MnM Minutes WGM 201201 San Antonio

Return to MnM Minutes for 2012

Sunday Jan. 15 Q3

(Llano - Ch: L McKenzie; Sc: G Beeler)

Attendees

George (Woody) Beeler Jr (Beeler Consulting LLC ), Jean Duteau (Gordon Point Informatics Ltd. ), Attila Farkas (HL7 Canada ), Sarah Gaunt (NEHTA ), Peter Gilbert (Covisint ), Hugh Glover (HL7 UK Voter #6 ), Austin Kreisler (SAIC - Science Applications International Corp ), Jay Lyle (Ockham Information Services LLC ), Lloyd McKenzie (HL7 Canada (Gordon Point Informatics) ), Rajan Rai (HL7 Canada ), Rik Smithies (NProgram Ltd ), Rene Spronk (HL7 Netherlands ), Andy Stechishin (Gordon Point Informatics Ltd. ), D. Mead Walker (Mead Walker Consulting ), Philip Wilford (nehta ), Grahame Grieve, J. D. Baleer

Agenda

Establish Agenda for WGM from Hot Topics and Other Items

Steps:

• Reviewed the existing Hot Topics
• Marked changes on HXIT for Associations and NullFlavor
• Agreed to have L. McKenzie "clean up" the Hot topics list and bring his final changes to the Facilitator's Roundtable on Thursday evening for adoption.
• Added a number of Hot topics to the agendas for this WGM (also outlined below)

Adjourned 3PM

Monday Jan. 15 Q1

(Regency East 2 - Ch: L McKenzie; Sc: G Beeler)

Attendees

George (Woody) Beeler Jr (Beeler Consulting LLC ), Lloyd McKenzie (HL7 Canada (Gordon Point Informatics) ), AbdulMalik Shakir (City of Hope National Medical Center )

Agenda

SAIF Artifact Definition - REVITALIZE the process

Discussion

Started with question of whether to choose to advance only a sub-set of the artifacts in the face of low adoption of "universal" messaging artifacts plus the needs of FHIR.

Suggest that the Information Model artifact definitions are usable in both contexts, although, in future, the requirement for creating RMIMs may be limited.

Simultaneously, there are clearly new artifacts and governance required to support FHIR.

What is role of behavioral/transactional models in FHIR??? Not immediately.

FAILED to MEET QUORUM

Monday Jan. 16 Q2

(Regency East 2 - Ch: G Beeler; Sc: L McKenzie)

Attendees

Woody Beeler, Lloyd McKenzie, Adel Glhamahalla, Rick Smithies, Raj Rajan

Agenda

Ballot planning

• RIM R5
• Core Principles R2 - when & what
• Data Types R2+

Ballot Planning

RIM R5

• R4 passed balloting in only 1 cycle
• Number of changes this year will be small - primarily structural vocabulary
• In this next release, a bunch of deprecated elements will be dropped
  • Will need to manage how this will affect publication for NE2013

Motion: Woody authorized to submit paperwork to initiate RIM R5 ballot Lloyd/Rik: 4/0/0

Core Principles R2 (when & what)

• R1 is finished with one negative outstanding

• Carry-overs from last time:
  • Behavioral models (still don't have this)
  • Negation indicators: List them all and how they should be used
  • isDocumentCharacteristic: what does it mean/how does it work

• Can we do a full release or an Annex?

Motion: MnM authorizes Woody to prepare PSS and submissions to enable balloting of Core Principles R2, limited to the addition of documentation on negation indicators and isDocumentationCharacteristic.

Lloyd/Rik: 4/0/0

Data Types R2+

• Looked at list of Data Type R3 issues
• Consider doing a 2.1
• We can bring any vocab changes other than null flavor forward into datatypes
• We want people to identify what additional changes they want and how "urgent" a given change is.
  • Woody will update the page to be numbered and define a list of priorities from "blocking implementation" to "nice to have". When that's done, Lloyd will craft a small blurb for the HL7 Newsletter and send an e-mail to co-chairs list, MnM list, RIMBAA list, INM list and CGIT list

Monday Jan. 16 Q3

(Regency East 2 - Ch: L McKenzie; Sc: G Beeler)

Attendees

George (Woody) Beeler Jr (Beeler Consulting LLC ), Jean Duteau (Gordon Point Informatics Ltd. ), Robert Hausam (Hausam Consulting ), Julie James (Blue Wave Informatics ), William Ted Klein (Klein Consulting, Inc. ), Lloyd McKenzie (HL7 Canada (Gordon Point Informatics) ), Zoran Milosevic (NEHTA )

Agenda

Two Hot Topics

Role Class "Ontological"

Issue, coming from Vocabulary, problem found when attempting to satisfy Role relationships (found in context of common product model). Julie James brought forward a detailed analysis of the RoleClass hierarchy with the concern focusing on _RoleClassOntological.

The existing structure had a number of definition issues - SAME and SUBY appeared to be saying the same thing, yet were siblings, and generic is also tied into the definition of SAME.

After much discussion asked to see a harmonization proposal for March that restructures the hierarchy as:

ROL

_RoleClassAssociative

_RoleClassOntological

EQUIV (functionally equivalent entity)

SAME (with changes to make the fact that representations differ, but there is only one real-world thing that they represent)

SUBY (subsumed by) Modify the definition to make it clear that the original definition was to replace a record, and perhaps alter the print name to be "????"

