Control/Query Meeting Minutes (Heading 1)
Vocabulary Working Group
Meeting Minutes
January 2015
Attendees
Given Name
Family Name
Affiliation
eMail
Elaine
Ayres
NHI
[email protected]
Jos
Baptist
NICTIZ
[email protected]
Nathan
Bunker
AIRA
[email protected]
Nicolas
Canu
L‘Atelier du Soft
[email protected]
Jim
Case
NLM/ NIH
[email protected]
Dave
Carlson
VA
[email protected]
Patty
Craig
the Joint Commission
[email protected]
Jean
Duteau
Duteau Design
[email protected]
Katherine
Duteau
Duteau Design
[email protected]
Gary
Dolin
IMO
[email protected]
Angela
Flanagan
Lantana Consulting
[email protected]
Yongshang
Gao
On Phone
Rick
Geimer
Lantana Consulting
[email protected]
Heather
Grain
eHealth Education
[email protected]
Russ
Hamm
Lantana
[email protected]
Kendra
Hanley
AMA
[email protected]
Rob
Hausam
Hausam Consulting
[email protected]
Peter
Hendler
Kaiser Permanente
[email protected]
Wendy
Huang
CHI
[email protected]
Julie
James
Blue Wave Informatics
[email protected]
Crystal
Kalla
Lantana Consulting
[email protected]
Daniel
Karlsson
On phone
Ted
Klein
KCI
[email protected]
Carolyn
Knapik
CAP
[email protected]
Joe
Kunisch
Memorial Hermann
[email protected]
Eric
Larson
NCC/CDC
[email protected]
Jay
Lyle
VA
[email protected]
Rob
McClure
NLM/ONC
[email protected]
Lawrence
McKnight
Seimens
[email protected]
Carol
Macumber
Apelon
[email protected]
David
Markwell
IHTSDO (on phone)
[email protected]
Brett
Marquard
River Rock Associates
[email protected]
Chris
Melo
Phillips Healthcare
[email protected]
Riki
Merrick
APHL
[email protected]
Jane
Millar
IHTSDO
[email protected]
Juha
Mykkanen
HL7 Finland
[email protected]
Senthil
Nachimmuthu
3M
[email protected]
Jean
Narcisi
American dental association
[email protected]
Lauren
Nihs
NCQA
[email protected]
Frank
Oemig
HL7 Germany
[email protected]
David
Parker
Defined IT
[email protected]
Heather
Patrick
On phone
Andrea
Pitkus
[email protected]
Matthew
Ralin
HHS/ONC
[email protected]
John
Roberts
TN Dept of Health
Rob
Savage
NGC/CDC
[email protected]
Mark
Shafarman
Shaferman Consulting
[email protected]
Abdulmalik
Shakir
Shakir Consulting
[email protected]
Julia
Skapik
ONC
[email protected]
Anne
Smith
National Committee for Quality Assurance
[email protected]
Kim
Smuk
AMA
[email protected]
Robert
Snelick
NIST
[email protected]
Sandra
Stuart
Kaiser
[email protected]
Asif
Syed
AMA
[email protected]
Catherine
Welsh
Academy of nutrition and dietetics
[email protected]
Sunday Q3
Chair: Ted Klein
Scribe: Heather Grain
Meeting Activities and Assignments
Chairs and scribes for each session were established and the
spreadsheet of Vocabulary agenda was updated accordingly.
Vocabulary need to prepare a list of issues for discussion with
MnM on Wednesday.
Project review: Validate milestones and dates in the time
allowed. If incomplete review in the calls.
Harmonisation of vocabulary content discussion
Discussion held as Ted would not be present on Monday Q4 for
this discussion.
The mechanism for harmonising terminology and quality
improvement was discussed. After the experience of V2 review what
we have is surprisingly good despite the lack of people resources.
Despite this we have a number of known issues which include:
· Lack of skills in development of value sets
· Dedicated authoring staff – how will be maintain it?
· Dedicated staff to operate the service– probably from the
community
· Set of education materials and processes for the work groups
to submit requests (Hl7 equivalent)
· Enforcement if not in the repository it doesn’t get included
in publishing and cannot be considered an HL7 publication
· Estimate of work to be done
Tasks required to get it done.
· Pick a persistent technology – terminology service which can
interface to publishing process.
· Number of objects
· V2 – 1,100
· V3 - 1,900 value sets
· V3 > 200 code systems
· CDA – unsure
· FHIR - unsure
· Identification of differences
· Method of identification of differences
· Estimate of hours to resolve quality issues and relate to
V3:
· V2 - 100 hours still to be done (800 hours already spent)
· V3 - 200 hours
· CDA - 600 hours
· FHIR - 400 hours
· Processes
· First Pass
· Review each content item
· Use and improve the list of mechanical methods to apply to
remove simple quality issues (such as punctuation)
· Determine quality modifications :
· Have list of things to be mechanically applied
· Analysis pass to identify how to map to standard vocabulary
model
· Identify sense of problems and issues to be addressed
· Rules exist on how to map to the common model
· Rules exist for the scrubbing
· 2nd pass
· write down list of what has to be done, fixed, etc and
process. (down to 300 older lower numbers are harder and take
longer)
For V3 the 1st pass and 2nd pass should be much faster as the
content is of higher quality. For CDA – 1st pass and 2nd pass –
different but close to V3 as the vocabulary model is being used. A
little longer than V3 but less than V2
The time to complete FHIR is hard to estimate. Many FHIR objects
are copied from V3 and v2 as imports. V2 quality fixes have been
applied as they go. Some content is new or significantly extended
modified for FHIR.
Publishing requirement
· Existing funding for some value sets.
· Bulk of time to do this is currently 600 x 2 hours
estimate.
· Harmonise models and content and the processes.
· Can move to single repository over time.
· HTA should consider adding a field of data in V2 that
indicates a request to fix. Basically an indication of status.
· Requirement to maintain details of who uses (where published)
vocabulary content table / value set to support ongoing
maintenance.
Action: Heather to include in HTA specification of requirements
- done
List of things to be brought in to tooling discussion:
· Units of measure used in observations – tables are not in the
vocabulary model but exist only in chapter 7.
· Collection of tables in Version 2 which are not tables of
codes, they are collections of terms used in post-coordinated
expressions. For example; repeat pattern for frequencies, there is
a q, h and I for hours or days.
· If not external source – we will clean and put into persistent
store
Vocabulary will have to determine status on file format and
capacity for V2 tables which are currently flat, i.e. have no
hierarchy. The issue is that new codes are siblings – good
vocabulary practice means that the meaning is changed it is a new
release of the code system. Therefore, we have a pure HL7
requirement to handle message processing error reporting for where
child concepts rather than siblings. Without the potential of
relationships in the representation structure there is an
administrative burden to change the code system identifier for
versions where siblings change which could and probably should be
represented as children (which would not require if child concepts
were created). This would be much easier to harmonise with concepts
which do have a hierarchy in them. For 2.10 we could introduce
hierarchy structures into V2
Other considerations include:
· The formal relationships of such a group to other HL7
groups.
