MnM Minutes CC 20090206

From HL7Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

M&M Conference Call Noon Eastern Time (Date above)


  • Approve Minutes January 30 (Forgot to do this.)
  • Status of Prep for RIM Ballot
  • Methodology questions from Clinical Statements - participation time and Participation note text
  • Other TBD


Beeler, Loyd, Kreisler, Jackson, Flaherty, Stechishin, Singureanu

RIM Ballot

Beeler reviewed activities in support of forthcoming RIM ballot. Summary:

  1. Currently posting Harmonization proposals to implement ballot reconciliation approved in Orlando. The Position of Concerned Organizations section of the form is being used to provide the ballot reconciliation disposition and recommendation in order that Harmonization voters will be aware of that position.
  2. Have "resurrected" RIM and Vocabulary from the Normative release so that it can be used to identify changes since 2004 ballot.
  3. Observations on Changes. (These will form a basis for declaring changes and scope of the ballot.)
    1. About half of the ballot will include "new" classes since only the backbone and specializations thereof were balloted the first time.
    2. Of those that were balloted in previous Normative ballot, most of the descriptions appear changed since we re-ordered and (in some cases) renamed the sub-sections, and made minor wording changes for consistency. The vast majority of these changes were accepted as technical corrections, meaning they made no recognized change in the meaning.
    3. By stripping out the annotations (in a "lite" file) we can do a comparison of the models in the MIF2 format and identify which classes, associations and attributes have changed, and which have been added, deleted or deprecated.
    4. A similar comparison will be run on the concepts in the structural vocabulary code systems.
  4. Transforms have been updated to extract ALL annotations that were previously embedded in the "description" and include these as independent MIF2 annotations.
  5. Will seek to add the Release 2 data type assignments for each attribute as a "Property" assertion in the RIM descriptions (appears as an "otherAnnotation" in MIF2). This avoids the requirement for a structural change to the MIF, and will allow us to later assert the R2 as the primary data type with a property to show previous (R1) data type in future ballots. NOTE: Still need a per-attribute list from Grahame and/or Lloyd of the R2 data type assignments.

Methodology Questions

Arose in Clinical Statement and will appear on list in near future. Raised here to hear opinion of call participants.


Issues that arise in Clinical Statement which tends to expose RIM issues not seen by others. Wanted to add activityTime to Act classes. People asked why not use Participation.time which sounds like the same thing.

Con: Might require use of empty Participations, which are not valid, and would need to analyze ALL Participations to find it. Further, might need to have a Participation aggregate.

Pro: Why do you need activityTime, if you don't have all the Participations.

No strong support for Pro on this call. Pro's position might tell how to estimate activityTime. Consider the impact of housekeeping on activityTime and the implicit requirement to include janitorial services as participation instance.


When should you use this versus an Act annotation. Observe noteText is "about" the Participation, whereas Annotation is "about" the Act. They are different contexts, and need different attributes.

Return to M&M Minutes List