Agendas and Minutes

The agendas and minutes will be reverse chronological order. Current scheduled (as of the Madrid 2017 WGM) is every other Tuesday at noon (12:00PM) US EDT. We will use the HL7 conference service:

+1 770-657-9270 Participant Passcode: 598745

and the screen share will be Ted's join.me account, accessible by clicking: https://join.me/tedsnewsessions

You will have to click on 'Knock to Enter' and be recognized to join - so please enter your name when you get to the entry screen

October 31, 2017

Audio call-in: HL7 Conference Line; +1 770-657-9270. Passcode: 598745
Today's Screen Share: https://join.me/tedsnewsessions. Click on 'Knock to Enter'
Minutes will be taken using Confluence. Follow this link: 10/31 minutes on Confluence

October 17, 2017

Audio call-in: HL7 Conference Line; +1 770-657-9270. Passcode: 598745
Today's Screen Share: https://join.me/tedsnewsessions. Click on 'Knock to Enter'
Attendees: Ted Klein (chair), Dan Smith, Susan Barber
Call commenced at 12:06PM EDT when quorum was reached.

Review of Status
1. State of FHIR based Proof of Concept
  1. No change since last call.
2. Contract RFP sent out by Dave Hamill for Prototype Development
Tasks:
1. Workflow for Proposals
  1. No change since last call
  2. Integration with Confluence for community discussions to begin soon
2. Code System Editor needs to be developed
3. Output for V3
  1. Coremif output hopefully will be done as part of the UTG prototype project
  2. Still to do: work with Lloyd on the schedule and implementation with testing by Lynn
4. We need to add to all of the vocabulary artifacts an indicator for where the source of truth is, i.e. if the instance being looked at is a copy or not, and where to get refreshed with the most current source of truth.
Other Items:
1. Do we want to move these minutes and notes over to Confluence?
  1. Examine UTG Confluence page at UTG Calls and Actions
  2. The initial project page for this on Confluence has been setup; how does it look? It is a start. Needs much work.
    1. Since we will have to move over to Confluence sooner or later, we should begin to consider doing this for the UTG project.
    2. Ted will reach out to Susan to see if we can work on this.
2. No further work on voting strawman
3. We do yet not have a concrete plan for versioning of the objects in UTG
  1. There will absolutely be a way to look back at history, i.e. for any particular artifact, look at the version released as of a particular date and the inverse of given a particular version, what date(s) was it active?
  2. Ted suggests that we have a single version ID number which is an incrementing integer.
    1. By using a single version ID, this can be used to index into the provenance tracking table for each object; fields in this table can be extensible to track whatever we discover in the future might be needed.
    2. Susan made a number of suggestions for formatting of a version identifier. Note that a single vocabulary artifact may be used across multiple HL7 families.
    3. Ted suggests that the versioning provenance tracking table would be the object identifier+version integer.
    4. We will need to continue discussion on the versioning model.
4. What is the mechanisms for identifying what sets of objects need to be output for particular publishing environments and tooling
  1. We will need to maintain some kind of artifact for this grouping of artifacts for particular purposes. Perhaps a single grouping mechanisms can be used for both grouping artifacts in proposals and grouping them for other purposes. The purposes we know about so far are listed below. We need to discuss this further.
  2. V2 publishing for ballots
  3. CDA IG publishing driven by Trifolia
  4. CDA IG publishing driven by Art Decor
  5. FHIR publishing for various connectathons and developer communities
  6. VSAC objects to NLM?
  7. V3 publishing via Lynn's ballot site generation tools
Actions remaining
1. Ted has not yet updated the architecture diagram to show the external value set and bindings sources of truth and the data flow into the UTG repository
2. There remain a number of open questions:
  1. It is clear that the UTG tooling may have restrictions on generation of expansions and persistence of them for IP controlled content such as SNOMED
  2. Is it expected that UTG will only serve up the external VSDs, or is there an expectation for expansions to be generated? How about creation?
  3. Will there be images (copies) of code systems content from external terminologies (WHO, IEEE, W3C, etc) in addition to LOINC and SNOMED? If so, what is the plan for maintenance?
  4. Should the process for creation and processing of proposals include a branch fork out to HTA for requests for changes to external terminologies? If so how will that fold back into the process of resolving a proposal to completion?
3. Ted to work with Grahame on the full set of metadata for the V2 tables and how it is represented; discussions scheduled for this week.
4. Rob Hausam to get a list of the vocabulary artifacts are are only in Art Decor
  1. Still not yet done
5. Is there any way we can get a list of the CDA value sets that have not been through Harmonization? (other WGs not SD, such as Genomics) From Trifolia? Do we need to ask about this in San Diego?
  1. Who do we reach out to for this? Rick Geimer
Actions from this call:
1. Ted will contact Rick Geimer on UTG questions.
2. Frank and Ted worked out the mechanism for updating V2 publishing with UTG changes; Ted to document this.
3. We need some policy decisions:
  1. Will V2 content be a central part of the "HL7 Content" maintained in UTG?
  2. How will CIMI content be treated?
  3. CDA material that comes through VSAC as the entry point - how is this handled and what is the relationship with the VSAC content which is sourced from HL7 as the SoT (coremif value sets used in CCDA)?
We are out of time, and need to end the call. Continue this on the next call.
Call adjourned at 1:02PM EDT.
1. Next call scheduled for two weeks from today on October 31, 2017 at the same time

