2014 10 17 Minutes - CDA R2.1 Project

From HL7Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Attendance

  • Calvin Beebe
  • Benjamin Flessner
  • Johnathon Conon
  • Jim Wade
  • Austin Kreisler
  • Rob Hausam
  • Kathleen Connor

Review Action Items

  1. Create a CDA R2.1 WIKI Project Page – C. Beebe
    1. CDA R2.1 Wiki - review updates
       The group reviewed the WIKI page. 
       Calvin indicated that the CDA R2.1 Project's Scope document was just approved by the SSD-SD.
       It will need to proceed to the TSC for thier review.
       Additional links will be added to the wiki page once the project is listed in the SDWG Project listing. 
  1. Contact the Data Providence team – C. Beebe

Kathleen Connor and Johnathon Conon will be attending calls to provide DPROV requirements.

Minutes / Notes

  1. Review of the CDA R2.1 Scope
     The team reviewed the CDA R2.1 scope. 
     It was noted that to ensure backwards compatibility we will be limited in the set of changes that we can undertake.   
     A question was asked about updating the clinical statement pattern.  
     It was noted that the scope does not support the replacement of the clinical statement model, 
     as we need to preserve 2.0 wire format backwards compatibility. 
     It was noted that the scope did not preclude the adoption of some new classes, 
     however they have to be optional and not affect the wire format backwards compatibility.  
     We had assumed that we would not, but as needed, proposals could be considered by the team. 
  1. Review of the CDA R2.0 Standard (narrative document)
    The team reviewed the CDA R2.0 standard and attempted to identify the scope of changes and effort required. 
    
     1 CDA Overview
     The overview material will likely stay intact. 
     The only subsection needing revision will be the 1.5 which discusses backwards compatibility.
     It will need to speak to CDA R1.0 and CDA R2.0 forwards and backwards compatibility.
   
     2  Introduction to CDA Technical Artifacts
     The team will needs to determine if we can use the current V3 Tooling to generate the technical 
     artifacts for the new release of CDA R2.1
     It was noted that there were a number of hand edits that were made in CDA R2.0 at the time of publication.  
     No one is sure if we would save time to use the tooling or if it would take more time.
     The issue again is that we need to ensure the CDA R2.1 schema is backwards compatible.
     
     3  CDA Document Exchange in HL7 Messages
     No signficant changes were identified for the messaging, except to update references to RFCs.
     4  CDA R-MIM
     The committee discuss changes to the narrative portion of the CDA R2.0 standard.
     Calvin asked if it would be possible to generate the CDA R2.1 narrative from the tooling used for IGs?
     Austin raised some concerns that this approach would make it different from other V3 standards, and 
     that it might not work.  The committee will pickup from this location next week.