MnM Minutes CC 20100603

M&M Ballot Reconciliation Conference Call 4:00 PM Eastern Time (Date above)

Attendees

Stuart, Gessner, Kreisler, McKenzie, Beeler, Duteau, Hendler, Schadow,

Voting Tallies

The mover and seconder for each item are shown below. All Votes on this day passed with 7-Affirmative, 0-Abstain, 0-Against.

Agenda - RIM Ballot Reconciliation

Working document

The working document was the reconciliation spreadsheet posted on HL7 Ballot Desktop. Items are collected by the entries on the "Comment Grouping" column.

Comment Grouping "Disambiguate Quantity Attributes"

Items submitted by Christof Gessner of HL7 Germany. All items relate to the definitions and relationships between the "quantity" attributes in Participation, Role and Entity. Covers five line items:

• Item 19 [No action Result combined in item 20]
• Item 20 (Christoph/Austin)
  • Disposition & Disposition Comment - "Persuasive With Mod"

    Agreed to a three step process going forward:

    1. Revise the definition Partipation.quantity in order to state the constraints as tightly as possible for use of this attribute.
    2. Build a quantity "matrix" for inclusion in the RIM for the September 2010 ballot. The matrix will consider the six "quantity" attributes in the RIM (on one axis) and the various use cases for quantity (on the other axis), indicating clearly which of attributes are used in each and what they express.
    3. Continue to analyze these issues, particularly as regards countable quantities.

    C. Gessner agreed to open a Wiki page for the matrix and undertake the first draft (Quantitative Relations in RIM). We agreed that the objective is to provide RIM Harmonization Proposals on the July 4, 2010 deadline for consideration in the August 2010 Harmonization Meetings.

  • Discussion:
    • See additional detailed discussion from C. Gessner

    • Note from G Grieve: Been looking at Christof's RIM comments, and chatting to him. The short answer is that we are in a solid mess on this subject I find his issues quite persuasive, though much more analysis is needed but {and?] there is no quick fix.

      I think that we should respond by acknowledging that this is a big deal, and creating a project that is tasked to find a resolution for future use - not just in the RIM, but policy as well.

      I will attempt to be on the call knowing that we moved it for me but it's 6am, I get home after midnight after 3 days on the road. So we'll see

    • Note from A Kreisler: I'm reviewing as requested. One thing I do want to note, at one time I had to prove the assertion that "1" is a legal UCUM unit of measure, and at first couldn't find it listed as a code. It's not listed as an atom in UCUM, rather it comes from the syntax defined to be used along side the codes. In the syntax, any set of digits may legally be used in place of one of the atom codes. The UCUM standard document states that "1" is the default unit in several places, and it is inherent in the UCUM syntax, but it never appears as a "code".

    • Spreadsheet Observations by Beeler
      1. Consider restriction of Role.quantify to those roles whose class code is in value set RoleClassPartitive.
      2. Should the second sentence of Entity.quantity definition, strengthen the constraint to be "[to] identify a group of like entities, a static model design SHALL constrain the PQ data type of this attribute to INT..." And/or add a formal constraint?
      3. In part, Gessner's concerns could be answered if there were a CLEAR way to say that a given PQ is dimensionless (or a count).
      4. In analyzing Participation.quantity, I wanted to ascertain how a "count" is represented in PQ data type. IN Abst DT R2, I find for the "units" component: "unit ... unit of measure specified in ... UCUM ... The default unit is 1.", BUT when I go to UCUM, i find NO UNIT whose code is "1". Hence this is an invalid default!!!" (Note from Kreisler above negates this objection)
• Item 21 [No action Result combined in item 20]
• Item 22 (Christoph/Gunther)
  • Disposition & Disposition Comment - "Persuasive With Mod"

    C Gessner will propose harmonization changes to Entity definition that include non-countable Entities.

• Item 23 (Christoph/Gunther)
  • Disposition & Disposition Comment - "Persuasive With Mod"

    C Gessner will propose harmonization changes to definition of Material.formCode to indicate how to determine what is counted.

Comment Groupings "TechCorr" and "Error"

Items are Technical Corrections or other Errors discovered in RIM content. Covers six line items:

• Item 2-6(Gunther/Jean)
  • Disposition and Disposition Comments - "Persuasive"

    See spreadsheet for Disposition comments. With added note that G Schadow will provide the "class" name properties for the three codes in item 6

Comment Grouping "Correct"

Items were balloted Neg-Mi and offer wording changes to correct meaning and/or other "corrections." Recommendation on all of these is Persuasive or Persuasive with Mod. Covers six line items:

• Item 7 (Lloyd/Jean)
  • Disposition and Disposition Comments - "Persuasive with Mod"

    Will correct per Core Principles

• Item 13 (Lloyd/Jean)
  • Disposition and Disposition Comments - "Not Persuasive with Mod"

    Will change this to read that RIM attribute that is "Constrained" by that Concept Domain. Will also check if coding strength is appropriate here.

• Item 15 (Lloyd/Jean)
  • Disposition and Disposition Comments - "Persuasive with Mod"

    Will re-word this. Note that the MIF actually lists the "code systems" "supported" by a value set, meaning those from which the VS draws content.

• Item 24 (Lloyd/Jean)
  • Disposition and Disposition Comments - "Persuasive"

    Will correct

• Item 27 (Lloyd/Jean)
  • Disposition and Disposition Comments - "Persuasive with Mod"

    Will correct

• Item 28 (Lloyd/Jean)
  • Disposition and Disposition Comments - "Persuasive with Mod"

    Will correct

Adjournment

Adjourned at 4:58 PM Eastern