This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here

ICTC concall 20090618

From HL7Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Thursday 4:30 PM (US Eastern Time, GMT -5)

Please consult for your local times
Phone Number: 770-657-9270 (??)
Participant Passcode: 644843 (??)

Return to IC concalls 2009


  • Jane Gilbert
  • Frank Oemig
  • Rob Snelick
  • Julia Davis



The community feels that the ECCF document is hard to read and to understand. It requires some more work.

Frank has submitted the latest version with more than 40 comments. Perhaps it was too late to read it carefully and totally? However, it seems that there is a misunderstanding about the ideas behind 605 and ECCF. The terminology in 605 seems to be in alignment with other standards like ISO and NeHTA. Some of the definitions in ECCF appears as wrong?

Proposal 605

The new version of 605 looks much better. It includes the result from the discussion in Kyoto. In principle it reflects a general approach, which is also useful/reasonable/applicable for V3 and other HL7 standards. The contents should be added to chapter 2B. For a preparation we have to send it to other WGs lilke InM, MnM and ITS.

We also have to separate between the general concepts explaining conformance, compliance and compatibility esp. with the reference to ECCF and the documentation hierarchy. Furthermore, we should highlight the benefits from this proposal. This raised the question how to deal with generic/independant concepts like this? We probably have to discuss with Karen v.H.

Maintainance: The original proposal can be found in the proposal database. An update is not possible. Adding a new proposal with each new version of the paper seems to be inappropriate. Therefore, it will be sent to the list and uploaded to the HL7 document server. The current version of the document can be found here: [[1]]

We have created a wiki page reflecting the discussion and references to the document: conformance documentation hierarchy

(There is also another page for v2.8 proposals: v2.x proposals)

IHE (internal) terminology whitepaper

Left for the next call. Please examine.

Rob has sent some comments to Frank which he incorporated into the document. A new update will follow. Furthermore, the document will most probably be split into pieces which may become different parts f "Volume 0" in the IHE world: 0.b (terminology) and 0.c (testing).


Rob is preparing a document about testing (what to test: syntactic, semantic, ..) which is going to submit next week. This may fit with the IHE Whitepaper.