando: added. Rene agreed to track down Klaus regarding the PA items20050506: Grahame/Rene didn’t follow up. Joann: has sent e-mails, documented in database.

Open V2

223 20050201: Revisit 20050201: CQ Telcon: Need to revisit Open V2

Page 106 of 111

length changes lengths that we had agreed to change in response to Frank Oemig’s votes to make consistent with datatype definition in Chapter 2a. Graham approached ARB and they thought that the ARB guidelines would stand, would be big change, recommended that we don’t do it. PUBs meeting; Pubs opposed to making the change too. Don’t want this to force a new ballot. 20050208: CQ Telcon: M/M/S Julian/Pratt To leave sizes as they are, and fix in 2.7. 4-0-220050506: has been talked about this meeting, still open for 2.7

224 20050201: Revisit CNE/CWE changes for substantivity

20050201: CQ Telcon: CNE/CWE - need to revisit the minutes from Orlando from Graham. Want to defer most change to 2.7 but may do some tweaking for 2.6. Prospect of tweaking is making others nervous; need to revisit. 20050208: CQ Telcon: Rene suggested we will research until next week. Doug will do the research.20050215: CQ Telcon: Approved caution note for CWE.1.20050506: they are substantive, changes need to go to 2.7. Action item closed.

Closed V2

225 20050201: Follow-up on Mood code discussion

20050201: CQ Telcon: Mood code discussion - FLUP: need to do follow up from meeting in Orlando per minutes (i.e., logistics of updating standard).20050208: CQ Telcon: Updated narrative approved.20050506: this is related to moodcode in v2. The documentation action is documented elsewhere, close this action item.

Closed V2

226 20050201: Follow-up on Missing Message Structures

20050201: CQ Telcon: Message structures changes for Chapter 5 could be substantive. Take another look at it and see if we can declare it errata. Some deprecated. Graham has more info. Need to avoid another ballot if at all possible. 20050208: CQ Telcon: Add the proper message structure identification to all deprecated message structures in Chapters 5 and 8.Explanation: These messages have been deprecated, so no changes have been made. But they are still valid V2.6

Open V2

Page 107 of 111

messages, and it should be possible to encode the messages in XML. This cannot be done unless structures are assigned to them. So we give them structures.20050506: motions have been made related to this. Joann: this one needs to go to ARB. Tony: there will be a telcon two weeks after the WGM. Should be a topic for next steering CQ call.

227 20050201: Follow-up on missing UAC segments

20050201: CQ Telcon: Same with forgetting UAC segment (we forgot in deprecated messages only). Said we can't add them to a deprecated message. FLUP Joann to announce that we will address this on next week's telcon, include TSC on announcement.20050506: Joann: In v2.6 database, close action item.

Closed V2

Call to OrderThe meeting was called to order by the chair, Tony Julian, at 0905 GMT +2. Rene was the scribe. Quorum attained.

Agenda approval – this sessionApproved upon a motion by Doug and second by Gaby; 3-0-0.

AnnouncementsSome of the co-chairs will arrive later this quarter, some issues will be postponed until they arrive.


V2.7 proposalsDoug Pratt presents a v2.7 proposal (#429) related to Table 206 “Segment Action Code”.

Discussion of the use-case where one Key can be associated with multiple diagnosis types (each having different metadata, but one and the same diagnosis). This could lead to Table 206 being filled with all kinds of codes for updating a particular field. If mapped to v3, each diagnosis/diagnosis-type combination would have to have a different ID (key), the same ID can’t be reused. Table 206 is also used in other segments. The committee members express that they think the use of one

Page 108 of 111

and the same key in combination with different diagnosis types is not advisable. Table 206 is CWE, therefore a local extension along the lines of proposal #429 is an option.

Vote


The committee finds proposal #429 non persuasive, and recommends a implementation-specific (i.e. local) addition to Table 206.

Gaby/Rene 3-0-1

Action Items


Meeting EvaluationGreat meeting. Hot topics was a good idea.

Need better co-chair coordination prior to Mon 0900, week prior to meeting there’s mostly no telcon. Co-chairs need to be at multiple places at one and the same time.

Move Telcon to 15:00 US Eastern, Tuesday.

Direction of CQMission statement. Do we really need to cover “Application Management” ? Ping is useful, but where does it stop ?

Vote


CQ moves that Grahame informs ORC on behalf of CQ that abstract datatypes does not fit within our general mission statement

Grahame/Joann 5-0-0

Co-chair responsibilities?Not discussed.

Preparation of Noordwijkerhout MinutesNot discussed. After adjournment Grahame agreed to compile the minutes for this WGM.

Page 109 of 111

AdjournmentThe meeting was adjourned at 1100 GMT +2 upon a motion by Grahame and second by Rene.

Page 110 of 111

Note: CQ did not officially meet in Q2.

Page 111 of 111

Documents

€¦ · Web viewControl/Query Working Group Meeting Agenda May 2 – May 6, 2005 Noordwijkerhout, The Netherlands. General Editor: Grahame Grieve. Note about Attendances