Difference between revisions of "ITS Concall Minutes 20100622"
Astechishin (talk | contribs) |
Astechishin (talk | contribs) (→hData) |
||
| (4 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
==Batch Messages== | ==Batch Messages== | ||
| − | [[Batch Messaging]] | + | See: [[Batch Messaging]] |
| − | MW tried to create a sample batch message using the second example from the wiki page, it did not work, DN did not validate | + | |
| − | DN updated the page contents, MW validated using the updated content and it seemed to work | + | MW tried to create a sample batch message using the second example from the wiki page, it did not work, DN did not validate the posted examples. |
| − | MW will try a more complete example to see if works | + | DN then updated the page contents, MW validated using the updated content and it seemed to work. |
| + | |||
| + | MW will try a more complete example to see if works. | ||
DN/MW proceed with hot topic, update, etc | DN/MW proceed with hot topic, update, etc | ||
| Line 46: | Line 48: | ||
==hData== | ==hData== | ||
| − | [[hData]] | + | See: [[hData]] |
| + | |||
GB ran through wiki page, how record is organized and linked (the specification is not a physical data structure) | GB ran through wiki page, how record is organized and linked (the specification is not a physical data structure) | ||
The group had general questions of hData: is it behaviour of domain? | The group had general questions of hData: is it behaviour of domain? | ||
| + | GB responded that content profile belongs to the individual domains, the specification is an attempt to separate the concerns. | ||
| + | PK felt we should have the consumers involved, need participate from domain people. | ||
| − | GB | + | GB then asked how to move the document forward toward balloting. |
| + | PK responded that the WG would solicit comments on document. ITS would then forward to other WGs. There is a need to bring in other authoritative parties within the next week, not comfortable with balloting the interaction structure of EHRs. | ||
| + | CM added that there may be a need to clarify the scope and deliverables for project | ||
| − | |||
| − | + | AG then went over the RESTful API document. Among the comments were: | |
| + | *Need to be aware of SAIF | ||
| + | *Need for some actual examples | ||
| + | **AG will add examples to wiki | ||
| − | |||
| − | + | The MITRE team asked the group to review and get comments back by next Monday. To move the project forward, they would be seeking approval of the documents for distribution to other groups. | |
| − | + | ==MicroITS== | |
| − | + | There was a brief overview from MS. | |
| − | + | ||
| − | + | PK question for MS: why is this a micro-ITS and not a Green CDA? | |
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| + | ==Adjourn== | ||
Call adjourned: 5:45 Eastern | Call adjourned: 5:45 Eastern | ||
Latest revision as of 18:52, 13 July 2010
Contents
ITS Teleconference - June 22, 2010
Called to order at 4:04 Eastern
Present: Gaby Jewell (GJ), Brian Pech (BP), Paul Knapp (PK), Dale Nelson (DN), Andy Stechishin (AS), Lynn Laakso (LL), Mead Walker (MW) Gerald Beuchelt (GB), Matthew Stevens (MS), Charlie Mackay (CW), Andy Gregoriwicz (AG)
Chair: PK
Scribe: AS
Agenda
- Further discussion on solution to enclose batch messages within a wrapper
- Product list
- Brief update on hData
- Micro-ITS
Batch Messages
See: Batch Messaging
MW tried to create a sample batch message using the second example from the wiki page, it did not work, DN did not validate the posted examples. DN then updated the page contents, MW validated using the updated content and it seemed to work.
MW will try a more complete example to see if works.
DN/MW proceed with hot topic, update, etc
Product list
LL discussed the product list including current entries for UML datatypes, XML datatypes, and ITS structures
PK: does the list describe in progress items?
LL at top of prod list (link on wiki) describes on list when done
CM: UML ITS was replaced by ISO Datatypes for Healthcare PK: Remove UML ITS line, add line for R1.1 XML ITS, add R2-2010 of XML ITS. Also need structures heading to include r1.1 2008 and r2 2010
CM: Suggest if deprecating UML datatypes, formally deprecate. Ask Grahame Grieve for any knowledge of implementors of the specification.
The co-chairs would complete the review of the product list off-line.
hData
See: hData
GB ran through wiki page, how record is organized and linked (the specification is not a physical data structure)
The group had general questions of hData: is it behaviour of domain? GB responded that content profile belongs to the individual domains, the specification is an attempt to separate the concerns. PK felt we should have the consumers involved, need participate from domain people.
GB then asked how to move the document forward toward balloting. PK responded that the WG would solicit comments on document. ITS would then forward to other WGs. There is a need to bring in other authoritative parties within the next week, not comfortable with balloting the interaction structure of EHRs. CM added that there may be a need to clarify the scope and deliverables for project
AG then went over the RESTful API document. Among the comments were:
- Need to be aware of SAIF
- Need for some actual examples
- AG will add examples to wiki
The MITRE team asked the group to review and get comments back by next Monday. To move the project forward, they would be seeking approval of the documents for distribution to other groups.
MicroITS
There was a brief overview from MS.
PK question for MS: why is this a micro-ITS and not a Green CDA?
Adjourn
Call adjourned: 5:45 Eastern
Next Call
- Further discussion on solution to enclose batch messages within a wrapper
- Brief update on hData
- Review ITS product list, Lynn Laakso as a guest from HL7 HQ will present.