· Need a better collaborative support system for vocabulary
resources, comments, dispositions and resolution.
· Vocabulary owner of the information model for vocabulary and
HTA as the owner of external content. Content processes, quality of
content and submission processes are managed by HTA, definitions
adequate to define the terms, while the information model, language
support and preferred display names should be in the structure
group.
No decisions were made.
Sunday Q4 V2 Tutorials and Facilitators
Chair: Ted Klein
Scribe: Heather Grain
Review of Tutorial Outline Document
This document was updated to reflect review of Vocab 2 (now
Using HL7 vocabulary) requirements and other experiences with
tutorials and education.
Refer to the updated document but in summary:
When considering the use of webinars the following suggestions
were made:
Webinars should be topic specific and should be developed
whether people enroll in them or not. Provide links to them from
workgroup pages and FAQs
Remind people of relevant webinars prior to the workgroup to
build skills that could be needed
For those who have had webinars – have a table lunch for
discussion and follow up.
Consider two part webinars for longer topics so that people can
do them in their lunch break.
Terminology good practice – Authoring value sets – this topic is
vital but not attracting attendees, despite successful comments and
responses from previous deliveries. It was suggested that First
Time Attendees should be informed of this tutorial as a key
learning experience.
Action: Heather to suggest this to Education WG. – Done
Action: Heather to update the tutorial outline document and the
tutorial specification for what was Vocab 2 – now Using Vocabulary
in HL7. - Done
Monday Q1 V2 Project Review
Chair: Ted Klein
Scribe: Heather Grain
Project Status Review
Process for changes: projects should be edited by clicking admin
on the project page for Vocabulary. For projects led by others
email Dave Hamil and the other project leader/s. Do not bother to
change the estimated end date as it is not used, but do update the
status and next date information.
Potential Projects in the Plan
1025: Determine a formal process for vocabulary maintenance
Added co-dependence with HTA.
Project is not yet approved and has no lead.
1026 Define a process to assign a single HL7 preferred value set
and/or code system for a specific coded attributes in HL7.
It was unclear what this project is aiming to achieve. At the
moment terminology guidance is provided at the attribute level,
while the value set definition has some recommendations that you
start with a business purpose and a recommendation such as ‘this
should probably be represented using SNOMED CT’
Action: Rob McClure is believed to have further information on
this project. Ask Rob to provide details of the use case.
1027 Document methods for establishing how to do conformance
with post-coordination for HL7
This project has no lead. No change made
1028 Provide guidance on the use/role of interface terminology
and reference terminology
This project has no lead. This is a paper and we would need to
get consensus in the work group on how this should be done.
947 HL7 Vocabulary Maintenance Tooling
Name updated to reflect current requirements. Project Lead –
Russ Hamm, now with additional input of HTA and ESD. This project
will be moved to active to address specific requirements.
630 – with CGIT (leaders) develop and publish principles and
guidelines to specify the syntax for vocabulary binding in
implementation guides.
Need to discuss with CGIT how to complete the binding syntax
problems. We have the notion of a binding, and two machine
processable mechanisms the MIF and a set of binding structures in
FHIR. They are currently very FHIR specific and not easy to find.
There is also the issue that CDA have a lot of implemented content
as well. Discussed in part Thursday Q3.
This project either should be abandoned or completed. Vocabulary
would like this to be completed but the problem is very complex and
the solution will not be simple.
Proposed new work item at ISO – Extensions of ISO 11179 to meet
the requirements of healthcare.
There was support for this work within the WG which should be an
ISO WG3 work item. One of more of the HL7 ISO liaison reps to
ensure that the major HL7 input is obtained. In this way it occurs
at ISO but with joint input from HL7.
This project was seen as necessary as:
· Many nations that are tightly active in HL7 have big data
repositories based on 11179 and there are many short falls causing
difficulties and conflicts
· Vocabulary terminology model of HL7 is not compliant with
11179 as it is insufficient. There is a need to be able to
harmonise these repository structures.
Action: Ted to include a slot on a call to ask for information
about inadequacies of ISO 11179 for HL7 or other purposes.
Russ has recently gone through 11179. Some of the issues he
found included problems with data types, difference between
specification for transmission (reporting) and storage – which does
not need to be specified. Requirement for different surface forms
from standard data elements for different purposes.
Active Projects
TermInfo
1047 Characteristics of a formal “Value Set Definition “
Progressing with anticipated end date of Sep 2015.
Joint with CGI 874 V2 Code table versioning and alignment to V3
vocabulary model (Tables Project)
Ted. Moving slower than desired but more problems are being
identified consistently and. Estimate that the 2nd pass will be
complete by the end of May.
Action Heather G: Frank O and Dave H (HQ) requesting the end
date be modified Jan 2016 - done
It is estimated that Vocabulary can handle approximately 4
projects at a time. As CTS 2 is complete, TermInfo and Value Set
Definition are nearing completion. That will leave Tables Project,
and Tooling projects as active.
As Vocabulary will have 6 co-chairs after this meeting we should
be able to maintain 4 active projects (leaving resources to support
other work groups). Therefore we will be able to start 2 additional
projects.
Monday Q2 Tables Project
Chair: Ted Klein
Scribe: Heather Grain
Project Status Review
Calls are fortnightly and are well attended. Documentation of
this analysis pass includes: The kind of an object (a concept
domain, value set, or a set of codes defined). When there is a
published set of codes created and published by HL7 these are being
declared to be a code system.
There is a spreadsheet which is updated on each call. Publishing
is waiting for us to complete the table review to publish V2.9.
Rules established to define type of change (such as editorial minor
– not considered an actual change). The form used to collect all
the information includes: Concept domain information, Code system
identification information, Code system version information, Value
set information, binding information, and table metadata.
There are tables which are incongruous with a code and often
sentences, comments etc. as the description. Straight forward
errors are sometimes applied where they are rendering, editorial
type of errors. A comment facility is also included.
An editing status field has been added to indicate the status.
Status values include: fixed (complete), unclear (needs review),
manual intervention required to implement the fix, unchanged from
original publication
There is a need to move the current V2 vocabulary maintenance
out of MS Access and into MYSql
The V2 vocabulary model is weak and does not give a lot of
functionality.
The model does not support synonyms which are used not only in
descriptions, but also in codes. The lack of hierarchy in version 2
is a significant issue: For example:
Table 516 - Error severity
· There are many values of E for error but there are many
flavours of these
· From 2.6 F was added as a sibling to represent Fatal Errors. E
therefore since 2.6 as meant all errors which are not fatal. If
specialisations could occur the F would be a child of E and the
meaning of E would not have changed. As codes have changed meaning
this is a different code system.