October 3, 2017

Audio call-in: HL7 Conference Line; +1 770-657-9270. Passcode: 598745
Today's Screen Share: https://join.me/tedsnewsessions. Click on 'Knock to Enter'
Attendees: Ted Klein (chair), Rob McClure, Susan Barber
Call commenced at 12:09PM EDT when quorum was reached.

Review of Status
1. State of FHIR based Proof of Concept
  1. Content imported, accuracy and completeness check underway
    1. Location is on Grahame's Github; will be moved to HL7 once approved after San Diego
    2. https://github.com/grahamegrieve/vocab-poc
  2. V2 Extensions are being reviewed and updated based on input from the San Diego WGM
  3. Validation of VSAC (CDA) and V3 (coremif) not yet done
2. Output for V2
  1. Need to review the plan for V2 output for update of the Publishing database
Tasks:
1. Workflow for Proposals
  1. JIRA implementation to be completed
  2. Integration with Confluence for community discussions to begin soon
2. Code System Editor needs to be developed
3. Output for V3
  1. Coremif output still underway
4. POC features for terminology manipulation (see list in last call minutes below) to be validated
  1. Being worked on
5. We need to add to all of the vocabulary artifacts an indicator for where the source of truth is, i.e. if the instance being looked at is a copy or not, and where to get refreshed with the most current source of truth.
  1. What kind of identifier should be used for the SoT?
  2. Ted and Rob M discussed how this should be done; they have opposite views on it:
    1. Rob believes that we need it, but at the most it should be merely a boolean flag that indicates assertively if some instance is the source of truth
    2. Ted thinks that there should be a string field that if unvalued it indicates that the instance is the source of truth (or can be considered as such); if valued what is in the field is determined by the governing body or software, including what it indicates and how it is used.
Other Items:
1. No further work on voting strawman
2. We do yet not have a concrete plan for versioning of the objects in UTG
3. What is the mechanisms for identifying what sets of objects need to be output for particular publishing environments and tooling
  1. V2 publishing for ballots
  2. CDA IG publishing driven by Trifolia
  3. CDA IG publishing driven by Art Decor
  4. FHIR publishing for various connectathons and developer communities
  5. VSAC objects to NLM?
  6. V3 publishing via Lynn's ballot site generation tools
4. CIMI discussed in San Diego and also at LOINC meeting. Work in progress to document how we will interface with content in SOLOR that will not be in VSAC.
5. We need to align our messaging on this, including how Wayne speaks about it. We need to focus on the fact that for HL7 authored and maintained code systems, this is done nowhere else and must absolutely be done by UTG as a top priority. This must be the central messaging focus for why we are doing UTG. Ted maintains that we should call this "HL7 Content" which should include:

HL7 authored and maintained code systems
HL7 authored and maintained value sets (those in the coremif and maintained currently through Harmonization)

