Difference between revisions of "MnM Minutes WGM 201101 Sydney"
| Line 68: | Line 68: | ||
==Proposal for consideration== | ==Proposal for consideration== | ||
| − | *Start with openEHR archetypes as the base | + | *Patient Care - |
| − | *Establish adornments that map these to the V3 Ontology (Structured Vocabulary and RIM) | + | **Develop a set of requirements and "expectations" for the use of DCMs within interoperability |
| − | *Create tools that then consume these to produce useful HL7-V3 artifacts (templates, or such) | + | *MnM and Patient Care |
| − | * | + | **Start with openEHR archetypes as the base |
| + | **Establish adornments that map these to the V3 Ontology (Structured Vocabulary and RIM) | ||
| + | **Create tools that then consume these to produce useful HL7-V3 artifacts (templates, or such) | ||
| + | *Present each of these in Orlando (May 2011) | ||
Revision as of 03:32, 10 January 2011
Contents
Sunday Jan. 09 Q3
Attendees
Agenda
Establish Agenda for WGM from Hot Topics and Other Items
Steps:
- Reviewed the existing Hot Topics
- Marked some as Resolved but not closed
- Opted to defer some
- Listed the rest for consideration in Sydney
- Added additional elements
Resulting list and resulting slot:
- Monday Q1
- Core Principles Ballot Planning
- RIM Ballot Planning
- MIF Ballot Reconciliation
- Monday Q3
- Patient Care and MnM re DCM modeling
- Tuesday Q3
- Process for DAMS
- Wednesday Q2
- Plan Action for Resolved Hot Topic Issues
- Thursday Q1
- Data Types releases kerfluffle
- Thursday Q3
- CMET Management
- Static Model Quality Checklist
- Tuesday Q4
- Role Identity
Monday Jan. 10 Q1
Attendees
Lloyd McKenzie - lloyd@lmckenzie.com Woody Beeler - woody@beelers.com Stephen Royce - stephen.royce@nehta.gov.au Bo Dagnall - bo.dagnall@hp.com
Agenda
MIF ballot reconciliation
Only one item - Keith Boon Not Persuasive - Woody/Stephen
Other ballots
Thur. Feb. 3 as first Core Principles reconciliation
Motion: Go forward with MAY ballot cycle for RIM release 4 and Core Principles Normative Ballot 3 under the existing project scope documents Woody/Bo - approved 3/0/0
RIM release 4 may be amended to include governance information (harmonization process) if the ARB gets far enough in defining how governance should be captured
Monday Jan. 10 Q3 - Joint with Patient Care in re DCM
Opened with open forum on the "issues", steps that might be reasonable to undertake, given that the primary DCM proponents are not here, and that this meeting and the Orlando meeting precede the next ISO Meeting.
Discussion of the distinction of a need for a methodology as opposed to the definition of the role and function of DCMs, in generis.
What is purpose of DCMs?
Grieve: HL7 static models are fairly abstract in clinical content (e.g. observations), but these are too abstract to be useful in the context of creating sets of data, reports, and the like for use in a particular clinical setting. (A detailed setting). The DCM is intended to provide this function.
Question:
- Where do these fit in the "interoperability" space?
- How do we keep them aligned across settings?
- How does Clinical Statement relate - as a model against which the "templates" that derive from a DCM can be applied.
Proposal for consideration
- Patient Care -
- Develop a set of requirements and "expectations" for the use of DCMs within interoperability
- MnM and Patient Care
- Start with openEHR archetypes as the base
- Establish adornments that map these to the V3 Ontology (Structured Vocabulary and RIM)
- Create tools that then consume these to produce useful HL7-V3 artifacts (templates, or such)
- Present each of these in Orlando (May 2011)