Ted Proposed that on a one by one basis the tables project may
determine that where this circumstance occurs a discussion is
required on whether to say this is two code systems (a different
system from 2.6 forward) or whether we say from a practical point
of view where the rules are broken but functional for non-health
record content such as this example.
Discussion:
Jim Case indicated that implementers have to do some process
evaluation
Rob M indicated that tracking the meaning over time is essential
for patient records but less critical for transaction governance
information over time.
The latest version of this code system is the one you should be
used – you should no longer be using the old version of the code
system.
For non-patient care related data do we want to adopt a rule for
two versions of the code system or a new code system.
Few have implemented 2.6 or beyond.
Motion
Moved Rob McClure, seconded Rob Hausam
When changes are identified by the Tables Project that change
meaning of the coded values or content of the code system the
Tables Project may determine whether this is a new code system or a
new version of the existing code system.
When the Tables Project decide to record this as a new version
(for practical purposes which do not impact clinical care or
records) justification shall be recorded.
Vote: Yes: 7 (unanimous)
Passed
A note indicating the implementers need to be aware of this
change is required irrespective of which decision is made.
A project proposal on the following is needed:
Vocabulary Work Group document a process by which a quality
review of the vocabulary elements in ballots will undergo a
terminology review in a systematic manner.
This might be a technical review (to cover editorial issues) and
the harmonisation meeting does the content review.
Discussion: this is only able to be achieved with agreement on
objective and staffing requirements to achieve this.
Table 1: Administrative Sex Discussion
The tables project needs to deal with overlapping meaning
Another task will be to get work groups to provide definitions for
these items. We will need to give work groups guidance on how to do
this in a correct manner.
Question is it the intent of the tables project to align with
SNOMED CT instead of creating a new code system for the V2 table
use the V3 code system and add new code systems. It is not intended
to follow this suggestion. However advice on this option should be
included in guidance to working groups for cleaning up their
vocabulary content.
When selecting a code system look for overlap and try and not
choose a new code
Monday Q3 Value Set Definition Project
Chair: Rob Hausam
Scribe: Russ Hamm
Monday Q4 Harmonisation and Value Sets for Structured
Documents
Chair: Russ Hamm
Scribe: Heather Grain
A project scope statement was presented by Structured Documents
to cover definition of how value set stewards for artefacts from
SDWG projects are identified and outline potential approaches to
ongoing maintenance of value sets.
Motion:
Rob McClure moved that Vocabulary support this proposed project
as a co-sponsor.
It is recommended that Vocabulary define the responsibilities of
a steward on their vocabulary.
For example: Responsible for identification of vocabulary
elements which are structural go these through harmonisation. Those
which are not in that category the Vocabulary WG will advise.
Seconded: Rob Hausam
Discussion:
Though not part of this project this project must be cognisant
of the implications for tooling such as the need with a shared
vocabulary structure to identify:
· Steward – content governance for their needs
· Users (where the value set has been published / used)
· Maintenance of updates – such as need to review SNOMED CT
content within 18 month time frame.
Need to identify the tasks to be done:
· Quality assessment of content
· Process for review of content by users
Additional project will be needed to define how stewards of
domain specific content will be managed.
Vote: 15 Yes Abstain 1 No 0
Motion passed.
Vocabulary Considerations
What process would vocabulary like for stewards so that we can
advise them on maintenance?
Single source value set definitions and distribution system will
be discussed at HTA on Friday. It is anticipated that V2 and V3
will be the most difficult but the method of aggregation and
distribution of tooling will need to be considered.
Stewardship will also be discussed HTA is looking at it from a
tactical perspective but Vocab will most likely be the
implementers.
There will be a need for a project on Guidance for Stewardship
of value set content in HL7:
· Clarify how stewardship is designated
· Non v2 WG that publishes the standard that directly specifies
the content
· Expectation is that content can be either
· Open for any implementation approach – no content
specified
· Directly references content specified (and stewarded)
elsewhere (no modification allowed). This can include situations
where HL7 WG collaborate with others to create or modify
content
· Content specified in the artefact and the WG is the
steward.
· V2 chapters have designated stewards
· CDA created content will likely be Structured Documents
This work requires a registry of value sets and where they are
specified
· Use existing vocab oversight process where already existing
(until a better option emerges if it does)
· Structural content goes to harmonization
· V2 table review process
· Domain specific content
· Look for similar content in attempt to harmonize.
· Re-use is desirable where practical but is not required
· Discuss potential to share modification before re-creation
· Look for similar communities rather than develop alone. Find
collaborators and SMEs.
A project scope statement for Vocabulary should be developed for
this work.
Tuesday Q1 Meeting with IHTSDO Officers
Chair: Jim Case
Scribe: Heather Grain
Present on phone: David Markwell (IHTSDO)
Update on allergy and intolerance work at IHTSDO
Joint work of the mapping and implementation SIGs and Patient
Care at HL7. This is not a piece of work on the IHTSDO work plan.
Members have not prioritized it for 2015.
IHTSDO would want to make sure that linkage between projects
should be managed appropriately through the right groups. If there
is a clear requirement for some work to be done with international
requirement then a proposal for that work needs to be presented to
IHTSDO. A clear proposal of what needs to be done and why it is
needed is required.
The IHTSDO work plan is developed through review of proposals in
May and acceptance into the work program. There are some resources
to add specific terms required for HL7 publication may be available
as there is some editing time allowed for general improvements.
There is some work occurring on the content development side, but
not on the implementation side.
Action: Jane Millar: to identify what is going on at the moment
and provide these details to Vocabulary and HTA.
Action: Patient Care to liaise with preparation of the IHTSDO
project proposal in conjunction with the appropriate SIGs at IHTSDO
(Rob Hausam to action).
The proposal needs to include details of HL7 international’s
interest – attach as an appendix.
· What does the IHTSDO have to do
· What are the other pieces that make up the use case
· E.g. Implementation guide for ‘allergy and intolerance’ is
dependent upon IHTSDO’s resolution of modifications and updates to
this area of SNOMED CT.
· Develop a more complete use case including the scope of work
required.
Action: Jane and David to confirm who and when submits the
proposal to IHTSDO process.
Action: Patient Care to liaise with national release centres of
IHTSDO for comment and also to obtain an advocate at the IHTSDO
meeting of the decision making process (Rob Hausam to action).
Joint publication plans for TermInfo
Ballot reconciliation is complete and updates are being prepared
to be ready for publication. It was hoped that this would be
complete by the end of this meeting, but it may take longer. By the
end of February the work will be completed. David Markwell will
review the document and HL7 will publish the document at that
time.