Actions from last call
1. Ted has not yet updated the architecture diagram to show the external value set and bindings sources of truth and the data flow into the UTG repository
  1. There remain a number of open questions:
    1. It is clear that the UTG tooling may have restrictions on generation of expansions and persistence of them for IP controlled content such as SNOMED
    2. Is it expected that UTG will only serve up the external VSDs, or is there an expectation for expansions to be generated? How about creation?
    3. Will there be images (copies) of code systems content from external terminologies (WHO, IEEE, W3C, etc) in addition to LOINC and SNOMED? If so, what is the plan for maintenance?
    4. Should the process for creation and processing of proposals include a branch fork out to HTA for requests for changes to external terminologies? If so how will that fold back into the process of resolving a proposal to completion?
2. Ted to work with Grahame on the full set of metadata for the V2 tables and how it is represented; discussions scheduled for this week.
3. Rob Hausam to get a list of the vocabulary artifacts are are only in Art Decor
  1. Still not yet done
4. Is there any way we can get a list of the CDA value sets that have not been through Harmonization? (other WGs not SD, such as Genomics) From Trifolia? Do we need to ask about this in San Diego?
  1. Who do we reach out to for this?
Actions from this call:
1. For the Version 2 updates from UTG, we still need to discuss with Frank how he would like the output in order to update his publishing master content.
  1. Frank wants us to discuss how we want to maintain this going forward, i.e. do we want to keep the tables view, or go directly to the codeSystem/ValueSet model and convert to the tables view on demand.
2. We need some policy decisions:
  1. Will V2 content be a central part of the "HL7 Content" maintained in UTG?
  2. How will CIMI content be treated?
  3. CDA material that comes through VSAC as the entry point - how is this handled and what is the relationship with the VSAC content which is sourced from HL7 as the SoT (coremif value sets used in CCDA)?
We are out of time, and need to end the call.
Call adjourned at 1:02PM EDT.
1. Next call scheduled for two weeks from today on October 17, 2017 at the same time

August 29, 2017

Audio call-in: HL7 Conference Line; +1 770-657-9270. Passcode: 598745
Today's Screen Share: https://join.me/tedsnewsessions. Click on 'Knock to Enter'
Attendees: Ted Klein (chair), Susan Barber, Fariba Behzadi, Frank Oemig
Call commenced at 12:06PM EDT when quorum was reached. Note that the call two weeks ago was cancelled, so this is the same agenda as planned for that time.

Review of Status
1. State of FHIR based Proof of Concept
  1. Content imported, accuracy and completeness check underway
    1. Location is on Grahame's Github; will be moved to HL7 once approved after San Diego
    2. https://github.com/grahamegrieve/vocab-poc
  2. V2 Extensions to support V2 tables have been implemented, validation still in progress
  3. Validation of VSAC (CDA) and V3 (coremif) not complete
  4. Initial release of Value Set editor done for testing
    1. Expansions and clear display of content needs integration with server, but OSX version not yet ready
    2. Some team members are in process of testing the Windows version integrated with the value set editor
2. Output for V2
  1. 2 CSV files generated, validation in process
Tasks:
1. Workflow for Proposals
  1. State Machine Documented
    1. Available in document Dropbox for project: States Analysis_v1.docx
  2. JIRA implementation being constructed
    1. State machine workflow implemented
    2. Work underway to get the initial proposal creation through JIRA demonstrated
2. Value Set Editor testing
  1. Needs testing with local server instance
3. Local server instance
  1. OSX version needs to be finished and testing begun
  2. Content refresh from GitHub needs to be further explored
4. Code System Editor needs to be developed
5. Output for V3
  1. Coremif output in work
6. POC features for terminology manipulation (see list in last call minutes below)
  1. Being worked on
Other Items:
1. No further work on voting strawman
2. We do yet not have a concrete plan for versioning of the objects in UTG
3. What is the mechanisms for identifying what sets of objects need to be output for particular publishing environments and tooling
  1. V2 publishing for ballots
  2. CDA IG publishing driven by Trifolia
  3. CDA IG publishing driven by Art Decor
  4. FHIR publishing for various connectathons and developer communities
  5. VSAC objects to NLM?
  6. V3 publishing via Lynn's ballot site generation tools
4. What about CIMI? When to discuss?
Actions from last call
1. Ted to begin to update the architecture diagram to show the external value set and bindings sources of truth and the data flow into the UTG repository
  1. Not yet done, there are a number of open questions:
    1. Will any of the external value sets be intensional? YES
    2. We already have a handful of value sets in V3 that are enumerated codes from SNOMED and LOINC
    3. We do not have any consideration for the IP statements required by the agreements between HL7 and these organizations
    4. It is clear that the UTG tooling may have restrictions on generation of expansions and persistence of them for IP controlled content such as SNOMED
    5. This must be explored at the WGM in San Diego in two weeks
    6. Is it expected that UTG will only serve up the external VSDs, or is there an expectation for expansions to be generated?
    7. Will there be images (copies) of code systems content from external terminologies (WHO, IEEE, W3C, LOINC, SNOMED, etc)? If so, what is the plan for maintenance?
    8. Should the process for creation and processing of proposals include a branch fork out to HTA for requests for changes to external terminologies? If so how will that fold back into the process of resolving a proposal to completion?
    9. The value set editing allows one to create a value set with include rules referencing existing concepts from the downloaded snapshot. For external vocabularies, this may not be possible unless the download contains the full set of all external terminologies, which is likely unreasonable.
    10. Frank opined that we should declare this out of scope for the initial release, just flag it somehow and deal with it on the side while we get the rest of the internal stuff working. This sounds like a good recommendation to start.
    11. Discuss further in San Diego.
2. Ted to work with Grahame on the full set of metadata for the V2 tables and how it is represented
  1. Validation in progress
3. Rob Hausam to get a list of the vocabulary artifacts are are only in Art Decor
  1. ???
4. Is there any way we can get a list of the CDA value sets that have not been through Harmonization? (other WGs not SD, such as Genomics) From Trifolia? Do we need to ask about this in San Diego?
  1. Who do we reach out to for this?
Actions from this call:
1. For the Version 2 updates from UTG, we need to discuss with Frank how he would like the output in order to update his publishing master content.
  1. Frank wants us to discuss how we want to maintain this going forward, i.e. do we want to keep the tables view, or go directly to the codeSystem/ValueSet model and convert to the tables view on demand.
We are out of time, and need to end the call.
Call adjourned at 1:02PM EDT.
1. This is the last call this cycle before the San Diego WGM. The next call cycle will be scheduled at the Thursday afternoon planning session in San Diego. Please contact the chairs if you have particular preferences for the call schedule.