GRIC

GEN

INST

Harmonization Proposal for QueryParameter.semanticsText attribute

Jean Duteau presented a revision of his parameterItem proposal related to this. The group critiqued it and encouraged him to submit the revision.

Tuesday Jan. 17 Q1

(Llano - Ch: G Grieve; Sc: G Beeler)

Tuesday Jan. 17 Q2

Attendees

Lloyd McKenzie (Chair), Mead Walker, Rik Smithies, Jean Duteau (scribe), Zoran Milosevic, Kathleen O'Connor, Bo Dagnall, Rene Spronk

Agenda

Two Hot Topics

Modeling Work Flow - Design Pattern

Mead, as part of building a Study Design RMIM, has come across the need to model work flow. He wrote up a document discussing the various attributes that can be used for expressing workflow. Lloyd commented that there are some additional ActRelationship codes that are not in Mead's document, eg. StartsAfterEndOf. These provide a little bit of overlap for some representations but they provide some extra means to represent things that Mead's document didn't consider.

We considered how to represent workflow with choices but no explicit criteria. There are probably implicit criteria but if they are not stated explicitly, how do we represent this. Mead would like one single ActRelationship type versus using a wider range of ActRelationship types. Lloyd suggested that we lay out the different options and indicate which are to be used in specific situations.

There are some scenarios in a workflow where there are relationships between activities that don't have critieria, i.e. A has to happen while B is occurring. Although these are parts of a grouping therapy act, there is a need to indicate the timing between those two, i.e. StartsAfterStartOf, EndsBeforeEndOf. There is also probably a need to use an ActReference to reference an act in a number of different places.

ACTION: Mead will take his initial document and write up the proposal for a pattern.

Act in DEF Mood

We have DEF mood for Acts and we have 'isCriterion' and there is confusion over the use of each. Each of them provide a means to present a template of an activity. Although there is a distinction between them, it is a hard distinction to pin down. We came up with "An ACT in DEF mood defines what an Act is allowed to be. An ACT with 'isCriterion' defines an Act that is being looked for."

Tuesday Jan. 17 Q4

(Llano - Ch: L McKenzie; Sc: G Grieve)

Attendees

Woody Beeler Lloyd McKenzie Andy Stechishin John Roberts Dale Nelson Pete Gilbert Adel Ghlamallah Grahame Grieve

Agenda

Templates and Models:

1. How do you indicate in a parent model, which notes are eligible to have templates applied. And for parent models which are already constrained (ie. Being used in an implementation guide) how do you indicate which specific templates are valid. Is the mechanism different for open versus closed templates.

2. For specific templates, how do you indicate what element on a parent model they are applied to.

3. In an instance, how do you identify which templates have been applied – ie which constraints are declared to have been applied.

4. Show examples of all answers.

5. Are there any tooling changes needed in the current RMIM Designer to apply 1 or 2. What about MDHT and SDM?

Discussion

1. invoking a template:

• can only invoke an template at a rim entry point since templates can only be defined starting at rim entry points
• can't limit which templates are valid or applicable
• can specify a list of possible templates in the MIF - this is not exclusive, but can list some possible templates that are appropriate.
  • requiredTemplateGroup: "Identifies a set of templates which must be true for this attribute or association. If multiple sets requiredTemplateGroups are specified, then the complete set of templates in at least one of the groups must be true"
  • supportedTemplateFroup: "Identifies a template that is known to be applicable for this attribute or association. Essentially this is providing a 'hint' about possible templates that can be used. However, it does not require the use of any of the listed templates and is not necessarily an exhaustive list of templates that could be valid."
  • visio doesn't support this
• mechanism is the same for open and closed templates

2.

• template must constrain a particular class in another model
• how you express that depends on how you express the template
• Pretty much actually done in text at this point, though can be done in the MIF

Much discussion ensued from this point, involving the history of the template and the way templates are used.

3.

• see the template spec for use of templateId - in the instance there should be a list of templates on the element.

4.

Example for a template id:

   <observation>
     <templateId root="2.16.840.1.113883.10" extension=" REPC_RM000103"/>
     
     <derivationExpr>Sumscore</derivationExpr>
     <effectiveTime value="200601191211"/>
     <value value="3" />
     <component>
       <observation>
         
         <value xsi:type="CO" code="1" codeSystem="2.16.840.1.113883.2.6.15.1.1"/>
       </observation>
     </component>
     <component>
       <observation>
         
         <value xsi:type="CO" code="1" codeSystem="2.16.840.1.113883.2.6.15.1.2"/>
       </observation>
     </component>
     <component>
       <observation>
         
         <value xsi:type="CO" code="1" codeSystem="2.16.840.1.113883.2.6.15.1.3"/>
       </observation>
     </componen>
   </observation>

5.

1. - could do visio tooling changes to support those two MIF elements (moderate amount of work)
2. - very large amount of work - (though would love to have it) (some pieces of it exist in the SMD)
3. - n/a/
4. - N/A

Summary

• MIF does support the requirements from the template spec, but is not used for the templates we have actually published (via Structured Documents)
• Providing the tooling to allow Structured Documents to use the MIF would be a significant challenge

Wednesday Jan. 18 Q1

(Llano - Ch: G Beeler; Sc: L McKenzie)

Thursday Jan. 19 Evening

(Llano - Ch: G Beeler; Sc: L McKenzie)

Agenda

===Facilitators Round Table