Need to define the requirements for getting the document
published by IHTSDO. This will require translation of the document
into the IHTSDO format. Normally they would do a committee review
with potential modifications. This was of concern to Vocab as it
has the potential to delay publication. The other option is that
comments are collected ready for the review of the DSTU. It could
be published as a draft standard by IHTSDO and use that process to
invite comments into the normative version. If this process is used
a comment on the IHTSDO to get feed in to the normative version
might be a good way to move forward.
Action: Heather to add to HTA agenda - procedures to be
established – Method for joint development and review – done (and
added to IHTSDO liaison discussion list).
Licensing and disclaimer
Now that agreement has been reached, working groups need to
include the relevant licensing statement. All work groups need to
understand where and what is to be put and that it is not optional.
Confirmation of whether this includes education slides which
include an example of SNOMED CT content. Currently we are
acknowledging SNOMED CT source and suggest that references indicate
need for licensing.
Action: Jane Millar to confirm what is needed
FHIR
Use of SNOMED CT by non IHTSDO members when working on HL7
artefacts
· FHIR including SNOMED CT content and want to know what they
must do before publishing.
HTA have to look at agreements and how they will be implemented,
this has been included in the HTA agenda.
FHIR host the terminology on specific servers. The one which
holds terminology services is hosted in Australia. Access to the
servers, population of content containing SNOMED CT identifiers in
FHIR resources, value set, codeable concept resources, etc will be
provided from. When connectathon occur are there issues associated
with the location of the server? All work groups developing FHIR
resources in different nation.
Will the National Release Centres allow those outside their
country to license their release? For national extensions each
country member may set terms on the use of their extensions –
discuss with the individual country national release centre. For
example: value set resources which contain content from the US
extension. Identify the mechanism for inclusion of extension
materials in international or national standards.
Action: Heather to include on HTA agenda - Refer this to the HTA
– the policy needs to be set through the HTA - done.
Tooling update
IHTSDO are putting together a timetable to implement from 2017
the old versions of SNOMED CT content and will declare some
versions anticeded. The old versions will be available as archive
files but not in the active SNOMED CT release files.
HL7 concepts added using SNOMED CT need to use current data and
use ConceptIDs not old SNOMED identifiers. Vocabulary WG has a
responsibility to inform other work groups that they must change.
DICOM is a known problem area.
Action: All if you know or discover organisations or
implementations using these old SNOMED CT structures please inform
Jane Millar of IHTSDO.
Action: Ted offered to reach out to the cancer community which
is known to use the older identifiers. Ted to send details to Jane
Millar.
Tooling update – the IHTSDO browser now allows you go access
international and national extensions through this browser.
IHTSDO have a tentative plan to replace the workbench with
another tool by 2015. The ref set tool is also being reviewed.
There is also new mapping tooling
https://mapping.ihtsdotools.org/
The request tooling from NLM will be used by IHTSDO but
resources are required to progress this further.
Tuesday Q2 TermInfo
Chair: Rob Hausam
Scribe: Heather Grain
Attending by teleconference:
Heather Patrick
Yongshang Gao
David Markwell
Daniel Karlson
Review day/time and schedule for future TermInfo calls
No change to call times or frequency.
Preparation of the January 2014 TermInfo DSTU for
publication
The simple changes have been made but more complex questions
have been held for discussion here.
Jos is looking after chapter 2.3 – 2.5 and all items in the
spreadsheet in this area are done except for those affecting other
chapters.
Heather Patrick has been updating chapter 3 – common
patterns
Updates have been made except to the xml. The first table in the
section has a note in the comments that this table needs review but
this has yet to be done.
Rob H. indicated that the text will be run through xml spy to
check before it is put out.
Chapter 4 and 5 Jos has updated
Chapter 6 – glossary – Heather Grain has reviewed and Riki has
updated 1/5th of it.
Appendices – Heather Patrick has uploaded changes
Appendix B: Daniel Karlsson – References (updated)
Appendix C: Revision changes – all to update (most done)
Appendix E: Daniel – detailed aspects of issues with a
vocabulary specification formalism - updated
It was decided to retain Endnote use without footnotes
throughout when aggregated back into a single document.
Specific Questions
See disposition of comment document for details. Questions
discussed include:
Numbers 72, 213,
Motion:
Moved by D. Karlsson, seconded D. Markwell. That Appendix D –
SNOMED CT open issues be removed
In favour: 13
Abstain: 1
Against: 0
It was agreed that the format of the TermInfo document should
more clearly identify conformance requirements. It was agreed that
this document will be modified to align with binding syntax and to
clearly label all statements which are considered a conformance
requirement and to use bold typefaces to more visibly make
conformance clearer.
Action: TermInfo chapter managers to make these changes to
chapter 2 and 5 (the normative chapters)
Tuesday Q3 TermInfo
Chair: Rob Hausam
Scribe: Heather Grain
On the phone: David Markwell
Status update and plans for future TermInfo tutorials
IHTSDO proposed putting a specific group to make comments. Give
it to them at the end of February. If David hasn’t got time Jane
will have comments collated. David could review the comments and
feedback to HL7 TermInfo process hopefully to publication.
TermInfo for FHIR
Need also to consider moving more quickly on binding for FHIR.
What is done with SNOMED CT in FHIR might be determined by the
design component structures for vocabulary resources (e.g. schema
for value set and coded value types) will be owned wholly or
jointly by Vocabulary WG.
It was agreed that FHIR would be the next logical development,
given the strong interest in development using FHIR resources.
The possibility of investigation of how reasoning against
TermInfo specified data could be a useful activity.
TermInfo for V2? V3? Other
Though V2 would be useful it was agreed that V3 is not likely to
be needed.
Ted reported that as the V2 vocabulary content is cleaned and
moved to consistent representation with V3 structures it is
possible/likely that the mechanisms which apply in CDA will be able
to be applied in V2 messages.
Encourage people away from V2 vocabulary over the next few
years. Consideration needs to be given to the requirements of other
terminological resources.
Way forward
There are a number of known issues still to be resolved, these
include:
· Negation discussion
This is known to be a difficult area, particularly in CDA.
· Assertion pattern issues
· V3/CDA
· FHIR – Grahame Grieve has identified issues
· Want every observation to have a value / code which can be
recorded.
· If you can’t make a natural split to put information in the
code, put it in the value In the UK they preferred putting
everything in code rather than in value. This is about asserting
something, and that something can be put in the value. If FHIR move
to everything in code – this is consistent with the UK approach but
not necessarily with TermInfo. However there should be the
possibility to split them. What goes in the code might confuse what
is in the value. This is an issue which requires further
discussion.
Review and updates to TermInfo PSS
HL7 complete updates by end of February
David to review initially
IHTSDO will put out for month of March – seeking general
review
David to review comments and provide feedback
The intention is to identify any minor modifications to allow
joint publishing
Major issues are able to be identified but will not be addressed
until DSTU normative balloting.