August 15, 2017

Audio call-in: HL7 Conference Line; +1 770-657-9270. Passcode: 598745
Today's Screen Share: https://join.me/tedsnewsessions. Click on 'Knock to Enter'
Attendees: Ted Klein (chair), Susan Barber
Call was cancelled at 12:21PM EDT when quorum could not be reached. We will hope that we can achieve quorum on the next call August 29, which will be the last project call before the San Diego WGM in September.

Review of Status
1. State of FHIR based Proof of Concept
  1. Content imported, accuracy and completeness check underway
    1. Location is on Grahame's Github; will be moved to HL7 once approved after San Diego
    2. https://github.com/grahamegrieve/vocab-poc
    3. V2 import still missing some stuff
    4. Extensions to support V2 tables not yet complete
    5. Validation of VSAC (CDA) and V3 (coremif) not complete
Tasks:
1. Workflow for Proposals
  1. State Machine Documented
    1. Available in document Dropbox for project: States Analysis_v1.docx
  2. JIRA implementation being constructed
2. Value Set Editing
  1. Current status unknown
3. Output for V2
  1. Under development, suggested to be 2 CSV files
4. Output for V3
  1. Coremif output in work
5. POC features for terminology manipulation (see list in last call minutes below)
  1. Being worked on
Other Items:
1. No further work on voting strawman
2. We do yet not have a concrete plan for versioning of the objects in UTG
3. What is the mechanisms for identifying what sets of objects need to be output for particular publishing environments and tooling
  1. V2 publishing for ballots
  2. CDA IG publishing driven by Trifolia
  3. CDA IG publishing driven by Art Decor
  4. FHIR publishing for various connectathons and developer communities
  5. VSAC objects to NLM?
  6. V3 publishing via Lynn's ballot site generation tools
4. What about CIMI? When to discuss?
Actions from last call
1. Ted to begin to update the architecture diagram to show the external value set and bindings sources of truth and the data flow into the UTG repository
  1. Not yet done, there are a number of open questions:
    1. Will any of the external value sets be intensional?
    2. Is it expected that UTG will only serve up the external VSDs, or is there an expectation for expansions to be generated?
    3. Will there be images (copies) of code systems content from external terminologies (WHO, IEEE, W3C, LOINC, SNOMED, etc)? If so, what is the plan for maintenance?
    4. Should the process for creation and processing of proposals include a branch fork out to HTA for requests for changes to external terminologies? If so how will that fold back into the process of resolving a proposal to completion?
2. Ted to work with Grahame on the full set of metadata for the V2 tables and how it is represented
  1. In progress, new import done, validation in progress
3. Rob Hausam to get a list of the vocabulary artifacts are are only in Art Decor
  1. ???
4. Is there any way we can get a list of the CDA value sets that have not been through Harmonization? (other WGs not SD, such as Genomics) From Trifolia? Do we need to ask about this in San Diego?
  1. Who do we reach out to for this?
Actions from this call:
1. ???
Call adjourned at 1:01PM EDT.
1. Next call scheduled for August 29, Ted to chair

