2017 ARB SanAntonio WGM

From HL7Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

2017 January WGM SanAntonio

Sunday Q3 with SGB

Sunday Q5 with TSC

Monday Q2

  1. Maverick A

Thursday Q3

  1. PSS for LOI
  2. Planning based on Monday Q2 V3 Discussion
  3. Things that came up this week.
  4. Other business and planning
    • Open issues
    • Agenda until next WGM.
    • When do we meet next WGM?
  5. Adjournment

Minutes

Meeting Information Monday Q2

HL7 ArB/MnM Work Group Meeting Minutes

Location: Maverick-A, Hyatt Riverwalk, San Antonio, TX, US

Date: 20170116
Time: 11:00am U.S. Eastern
Facilitator Duteau, Jean/Constable, Lorraine Note taker(s) Julian, Tony
Attendee Name Affiliation
R Bond,Andy NEHTA
. Constable, Lorraine Constable Consulting Inc.
. Hyland, Mario AEGIS
. Julian, Tony Mayo Clinic
. Knapp, Paul Pknapp Consulting
. Kubick, Wayne HL7 CTO
. Loyd, Patrick ICode Solutions
. Lynch, Cecil Accenture
R Milosevic, Zoran Deontik Pty Ltd
R Stechishin,Andy CANA Software and Service Ltd.
Guests
. Nelson, Dale Accenture
. Grow, Richard U.S. Department of Veterans affairs
.
Legend
X Present
. Absent
R Regrets
Quorum Requirements (Co-chair + 3) Met: Yes

Minutes Monday Q2

  1. Call to Order
  2. Future of V3 in HL7 - Jean Duteau
    • Jean introduced the topic.
    • Review Thursday Q5
    • Jean will send a report to Wayne Kubrick & Ken McCaslin
    • Statement of Problem
      • Number of v3 artifacts being balloted is significantly reducint
        • Modeling landscape has changed
        • Huge focus on FHIR
        • ONC has adopted C-CDA as a standard for exchange
      • Expert V3 knowledge will diminish over time
      • Tooling has external outdated technology dependencies, supported by volunteers
      • M&M is struggling to support the foundation
    • Catalog of artifacts
      • Current STU
        • Specifications
        • Implementation guides e.g. terminfo
        • Standards
      • Current Balloted
        • Standards
        • DAMS
        • Implementation guides
      • Tooling artifacts
        • RMIM Designer (Dale says 2013 works)
        • Rosetree
        • V3 PubDb Access Based
        • V3 Generator - ANT/XSLT
        • V3 Publishing
    • Support Requirements
      • Foundational Artifacts
        • RIM
        • Datatypes
        • Vocabulary
        • Core principles R2 balloted but in limbo, R3 started, but stopped do to lack of volunteers
          • MIF based
          • PC is looking at changes to negation indicators
        • MIF Changes - EST can support
        • V3 Tooling
          • RMIM Designer - relies on Visio(dale says 2013 works)
          • Rosetree
        • V3 PubDb Access Based
        • V3 Generator - ANT/XSLT
          • Bound together with twine and duct-tape
        • V3 Publishing - needed to build ballot, STU and Normative V3 domains
      • Risk Areas:
        1. What if a RIM structure change was requested?
        2. Change RIM UML
        3. Update RIM Core Mifs
      • Support for Normative and STU standards.
        • Published and support needs are minimal
        • Ned to keep Foundational artifacts as Normative, e.e Extensions and re-affirmations as required
          • Questions
            1. Do any non-foundational Standards need updates?
              • CDA and Common Product model need updates
            2. RIM Normative Edition Balloting - how often do these need to happen?
          • Hugh- to what extent do we need to keep normative. Do we need to do reaffirmation?
          • Wayne - we plan to remove the ANSI logo
          • Mead - need to know what is being used. The users may want changes to content.
          • Paul - may need updates to new needs.
          • Jean - need to know what is in use. Reaffirmation is trivial.
    • Communication
      • Realistic Status -
      • Restrict communication to modelling
      • As support of tools and ballots goes, so goes support of V3 modelling
      • Is there a need to push the onus on producing material out to the organizations creating it, with minimal HL7 International support?
      • How do we frame the message - i.e. this isn't the death of V3, and not FHIR vs V3.

