MnM Minutes CC 20100430
Contents
M&M Conference Call Noon Eastern Time (April 30th, 2010)
Logistics
Join GoToMeeting at
- https://www1.gotomeeting.com/join/846611869
- GoToMeeting ID: 846-611-869
Conference Call:
- Noon Eastern Time
Use HL7 Conference Call service
- Phone Number: 770-657-9270
- Participant Passcode: 459876#
(for more detail refer to meeting schedule
Attendees
- Richard Haddorff - Project Services co-chair
- Andy Stechisin
- Austin Kreisler
- Dale Nelson
- Bryan Peck
- Donald Lloyd
- Freida Hall - Project Services co-chair
- Gregg Seppala
- Ioana Singureanu - scribe
- Lloyd McKenzie - chair
Agenda
- Approve Previous Call Minutes
- Roll Call
- (35 min) Project Services Presentation
- (15 min) Planning for Rio de Janeiro WGM
- Rene: Request discussion in Rio of two new MnM Hot Topics: Object identity (of obvious interest to those that persist RIM-objects) and Safe interpretation of subsets of data (the methodological aspect of wider question by Bob Dolin).
- (15 min) CMET Reconciliation and Publication Donald Lloyd and Andy Stechisin
Project Services Presentation
New approach to presented by Richard Haddorff - Co-Chair Link to presentation: SAIF and Sound: Fast Track to Standards Development
Comments:
- Slide 4 –
- correct acronyms, D-MIM and R-MIM were mentioned and comment that HL7 has same acronym with different meaning so we need to list those for sure
- Slide 7 –
- Arrow from choice box (below) needs to be re-drawn, not direct to Implementation. Comment that ITS has design phase, have 3 ITS for V3; the PIM is what is usually balloted
- Gregg Seppala commented –
1) if WG ballots DAM as normative, and other WG does the same for overlapping domains, but model each differently, how is this resolved. 2) SOA/HSSP/OMG – for services PIM is created at OMG; HL7’s DSTU would be conceptual model. SIDEBAR: Coincidentally I talked to Galen Mulrooney (SOA chair) after the MnM call. Some services will be defined by OMG, but others may be developed in HL7, so maybe we need a choice box concept – or at least to update the notes. He mentioned a document the TSC approved, we may want to review it later.
- Schema discussion/controversy re: schemas balloted, whether normative (or not), do some WGs ballot (Structured Doc) but others don’t ***this was the discussion I suggested we ‘table’ so we need to discuss in Project Services
Slide 12 –
- Should this PIM be I2 (was I2 on slide 11)
- Discussion about the meaning of ‘Reconcile’ between Normative and Publication milestones. You can have substantive change from the DSTU to N1, but not between iterations of Normative ballot.
- If PSM is derived from PIM, then do we not show it as being balloted?
- Sort of related Slide 11 –
- should we color code differently the artifacts that aren’t really being balloted (like I2 Conceptual under the September Draft) – or maybe add * and explain in the notes?
- Slide 15
- Ioana commented technical reviews should precede harmonization
- Suggestion to re-label Work group technical review
- Discussion – interim version of RIM is released after each harmonization and WGs are supposed to begin using immediately. WGs use ‘non-final’ content. It’s very difficult to undo something already approved through harmonization.
- Discussed publishing summary list of interim range changes that wouldn’t require deep knowledge of the RIM harmonization process (maybe accompanies the interim RIM published after harmonization) for the benefit of projects and to increase visibility?
- MnM request PSWG to summarize issues, e.g. what isn’t working, if we are requesting process changes
- Ballot to ITS link is confusing, they are not part of ballots, they are reused by PIMs.
- Platform Specific models are not balloted, only the algoritm for deriving a platform specific model from a PIM.
- The group felt that the reconciliation post DSTU may require changes to the CIM or PIM.
- We need to see whether more rigorous analysis could benefit the quality of the standads but two ballots for a DAM may not be sufficient. Typically HL7 specification are developed over many years.
- RIM changes are adopted by projects before the harmonization comments are published
- Project Services will submit a more specific proposal regarding publishing pending changes for the RIM to the project teams working on related artifacts.
- Austin asked that Project Services define more clearly the issues aroudn RIM change management.
Planning for Rio de Janeiro WGM
Lloyd will send a call for hot topics. Rene has already submitted two new MnM Hot Topics:
- Object identity (of obvious interest to those that persist RIM-objects) and
- Safe interpretation of subsets of data (the methodological aspect of wider question by Bob Dolin).
CMET Reconciliation and Publication
This issue need to be resolve prior to Rio because it impedes the Normative edition. Since Dale is not longer available to track the CMETs, we are falling behind in reconciliatio. MnM is supposed to track them even though individual CMETS are the responsibility of the project/domains that are authoring them.
We don't know what ballot each CMET is and the status of their reconciliaiton. We need this information for ANSI to create the normative edition. Andy offered to take on the manual process to manage the status of the CMETs. The rules for inclusion of a CMET into a ballot are vague. The issue will be discussed further in Rio during a dedicated quarter. Andy will touch base with Dale to transition the current CMET management process and then work with Don to address the issues regarding reconciliation of the Normative edition. The consensus of the workgroup was that Andy should proceed as discussed.
