ITS Concall Minutes 20110222
ITS Teleconference - February 22, 2011
Called to order at 4:00 Eastern
Present: Grahame Grieve (GG), Brian Pech (BP), Paul Knapp (PK), Dale Nelson (DN), Gunther Shadow (GS), Keith Thompson (KT), Rick Geimer (RG), Norman Gregory (NG), Katherine Hosage-Norman (KHG), Peggy Leizear (PL), Mary Beth Wilusz (MBW), Terry Brunone (TB), Art Gresser (AG)
- Role call and agenda
- Approve Minutes of previous meeting January 25
- Approve Minutes of Sydney WGM
- Continue ITS R1.1+ Discussion
Approve February 15 Minutes
Motion: Approve as posted (DN/BP) 11-0-0
Proposed ITS R1.1+
From last week, did we want to branch off into a 3rd branch, or something else
- GS: We want an ITS where abstract materials can be adapted into a backwards wire-format.
- DataTypes 1.1+ is same as informative material
- Structures 1.1+ comes off Structures 1.1
- PK: Structures should be .n (e.g. 1.2) would be ST 1.1 + DT 1.1
- GG: ST doc needs to change a bit. not as simple as 1.1 + DT 1.1
Needs different decisions about backward compatibility
- PK: 2 projects then or 1 project with multiple outcomes
- create a new std
- revision of a std
- GG: not happy with project, but 2 parts in particular: compromise we thought we had was not
1) project represents commitment to a course of action going forward, but not happy to commit to a particular solution on an ongoing basis 2) we should be talking about 2B or 2backwards, etc
- GS: Fine
- GG: We are doing R2 with indirect conformance. Want the badging done appropriately.
- GS: 1st point did you want to change the PSS
- GG: PSS was a commitment to carry R1 forward (Normative compatible ITS). Solution would be carried forward. Happy with "a" project, but not as a general solution for future projects.
- GS: Call it 2B, add transforms
- GG: we have an ongoing responsibility to maintain backward compatibility
- PK: thinks we would be …. struck by TSC possibly
- GG: outcome is what we have. Happy to help with wordsmithing.
- GG: dropped off
- PK: GS can wordsmith. Key is under PSS Section 4C success criteria.
- ITS R2B
- Normative Standard ITS R2B DT
- Transform from MIF to W3C schema as part of … (s.b. tooling decision, but we will leave in to be clear)
- next line in - take out "+"
- existing HL7 … (OK)
- A continuous process … (strike)
- GS: Agree
- PK: PSS Section 4D project objectives - change to 2B
- Strike "no project end date…"
- Project Need OK, Scope needs trimming.
- Dependencies - XML ITS R2 should not be a dep.
- DN: strike Data Types R3
- PK: will there be any breaking changes?
- GS: As few as possible
- PK: External Project Collaboration
- KHN: Does this need to change with changes in CDA R2?
- PK: At each change we need to reassess
- GS: Future consideration, not currently an issue.
- KHN: If R3 occurs what decisions will be made
- PK: We will make those determinations at that point
- DN: Strike all after (C32)
- PK: 6A: Strike all after "All HL7 V3 implementors".
- DN: 8. Use only one
- GS: Use C.
- GS: Title: Backwards Compatible ITS (R2B)
- PK: Add to Project Need: HL7 implementation can more easily … until such time as the conversion to the ITS R2 is desired.
- DN: Agree
- PK: Project Scope wording changes discussed.
Motion: Approve PSS for ITS R2B (GS/NG) 11-0-0
- PK: NOTE: This weekend we will be putting forth NIBs
- ITS Structures R2B
- ITS DT R2B
- MLLP R1 Refresh
- EBXML R2 DSTU
All normative track.
Motion: Take these NIBs forward (DN/KT) 11-0-0
- PK: Did run by RS to reaffirm MLLP - yes good idea.
Andy to do NIBs.