Would like an announcement in Paris about publication. Also
would like to have a tutorial if there is space.
Action: HG contacted the HQ education team to request tutorial –
done but insufficient space.
Tuesday Q4 Value Set Definitions
Chair: Rob Hausam
Scribe: Heather Grain
Weekly calls have occurred since the ballot closed to get
through the comments. This work passed DSTU so minor corrections
can be made and the document will then go to publication.
Model Discussion
Different perspective on modelling of elements included in the
model. The model as originally presented was class associated. A
review of the alternative models was undertaken, with the one
presented by Jay being closer to implementation thinking rather
than the high level of the standard definition.
To be consistent the manner of handling the temporal scope was
considered. The components are not at issue. A focused follow on
call was suggested to consider the specific issues and resolve each
of these.
Do we want to include in the specification those elements which
are shall and should, or only shall items, and put the ‘should’
into an annex?
The revision history is a separate class in the original model
with multiple cardinality. Not all annotations are one to one in
the base model.
Plan – weekly calls will be undertaken to discuss this further
and progress the resolution of the issues identified.
Syntax Discussion
Request to support multiple syntaxes for representation of
logical definitions. See the comment disposition spreadsheet for
details.
The document uses MIF based functions as a mechanism to describe
a content logical definition. In doing so there was no statement
that it was the only method, but no alternative was given. Why make
the assumption that alternatives can’t be used? Other syntaxes may
be used. It was agreed that the support of other syntaxes is
reasonable. This means that someone who uses e.g. OWL or IHTSDO
syntax and doesn’t understand the alternative method won’t be able
to understand the content logical definition. There should be a
flag indicating that this syntax is or is not something that is
recognised in the same way that most value sets don’t even use MIF
it is a simple list or similar simple mechanism. Partners would
need to agree - the issue could then be conformance.
Where in the model should the identifier be put? A value set of
described syntaxes would need to be able to be defined in the
representation of the model and data.
The content logical definition should be a code which identifies
the expression language or form of the content logical definition
and all of the data components consistent with that expression
form. The components in this document are the components currently
defined in MIF. We believe that many of the IHTSDO comments would
be resolved if you could use your own syntax. David was asked to
speak to Linda Bird whether she would withdraw her objection if
more than one syntax was acceptable. It has been agreed that this
approach is reasonable.
Action: Ted to include discussion of non-computable content on
calls.
Wednesday Q1 and Q2 Joint with MnM
Chair: Lloyd McKenzie
Scribe: Heather Grain
How FHIR uses vocabulary – FHIR defined vs….externally-defined
vs structural codes
Does HL7 want to have a single terminology name space across all
of our content or not? The answer is yes, though we know that this
might be challenging. FHIR can support this but needs to reach the
normative stage. It won’t happen immediately. Vocabulary need to
think about what it means to maintain a single namespace for code
systems and value sets for all HL7 products.
The benefit of terminological naming across the organisation is
there appearance of having our act together for those who don’t
know better. Having the names the same with different value set
content is often an issue. The ability to reduce the number of
artefacts we maintain and increase consistency where this is
viable. There is a need to be consistent and identify clearly where
there are variations. What we are asking for is to have a closer
alignment with FHIR, though the cat is already out of the bag.
FHIR have flexibility until they go normative. Lloyd didn’t
think that it was essential that we use the same codes from the
same code system and from a technology perspective it will be very
difficult to achieve due to the differences in methodology between
V2, V3 and FHIR. However we can come to a place of formal
relationship between concepts between the products where there is a
need to be different.
The multiple product space presents a lot of choices. FHIR is
able to put some energy into this. IN DSTU2 nothing with change but
we can use the time while in DSTU to consider tools and processes
to manage the terminology harmonisation more effectively.
When a code system or value set are needed by FHIR the following
hierarchy of preference for code systems is used:
1: external international code systems
2: external code systems available internationally
3: HL7 defined code systems, specified by example
4: FHIR defined codes – take it up to the HTA – is there one of
these within SNOMED CT, LOINC etc.
Profiles are provided and referenced from Resources tab, in the
infrastructure the conformance area provides access to value set,
naming system and concept maps. Start at FHIR and choose continuous
integration build (hl7.org/implement/standards/FHIR – sends you to
hl7.fhir.github.io from this point choose resources, scroll down to
find value set, naming system and concept. For terminology services
select resource and select terminology server from under the
terminology heading.
Formal view of profile content example is at:
http://www.hl7.org/implement/standards/FHIR-Develop/valueset-shareable-definition.html
FHIR Terminology Service
FHIR is a terminology service is described at
HL7-FHIR-github.io/terminology-service.html The terminology service
includes concept map and value set information including
instructions for value set expansions, Concept lookup and
validation are also included. Instructions for subsumption testing
is also included.
FHIR Core WG relationship – artifacts (resources, data types),
value sets
MnM provides guidance to WGs on modelling best practice
including FHIR. The FHIR Core Work Group could be designed
similarly to the way MnM functions within HL7. The difference is
that MnM doesn’t own any components of V3. From a governance
perspectives you don’t want a group defining the rules for what an
artefact looks like being responsible for defining an artefact.
FHIR Core Work Group defines methodology group, management group
which is responsible for coordination of work activities and
content, and ballot timing and resource creation management and
responsibilities. Governance group sets objectives and high level
precepts upon which everything else is based. None of the
governance level structures do the work. The purpose of the core
work group is to produce artefacts, particularly core
infrastructure artefacts such as definition of what is a resource,
value sets, conformance, what is a bundle etc. This group functions
under FHIR Management Group, MnM etc in the same way as other
content development groups. This is similar to Vocabulary, where
the methodology is defined, rules and policies and practices are
defined by Vocabulary. Vocabulary also has stewardship of common
components and publishing considerations to manage.
In V3 you have all artefacts, RMIM’s etc. and the MIF is in
another corner. In V2 you have published pdf pages with tables and
codes. The method of sharing data in V2 is not the format in which
it is distributed. In FHIR the publishing, distribution, value set
resource etc. are balloted in the same manner as all other
artefacts.
Q2 continuation joint meeting with MnMRevisit harmonization and
V3 maintenance
· How do we do QA on FHIR Vocabulary
Grahame and Lloyd have talked about a process of open review,
rather than harmonization. The basis is to achieve collaboration
and consistency where relevant. The band width to progress this is
an inhibitor. There is a strong opinion on FHIR side that v3
harmonisation process doesn’t make sense for FHIR and Vocabulary
are in general agreement.
There is some movement to look at a single source of truth for
persistence and publishing of all HL7 vocabulary. The CTO wants
this to happen and some of the preparatory work has been done,
including clean up and migration work has occurred. FHIR will be
expected to join this process at some point.
FHIR already makes available the FHIR terminology, selected
subsets of version 3 value sets and V2 content. Technically it
would be feasible to expose the full V3 vocabulary in that process.
