MnM Minutes CC 20110302

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

Return to MnM Minutes

Agenda

• Approve Minutes Prior Meeting on 02/16
• Reconcile Core Principles Negative Votes
• Reconcile Core Principles "A*" Votes
• Plan response to ITS Project Proposal for Data Tapes ITS R2B (Show on GoToMeeting)
• Quick Scan of PSS for Artifact Definition

Attendees

Beeler, Stechishin, Kreisler, Seppala, McKenzie, Natarajan

Approve Agenda and Minutes Prior Meeting on 02/16

Agenda approval - Andy/Ravi 5-0-0

Minutes approval - Gregg/Lloyd 5-0-0

Reconcile Core Principles Negative Votes

Proposed actions in Spread sheet on Ballot Desktop

Document Being Reconciled

Changes documented in spread sheet.

Items 33, 34, 35, 40 - Lloyd/Robb 5-0-0

Reconcile Core Principles A-* Votes

Changes documented in spread sheet.

Items 1 - 7 Andy/Lloyd 5-0-0

Remaining items Austin/Ravi 5-0-0

Review/Update MnM of Project Scope for SAIF Artifact Definition

We reviewed the document that had been updated by Lloyd. This was the version that had been discussed previously in a joint conference call with Project Services. Minor edits were made to the document in clarifying the scope and responsibilities. The Revised PSS has been posted and will be forwarded to TSC for its review.

The changes were approved: Austin/Andy 5-0-0

Plan response to ITS Project Proposal for Data Tapes ITS R2B

ITS Work Group is preparing to advance a Project Scope for a project to:

"This project will develop ITS specifications for HL7 v3 messages and documents, that are wire-backwards-compatible to existing ITS Structures R1.1, and abstract data types R2 while to the maximum extent possible adopting all changes and new features that are being introduced by semantic and abstract specifications, such as the RIM and abstract data types..."

The version reviewed was not believed to be the final version, but it is expected that this may come up for review in the Foundation And Technology SD before the next MnM meeting. There were lively discussions about the project and its intentions.

Based on the group's understanding of the proposal, the following major concerns were raised, and the co-chairs were urged to raise them in discussion at the SD:

• HL7 needs to avoid sponsoring two incompatible "normative" ways to implement data types (DT) R2 (also the ISO data types) in the long term.

• The complete capability of DT R2 should be the only viable target for the future, and relatively soon. The proposed ITS's do not strive to implement all features of DT R2.

• If this is a bridge specification to allow a smooth transition, it should be sunset at some point.

• It is our understanding that there are elements of the proposed ITS that will 'not be backwards compatible, what are they, and how can one claim this is backwards compatible?

• We believe there is a need to limit this to those circumstances where there is an extant, demonstrable implementation of the earlier standard that justifies such backwards compatibility. It should never be used for new, unrelated endeavors.