What do we need to do

    • Develop a list of known 'keepers'
    • Develop a list of standards in use?
      • Include affiliates
    • Expose artifacts and dependencies
    • Which artifacts do we need MIF? UML? HMD?
    • Develop a plan to reaffirm or withdraw
      • Withdraw means still a standard, but just not ANSI accredited

Meeting Information Thursday Q3

HL7 ArB Work Group Meeting Minutes

Location: Garden Terrace #135, Hyatt Riverwalk, San Antonio, TX, US

Date: 20170119
Time: 3:00pm U.S. Eastern
Facilitator Julian, Tony Note taker(s) Julian, Tony
Attendee Name Affiliation
R Bond,Andy NEHTA
X Constable, Lorraine Constable Consulting Inc.
X Hyland, Mario AEGIS
X Julian, Tony Mayo Clinic
X Knapp, Paul Pknapp Consulting
. Kubick, Wayne HL7 CTO
X Loyd, Patrick ICode Solutions
R Lynch, Cecil Accenture
R Milosevic, Zoran Deontik Pty Ltd
R Stechishin,Andy CANA Software and Service Ltd.
Guests
X Shakir, Abdul-Malik HI3
X Duteau, Jean DDI
X McDaniel, MaryKay Cognosante, LLC
X Murphy, Erin Cognosante, LLC
X Baker, J.D. Sparx Systems
X Walker, D. Mead Mead Walker Consulting
.
Legend
X Present
. Absent
R Regrets
Quorum Requirements (Co-chair + 3) Met: Yes

Minutes Thursday Q3

  1. Methodology
    • Motion to approve pss for (Newborn Dried Blood Spot Screening Lab Order Component/ Implementation Guide) (Patrick/Lorraine) 3-0-0
    • Motion to make meeting joint with MnM (Lorraine/Patrick)3- 0-0
    • V3 discussion
      • What is 'V3'?
        • V3 messaging is RIM, DAMS, etc.
        • CDA is NOT V3 messaging, but based on RIM.
      • MnM Will do inventory of v3 products.
        • Withdraw unused/old content
      • What does it mean to publish a new V3 Domain?
        • Weak link is tooling.
        • Can refactor what it means.
      • We need to identify the customers for V3.
      • Focus on information gathering.
      • Tooling/Publishing of Lists/tools
      • Methodology needs revisiting - lessons from CDA and FHIR.
        • Why change the methodology?
          • Identify common things.
          • Each model has its own schema.
        • Lesson from CDA starts with constrained model. - CDA is being misused.
        • Are customers asking for a single schema.
      • Flaws in Methodology cause lack of new development
      • Sequoia/NHIN, SPL, Adverse event are using V3.
      • Static schemas were good
      • Connectathons are good.
      • Choice in schemas is good.
      • RIM ITS is a single schema.
    • Library activities
      1. List of artifacts from Lynn
      2. Which are the ones we care about (v3 Family)
      3. Ask workgroups for which we can withdraw/maintain.
      4. Determine the tooling requirements
      5. Determine alternative tools for essential artifacts.
        • Consider outsourcing - let 3rd party derive schemas.
      6. Why do we have 4 sets of data-types.
        • Can we fix it - organizational will.
      7. Conformance should be the same.
  2. Meeting Schedules
    • Madrid WGM
      • ARB/SGB Sunday Q3
      • Mon Q2 ARB only - Impromptu joint if appropriate.
      • THU Q3 ARB only
    • Weekly conference calls
      • Continue 3:00 Eastern starting on 1/31/2017.

Todos