As far as CDA gets captured in Trifolia exposing that would be a
low bar to achieve as well. From a technical perspective using the
FHIR terminology service which is more than half build and
populated could be a short cut to get projects associated with
vocabulary clean up and single source. The functionality includes
voting capacity components.
Discussion
· From a read only perspective the approach is to provide the
resources, though some is not yet of a quality desired. Exposing
this material may make it clearer that there are difficulties with
the content. A single place with a computable interface would make
it easier for those with time and bandwidth to discover and
recommend modifications. The expectation would be that this would
be a read only repository with write access from the source of
truth through publications.
· It could progress to be the source of truth
· VSAC is also producing similar tooling. FHIR could have an
interface in VSAC which could provide information to that tooling.
We need a place where we can expose, warts and all, all that we
have and encourage more eyes and resources to manage the curation
of the content.
Lloyd would be comfortable with curation in VSAC if it was
clearly international rather than US centric. NLM would like to see
VSAC used broadly, with the proviso of licensing requirements.
Would UMLS host the Australian, Japanese, Chinese etc. content
requirements?
There are structural codes which all people have to use, there
are also common value sets to which you should map.
There are also issues that VSAC cannot currently support group
based entries but this is being considered.
The option for a Project Scope Statement is needed for
definition of the process for quality management of FHIR resources
such as code systems, value sets and namespaces was discussed.
New Project
Vocab co-sponsored by structure doc and MnM – definition of the
management of value sets across HL7 products. This project has a
technical component including: FHIR already have a project for the
registries. Collaboration requires consideration of how you want to
access it, query, subscribe.
Action: Rob McClure to bring this to Vocab discussions
tomorrow.
This project will be owned by Vocab with Mnm co-sponsor
FHIR already have a project associated with set of FHIR
registries are in development which include value set content. This
experience through terminology connectathons will inform the
project defined above.
Clean-up of ActRelationship – RIM as an ontology?
It is difficult to know which structural vocabulary has been
used in a given situation. The absence of required realm specific
models means that we don’t know if the model is broken or not when
these are used.
This could be simply a theoretical problem as if we make changes
to the terminologies now we could break things, but you might find
problems so late that it is not possible to roll back and fix the
problem. There was a serious redesign of ActRelationship type which
has improved it but it is known not to be perfect but is
functional. We should touch the structural components when a major
inhibiting outcome occurs. As there is no current central
repository to identify who has implemented our content so we can’t
notify people of potential impacts to them.
FHIR impact – if the RIM was a strong and robust ontology it
would assist FHIR functionality but it would probably require a
complete new version of the RIM. This need is not strong. The tools
are not yet able to cope with significant change. This is not
urgent at the moment. Lloyd suggested leave the RIM largely as it
is. When people come who have identified change this request will
be reviewed considering the business case.
Moved Ted Klein, Seconded Rob McClure that the Structural
Vocabulary content of V3 should only be changed if there is a
strong and compelling business case to do so (blocking
functionality, or causing significant impact to implementations).
When a change is agreed upon a communication strategy must be
prepared in association with any such changes.
Vote: For 14, Abstain 1, Opposed 0
Motion Passed
Vocabulary FHIR change proposals
The meeting went through the current project tracker system to
identify vocabulary positions on FHIR related work items. The items
discussed include:
· Ensure that all FHIR value sets meet VSD minimum requirements
(approved by Vocab)
· Add batch mode for translate functions (ability to batch
process translation requests – note: translation is used or mean
map or translate. This is currently one code in and one code out
(simple map without individual map equivalence specification).
Equivalence is able to be specified but was not shown in the output
– it was requested that it be included. Need to be able to indicate
more than one target which is now handle by being able to use
codeable concepts rather than code values.
Vobabulary agree
Moved Heather Grain seconded Sandy Stuart that changes be made
to translation operation to change the cardinality of the code
system version, and coding and codeable concept and outcome
parameters to be 0..* instead of 0..1.and update documentation to
reflect requirements. Changing data type on the outcome because in
some cases there might be more than one translation for a given
source code.
Friendly amendment Jos Baptist. The documentation needs to also
indicate that this process includes concept translations such as
maps rather than language translations.
Vote: In Favour: 14, Abstain 1, Opposed
Motion passed
Any string may have a designation which is in a different
language.
Action: Vocab asked Lloyd to send preferred 4 or 5 timeslots to
arrange shared call time on the MnM / FHIR work items.
Wednesday Q3 Meeting with Publishing
Action: Jim Case to see if Vocabulary can take over the room
booked for publishing on Q3 Wednesday as the host of a joint
meeting with publishing
Moved by Jim Case that the accepted previous WGM notes be
accepted.
Seconded Heather Gran
Vote: 4 in favour, against 0, abstain 1
An update on the Tables Project was given. Frank has made all
changes to database scripts to build Ch. 2C. Working on older
tables continues and it is going slower than with cleaner tables.
Frank and Ted updated vocabulary model in the publishing database –
tables have name and code, sometimes code is a bunch of text and
there is not a good way to name these items.
Vocab suggests WGs refactor these to display name, description,
usage note and then migrate this data to this new structure. In
other words, untangle the data. Some tables have descriptions of
the table and need to add this to the database.
OO discovered in v2.8.2 a manually added enumeration of country
codes in Ch. 2C and this is an error and is not found in the
published database. Where this arose is unknown, but it needs to be
in table 399, not free form. Does this material even need to be
there?
OBX6 units of measure does not have a table assigned to it,
these were originally added by Clem McDonald to Ch.7. So it is not
in a table, includes external values including ISO values, which
could be a problem. It does not have a table and so is not in the
pub database, so it cannot be generated by the database. So what
does OO/pub want to do with this? Associate with a table number to
allow import into the pubs database, or figure out some other way
to import to the database. This information includes expressions
and codes, and table project needs to figure out how store and deal
with this situation. A hack on this, could be to put a descriptive
paragraph into the comment field.
The publishing database has a column signifying table type
column; so we could add a new table type and flag these troublesome
tables as syntax/expression. Then they can easily treated
differently from conformant tables.
Ted has found a funding source for his time on the table project
to help move it forward. Vocab intends to make sure the Table
Project is final before V2.9 is published. Vocab intends to fix
typos/technical corrections to items found in the V2 tables.
Wednesday Q4 Meeting with InM
InM hosting – refer to their minutes.
We will meet jointly again in Paris.
Thursday Q1 Joint with CGIT
Chair: Jim Case
Scribe: Russ Hamm
Binding Syntax
To be discussed Q2
Vocabulary Versioning
Potential issues surrounding Vocab Versioning.
Multiple versions with independently versioned extensions.
National extensions with releases on different schedules.
Releases must follow IHTSDO release rules (string value with naming
rules).
