ITS WGM Minutes 2011 Sep
- 1 ITS - San Diego, California, WGM September 2011
- 2 Attendance
ITS - San Diego, California, WGM September 2011
Paul Knapp (PK) Dale Nelson (DN) Andy Stechishin (AS)
Monday, September 12
Announcement of co-chair election this WGM, Dale Nelson is standing for re-election.
Planning for Week:
- Walked through the purpose of the joint sessions Mon Q1, Tues Q1, Q2. AS offered to provide logistical Publishing Facilitator assistance for the InM Abstract Transport specification.
- Tues Q3: need to express concern over continued reference to Green CDA as a wire format.
- Tues Q4: cleanup of outstanding ballots
- Wed: morning - RFH, afternoon neutral mapping
- Wed Q6: RIMBAA discussion on RFH and Mapping
- Thur Q1: hot topics
- Thur Q2: planning for next WGM
- Release Thursday Q3 and Q4
Motion: Accept plan for WGM AS/BP unanimous
Passed PSS, reviewed document, AS will send general instructions to Frank for document (done)
Action: AS will set up joint ITS/CGIT to continue discussion
Tuesday, September 13
Joined Structured Docs
Motion: To kill the 2006 V3_Transport_ISO9660Media_R1_C1_2006May ballot and to put the associated project on hold. BP/MT 7-0-0
- Structures and Guide 1.1 – recall the document and ballots from HQ and re-resolve.
- Datatypes R1.1 – post the reconciliation received from Grahame and request withdrawal.
- All others re-request withdrawal, and with a more detailed note for the ISO datatypes to the balloter (FDA) who requested not to withdraw at this time.
- ITS 1.1 Structures and Guide: Paul to get the documents and ballots from HQ and the committee will re-reconcile through conference calls.
- Web Services
- We will continue to try to push forward.
Wednesday, September 14
GG gave some of the background to the development of RFH (from blog entry )
GG gave a quick overview of Highrise (from 37 Signals) as an example of an API that 'just works'
RW pointed that there clarification on the term resource and an instance of such was required.
GG mentioned that the complex operations were not defined, REST was the provided mechanism 'out of the box'
GB commented that it might be useful to separate the RESTful transport from the data definition, GG stated that that was the V3 'way' and it was not particularly successful.
There were a number of comments about content versus transport. And the feeling that REST may be forced on the implementor. GG stated REST was provided not required.
There was a discussion on the differences/similarities of Green CDA and RFH. There was an acknowledgement that there is not a single 'common' definition of Green. There was discussion of the continuum from RIM to simple XML with re-usability reducing when moving toward simple XML. One of the main differences is the approach to arriving at the simple XML format.
AW made the point that a number of solution are coming forward to solve the Version 3 complexity problem (hData, Green CDA, RfH) and suggested that each has gaps or issues that are addressed by capabilities in other solutions. Harmonizing the approaches, taking the best of each may help arrive at a comprehensive solution that moves HL7 forward.
GG spoke about resource versioning and extensibility.
Look at OWL for use with existing models and/or RfH (as presented in last quarter)
CL gave an overview of OWL and OWL syntax.
There was a discussion on the use of OWL and where in the process OWL is applicable. The options considered where creation of models, verification of models against the RIM, verification of other artifacts, verification of instances, and processing of instances. OWL was not seen to be a domain level requirement.
Robert Worden presented latest Neutral Mapping tooling.
Questions for MnM:
- Is mapping needed for RFH?
- What are the requirements for mapping?
- What tool(s) are best suited to satisfy those requirements?
A fair evaluation of RFH would include a side by side comparison:
- Use of the mapping tool to arrive at a green signature similar to RFH
- Map a hand crafted resource to the RIM
- Create a hand crafted one
RFH – simplicity without anarchy
Content model (Resources) (simplicity)
- standardize on model (no anarchy)
- Behavioural model (orchestration)
Premise: HL7 Domain Groups provide RFH "resources" for common use. Custom XML is the wire format.
- PK: If we do RFH, what does it look like? Is it worth doing?
- JD: From an ITS perspective, we could take RMIMs and map to resources
- PK: Beyond charter of ITS
- MT: We need multiple ITS?
- PK: Just one ITS to exchange
- MT: How do different departments communicate?
- RW: We might be worrying too much about what might be an ITS
- PK: Domains should publish the RFH resource and the mapping back to the RIM.
- JD: RFH gives us the ability to send a simple concept over the wire
- DN: The process seems a lot like the CMET process where we have low-level resources and mid and high level resources that consume the others. Grahame was concerned that too many resources would become unmanageable.
- PK: When the whole model is needed the complexity is ignored because it is needed.
- MT: We are back to some normal complexity problems.
- RW: We've hidden it behind mapping
- PK: We've hidden the RIM adherence to the model behind the mapping.
- Hand map from manual XML
- Reduce RIM based model
RW: Someone should hand craft XML, and by "greening" a RIM based model, see how close can we get.
OWL: we do not see a use for OWL in the mapping process.
- Cases where OWL is appropriate:
- M&M, publishing and vocab
Closely related to the Content model above:
Can resources be constructed via neutral mapping tools?
Thursday, September 15
- Presentation by Keith Boone on HTML5/Microdata
- Point of project – make HL7 structured documents with computable semantics more accessible
- If there were already a JSON ITS there would be a significant portion of Microdata finished.
- Microdata is property triples in bag format.
- Review of HTML5/Microdata draft PSS
- Keith will determine 2 implementors
It is the consensus of the ITS WG to encourage Keith to continue to pursue this endeavour.
Planning next meeting
- Q1: Agenda – planning
- Q2: Ballot / admin issues
- Q3: Spare
- Q4: V2 XML Ballot Reconciliation
- Q3: SD Hosts joint
- Q1: RFH, HTML5, Mapping
- Q2: Meeting
- Q3: Meeting
- Q4: Meeting
- Q1: Hot topics
- Q2: Next meeting
Discussion of RFH learnings from Wed Q6.
Did not meet
Did not meet
|Andy Stechishin||AS||CANA Softwarefirstname.lastname@example.org||×||×||×|
|Lloyd McKenzie||LM||LM Associatesemail@example.com||×|
|Grahame Grieve||GG||Health Intersectionsfirstname.lastname@example.org||×|
|Ann Wrightson||AW||NHS Walesemail@example.com||×|
|Robert Worden||RW||Open Mapping Softwarefirstname.lastname@example.org||×||×||×|
|Alexander Henket||HL7 NLemail@example.com||×||×|