This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here
<meta name="googlebot" content="noindex">

Difference between revisions of "ITS WGM Minutes 2011 Jan"

From HL7Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page with "=ITS - Sydney Australia, WGM January 2011= ===Co-Chairs=== Paul Knapp (PK) Dale Nelson (DN) Andy Stechishin (AS) ==Monday, January 10== ===Q1=== Chair: PK Scribe: AS Discussion ...")
 
Line 229: Line 229:
 
! Name
 
! Name
 
! Email
 
! Email
! colspan="4" Monday
+
! colspan="4" | Monday
! colspan="4" Tuesday
+
! colspan="4" | Tuesday
! colspan="4" Wednesday
+
! colspan="4" | Wednesday
! colspan="4" Thursday
+
! colspan="4" | Thursday
 
|-
 
|-
| colspan="2"
+
| colspan="2"|
 
! Q1
 
! Q1
 
! Q2
 
! Q2

Revision as of 04:58, 1 February 2011

ITS - Sydney Australia, WGM January 2011

Co-Chairs

Paul Knapp (PK) Dale Nelson (DN) Andy Stechishin (AS)

Monday, January 10

Q1

Chair: PK Scribe: AS

Discussion of planned activities for the week

Brief discussion of Green CDA and its relationship to ITS WG

Discussion on hData preparations for ArB session.

Agenda updates posted to Wiki and a message sent to the list server

Q2

Chair: PK Scribe: AS


Q3

Chair: PK Scribe: AS


Q4

Chair: PK Scribe: AS


Tuesday, January 11

Q1

Chair: PK Scribe: AS


Q3

Chair: PK Scribe: AS


Q4

Chair: PK Scribe: AS


Wednesday, January 12

Q1

Chair: PK Scribe: AS


Q2

Chair: PK Scribe: AS, DN

We (ITS) SPL does not want to adapt changes in DT R2 which would mean a lot of changes. It was agreed they would use R1.1, by trading partner agreement. We have a Norm spec that depends on an Inform spec. It is desired to make it Normative. Grahame objects, and wishes to call it DT 2B.

Is the wires format the same in R2 DT as

At abstract, they are implementing DT R2

Datatypes Version Abstract Basis Status Notes

1.0 1.0 Normative


1.1 2.0 Informative Normative? 2B?

2.0 2.0 Normative





XMLITS



Version Based on Status


1.0 DT 1.0 Normative


1.1 DT 1.0 Normative


2.0 DT 2.0 Normative





Tooling



Version ITS DT


1.0 1.0 1.0


1.1 1.1 1.1


2.0 2.0 2.0

Which ballot are we talking about John Koisch: redo it using ISO datatypes in a correct way. GG: But that breaks their non-backwards compatibility chain. DN: Has HL7 guaranteed BW compatibility? GG: V2 yes, V3 semantic only. PK: We need to think about what the organization should be doing. Perhaps a straw vote. 1.1->Normative 0 1.1->2Minus 3

Should Normative docs stand on Informative docs: No.

UUID: Issue is in the schema, not the spec. If we were to change the schemas, this is a tech correction. PK: UUID Abs 1 & 2 said UC. If it says case insentive, then we my just have a case in the later schema is incorrect. JK: It is transform away. Can SPL provide the transform? PK: require everyone to do local fixes. PK: We have been consistently wrong, and we finally got it right. Do we force everyone to clean it up or do we fix in a future version? GG: All say comparisons are case insensitive. Version Abstract ITS Schema 1.0 Upper Mixed Mixed 1.1

Mixed Mixed 2.0 Upper Upper Upper (annotate)


GG: Should be TC that 1.0 and 2.0 Abstract are wrong

Motion: The Abstract DT 1.0 & 2.0 descriptions of UUID being upper case be changed to mixed case. (GB, AS) 8/0/1

Action: That GG amend the Abstract Data types, and all associated artifacts.

Motion: (GG/AS) 9-0-0 (1) Do not want to make DT 1.1 backwards compatibility track normative (2) We will if asked by TSC, but want to know how we will avoid maintaining two streams going forward. (3) If it goes normative we will give it an R2 label,

Q3

Chair: PK Scribe: AS


Q4

Chair: PK Scribe: AS


Thursday, January 13

Q1

Chair: PK Scribe: AS


Q2

Chair: PK Scribe: AS


Q3

Chair: PK Scribe: AS


Q4

Chair: PK Scribe: AS


Attendees

Name Email Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Andy Stechishin andy.stechishin@gmail.com