HL7 has official release string (semantically
parsable, implemented for the Oct 2014 release of MIF).
Currently only on value sets, to be applied to code systems at a
future date.
Algorithm for V2 (as part of tables project) to
increment versions as an integer with v1 for the introductory
release, and increments with each new release.
SNOMEDCT_RELEASE_US1000124_20140131 – Core
SNOMEDCT_EXT_ US1000124_20140131 – extension
only
Common Model
For artifacts like CDA, would like to develop
a human readable syntax for IGs that is convertible to a persistent
store.
Brief overview of state of the document on the next
V2 Tables call.
Thursday Q2 Tables Project non-content items
Chair: Ted Klein;
Scribe: Heather Grain and Jim Case
Discussion around common CGIT and Vocab items relates to tables
project.
Definition of rules around the bindings to be expressed in
chapter 2C.
This is expressed as a table in the chapter. Have not yet made a
rule on the binding that goes into the database. The HL7 tables are
nearly all enumerated and the binding is expected to be universal
with all of the values from the code system. For user defined
tables, the binding was going to be either example binding or
representative binding, depending on the current content provided
in the tables. Issue revolves around some tables where the binding
is not clear. These would include code systems such as race, or
ethnicity which are very large, but only a very few of the existing
concepts are actually used. Suggested that for race code, the few
concepts that are published may be realm based. Should this be
bound as representative or example?
CGIT asked why this needs to be determined at all? Because this
is so “relative” maybe for this type of relationship, that the
codes be drawn from this code system, but the codes selected would
be done in implementation. Ted Klein K believes this might be a
problem if not defined because in cases where one wants to validate
an implementation against a value set it will fail unless the
values are all expressed. The current value V3 binding machinery
requires a code system and a value set to test. There was
discussion around declaring all user defined tables as example
bindings. Ted Klein mentioned how example values relate to the
actual implementation of the value sets. In the end, the difference
between representative and example values is nearly negligible.
Consensus of the group is that making all user defined tables
example bindings will meet the needs of implementers. There was
additional discussion on the value of putting example values as
code systems into the documentation. There was additional
discussion around the value of using representative bindings for
implementers. Wendy H. asked that the discussion be around the
conditions that would determine whether a user defined table is
eligible for example or representative binding. Ted Klein presented
his proposal that if there are 3-6 codes listed and it looks like
these are illustrative only, then these would just be a value set
on the domain. The default for all user defined tables would be
example bindings and then these would be reviewed and reassigned as
representative binding. Ted Klein thinks the number of tables that
would qualify for “representative status” is probably pretty
small.
Confirm that CGIT is comfortable with this approach. Rob Snelick
suggested that the first thing would be to make these all code
systems. It is unclear where the model target for HL7 vs. user
defined tables would be in the V3 model as this does not apply to
code systems.
Proposal Review Process to determine binding type
If there are 3 – 6 codes listed
AND the table definition looks like this is only an example
We review and consider potentially to not create a code
system
For user defined tables we assume that they are examples, unless
it is known that they are widely used in which case they will be
representative bindings.
This will require a review of all tables to determine the status
of each table. The number of tables which are likely to be
representative after this review is anticipated to be less than 10%
of the tables.
Motion: Jim Case proposed Rob Snelick seconded that all HL7 user
defined tables in V2.x will have example binding only in the V3
model representation
Vote: in favour: 1, Abstain: 1 Opposed: 6
Vote fails. The proposer wanted to make clear that one of the
possibilities have been removed and for this reason voted against
his own proposal.
Action: Ted will undertake this review to assign example, or
representative as soon as possible for those tables already
converted. As the Tables Project proceeds binding type will be
added to the process.
There is a need to educate people about the difference between
the different types of binding and how they are used.
Information to be included into V2.9 to instruct people about
modificationsComment by Heather Grain: To here
Request for CGIT to put together a paragraph/s on value set
constraining in implementation guides that can be included in
chapter 2c for V2.9. This should indicate how to correctly use
these mechanisms. Also indicate what the implications are for
testing. Ted will write a section about the maps to the version 3
vocabulary model for the version 2 vocabulary content.
Action: Rob Snelick agreed to undertake the task for CGIT. Ted
Klein to prepare maps to version 3 vocabulary model to version 2
vocabulary content section.
Latest version of vocabulary
Ted called for a recommendation that people use the latest
published vocabulary (code system version) regardless of the
version of the standard they are using except for structural
vocabulary. External vocabularies may have licensing which require
all implementations to act in this way.
CGIT was requested to provide appropriate wording in the V2.9
documentation.
Any V2 ballot should be using the latest version also.
Action: Rob Snelick will prepare a vocabulary conformance
statement for inclusion in the V2.9 documentation.
Manual updates to V2 Chapter 2
Someone took generated chapter 2c and opened the word document
and manually inserted additional tables. Vocabulary is trying to
find out who did this to inform them of the consequences. As we
move to automation every piece needs to be in the database. If it
is manually modified the changes are lost when the document is
regenerated. What was added was an external code system and these
should not be republished in our standards. If we do republish the
HTA will need to establish rules and processes to make sure we
don’t generate IP problems. An example is Country Codes.
External Content
We don’t want external content published in the standards, web
links and pointers are fine but not the actual content. The value
set definition will indicate information about query specifications
or guidance such as Country Code – use 3 digit level codes form ISO
table.
Difficult or insufficient code specifications
Some tables have descriptions of the expression syntax (such as
repeat pattern Q#D where # is any integer representing hours). This
is an expression and can’t be used as a code in a value set. These
should not be tables and should be something else – it should be a
description of a construction syntax there should be a
corresponding write up about conformance checking of this content.
In this example Q = atom and is effectively a link to use a
specific defined code system referenced in this expression.
Do we need a new type of object for these? In the value set
definition you can indicate intensional values which covers
concepts such as those in SNOMED CT, but not the more complex
example of Q#D. Ellipses are also a problem.
The Tables Project should make changes where this is reasonable,
and doable without being an enormous workload. These changes will
be confirmed with CGIT and workgroups. Repeat patterns which are
very difficult will need to be further discussed with publishing,
InM, FHIR etc. in order to determine how to make these amenable to
automated processing.
Action: Send back to OO and request a representative set of
codes and that we populate with specific codes for the Table
Project in the interim.
ANSI plus and ISO Units of Measure
There is a table in the standard which publishing was not able
to provide information on, this is an unnumbered table but it is a
coded field. We have units of measure published in a different
format. Are we violating IP by violating IP by publishing in the
Standard.
Action: Heather Grain to take this to HTA – on agenda for Feb 5
call.
If they need to remain we will have to work out the
documentation of conformance principles. If we do not continue to
publish them they will be removed and a reference made.
Thursday Q3 Table ProjectsDecision making process review
Version 6 reflects the new template and minor editorial
corrections from our old DMP.
Motion: James Case, seconded by Wendy Huang that the Vocabulary
Work Group accept the revised Decision Making Practices Version
6.
Vote: unanimous (7 votes)
Motion passes
Action: HG to send Version 6 to HQ – sent 22 Jan 2015.
Tables Project
We began with spreadsheet version 58.
We picked up where we left off at table 310.
310: no such table. This table is not found but believed to have
been replaced by table 295. 310 and t95 are both in the appendix
each with no suggested values. Remove 310 from the database.
309:this is one code system with two versions with the new
version introduced in V2.6. This is a user defined table which
should be an example binding.
308:Domain only
307: Domain only
306:Domain only
305:Concept domain introduced in 2.3 with codes system in 2.4.
One version present. Person Location Type - User defined table.
Example binding.
304:Domain only
303:Domain only
302:Domain only – point of care
301:One code system, one version, started in 2.7. In 2.3 there
were values specified in the publication but these aren’t in the
database. This is a user defined table. For L,N,M these are
concatenated into 1 field and they should each be separate. The
difference between 2.4 and 2.5 – the sentence beginning the
uniqueness depends… is missing. These words were in the
publication. Frank needs to load the text from the chapter into the
table. Some fields are truncated due to problems of MS Access size
limitations. Introduced in 2.3.1, new version 2.7. This should be
representative binding.
Actions required for V2.9 please
Action: ask InM which parts of this information is for display
string, and which are usage notes as we are able to separate them,
thereby resolving display issues.
Action: ask InM to have L, N, M separated into individual codes
and the code L N M retired.
Action: ask InM to provide relevant display names.
300:Domain only
299:This is an HL7 table. Started in 2.3 there were 3 values,
missing in the database. There is a change in case between
publications but it was agreed this does not change the meaning
intended. 1 code system, 1 version, 1 value set, Universal
binding.
298:2.3 name was CP range type (wrongly recorded as range type
in the database) - the database is blank and needs to be filled.
1,1,1, Universal
297:Domain only
296:Domain only
295: Handicap. User defined with 4 suggested values but no
values found in the publication V2.3.
Finished with table #294.
Action: Jim will send out updated spread sheet
Action: Frank to update database
Action: Sandy to take InM actions to InM.
Thursday Q4 PlanningCall schedule
Bold = co-chair to set up calls
Group
Co-Chairs
Frequency
Day
Start
End
Start Date
Vocabulary
RMc, TK, HG
Fortnightly
Thursday
3:30 pm
5pm
Feb 5
Value Set Definition
RMc, TK
Fortnightly
Tuesday
3:30
5pm
Feb 3
Tables Project
TK, JC, R. Hausam , HG
Fortnightly
Fortnightly
Thursday
Tuesday
3pm
12 noon
5pm
1:30pm
Jan 29
Feb 3rd
TermInfo
RHausam
Weekly
Wed
9am
10:30am
??
Binding
RMc, TK
2 dates set
Friday
11am
1pm
30 Jan
HTA
HG, SS
Monthly
Thursday
5pm
6pm
???
Tooling
RAH, JC
Weekly
Tuesday
11am
12 noon
Jan 27
QA process
RcM, TK
Weekly
Thursday
10am
11:30
Feb 5th
This is to specify what we expect of work groups when they
create artefacts that include vocabulary – specify structural
terminology irrespective of where it is to be used go to
harmonisation or an alternative but a consistent place.
Co-chair activities
Primary
Secondary
Conference calls
Schedule next cycle - Vocab
Rob Mc
Ted
Agenda preparation
Ted
Rob Mc
Running calls
Ted
Rob Mc
Minutes put to list and uploaded
Ted
HG
Action items
Ted
Rob Mc
Steering division calls
Rob Hausam
Russ Hamm
FHIR coordination
Ted
RMc
SDWG vocabulary coordination
RRH
RAH
OID Registry
Ted
Table 396 curation
Table of code systems
Ted
HTA Liaison
HG
Rob M, Jim, Ted
Harmonisation and vocabulary QA processes
Technical review of submissions
Russ
Ted
Construction of harmonization materials
Attendance and running harmonisation vocabulary sessions
Ted
Russ
Capture of decisions
Karen
Dave Hamill
Application of approvals to vocab store
Ted
Overall Qa process development
Process artefact to be created
RMC
Working Group Meetings
Agenda
Jim C
Minutes
Heather
Attendees list
Heather
Room bookings
JimC
Facilitators round table
RRH
Ted
Steering Division Meeting
All
Sunday planning and facilitator session (all who can)
Ted
Heather, RCM, RRH
Work group meeting survey
Russ
Publishing
HL7 Glossary Update
Heather
Core Principles update – principles section prose
Ted
Ballot comment reconciliation
Team leader
Projects – V2 Tables Project
Coordination
Ted
Jim, Russ, Rob Hausam, HG
Tables Project coordination for Chapter 2C with publishing
Ted
Projects – CNE
CNE dispersal project (INM joint)
Projects - VSD
Value set definition project
Ted
Rob Mc
Project – TermInfo
TermInfo
Rob Hausam
TermInfo (publishing by end of 2015)
RRH
Projects – Binding syntax
Coordination
Ted
Wendy, RMc
Projects – Tooling
Coordination
Russ
Projects CTSN
CTSN publishing (early 2015)
RAH
Project - QA
QA process
RMc
Education
General coordination and outline maintenance
Heather
V2 Tutorials
Ted
TermInfo
Rob Hausam
Authoring Value Sets
Heather
Introduction to HL7 Vocabulary
All
Glossary
Heather
Random items
V2 coded data types - InM examples need to be cleaned
Ted
RRH
Other vocab issues that arise on the list
Action: For first call: confirm faculty for tutorials.
Action: Complete Paris planning on calls
Standing Items for Work Group agenda:
Sunday Q3
Planning
Sunday Q4
Facilitators and Education review
Monday Q3
Review of the Projects
Monday Q4
QA process and VSD
Tuesday Q1
IHTSDO – David Markwell
Tuesday Q2
Tuesday Q3
Tuesday Q4
TermInfo
Wed
Full and verified
Thursday Q1
CGIT – InM
Thursday Q2
CGIT – InM
Thursday Q3
Thursday Q4
Workgroup planning
Friday Q1 and Q2
HTA
Calls standing items:
· HTA reports – only if there is a major question not a standing
slot
· Education removed from standing call items
· Liaison reports – IHTSDO tooling
· Tooling project as a standing item
· FHIR standing item
· TermInfo
· Binding Syntax – not on the calls
· Tables Project
· Value set definition
· Active projects in a single projects collapse down individual
items
· Code system access item – from VSAC – what is this about.
Meeting Adjourned 5pm 22rd January 2015
HL7 Meeting Minutes Style Sheet