August 1, 2017

Audio call-in: HL7 Conference Line; +1 770-657-9270. Passcode: 598745
Today's Screen Share: https://join.me/tedsnewsessions. Click on 'Knock to Enter'
Attendees: Ted Klein (chair), Susan Barber, Rob Hausam, Russ Hamm
Call began at 12:06PM EDT when quorum reached.

Review of Status
1. State of FHIR based Proof of Concept
  1. Skype discussion group for project
  2. Content
  3. Currently have the content for CDA, FHIR, V2, and V3
    1. Not sure if the July harmonization updates for V3 and V2 have been applied
  4. A few additional code systems (such as MDC) which are used in FHIR resources in various Connectathon projects
  5. All represented in FHIR codeSystem and valueSet resources
  6. Value Set editing
    1. Is this Value Set Editor Michael Lawley's?
  7. Location is on Grahame's Github; will be moved to HL7 once approved after San Diego
    1. https://github.com/grahamegrieve/vocab-poc
Items:
1. No further work on voting strawman
2. Up to now, our notion was a single source of truth for HL7 Vocabulary
  1. This may be an issue
    1. Architecturally, we need to either discover, or have asserted by the CTO, whether the UTG will be the single source of truth for HL7 published artifacts and HL7 implementer material, or if it will be an 'image' kept as current as possible from the various distributed sources of truth such as VSAC and Art Decor.
  2. The US Meaningful Use vocabulary will be sourced from VSAC which is created from the balloted IGs
  3. Unknown if there is any source for content (CDA) which is only in balloted IGs
    1. Art Decor is used to maintain the content used for international CDA-based IGs such as IPS
    2. Art Decor is the primary source of truth, the IGs are generated from it using Media Wiki
  4. Unclear where any content that has been defined in V2 IGs might be found
  5. Should we make as assertion that ONLY the vocabulary used in published HL7 artifacts for international use is covered by UTG?
    1. Any other suggestions?
  6. It seems clear that for every artifact in UTG, we will need to have a piece of metadata that indicates what the source of truth is
  7. We need to update our base persistence architecture to show that UTG will be populated from external sources of truth
    1. External ccde systems such as SNOMED, LOINC, ICD, RxNorm, LexEVS? CIMI namespace? PHINVADS? etc.
    2. HL7 IG value sets from Art Decor and VSAC and FHIR resources used in pilot and demonstration projects
    3. Is Trifolia an image, or considered as the source of truth for some of the HL7 content?
    4. For HL7 defined objects, can we declare the source of truth of the code systems to be UTG, so only the value sets and bindings are externally maintained? It will simplify the data flow if the HL7 code systems underlying the value sets maintained externally have their source of truth maintained in UTG.
3. Determine how we will be handling the tables for the V2 mapping in to FHIR resources
  1. We need to identify those things that are missing or improperly represented in the V2 content in the FHIR resources
    1. Currently unknown how context bindings are represented in UTG
4. Work underway to setup a JIRA/Confluence environment for prototyping workflow
  1. Ted is attempting to develop expertise in JIRA/Confluence
  2. Anyone with experience in this that can assist is welcome
New Business?
1. List of required functions to demonstrate in San Diego
  1. Examine the functions from the Tooling Project requirements and add them to the list (the subset for demonstration in San Diego)
  2. Russ has not had time to participate
2. List of functions based on current tooling capabilities
  1. Output selected content
    1. V3 content in coremif files (for POC)
    2. V2 content in MSAccess database (CSV?) (for POC)
    3. FHIR content for ballots and etc
    4. Art Decor load for IG generation
    5. Trifolia load for CDA IG generation
  2. Group set of operations into a single proposal
  3. Generate delta between existing set and resulting vocabulary (from applying group of changes) (for POC)
  4. Value Set Operations
    1. (this will be implemented as a packaged terminology server that can be run locally)
    2. Retrieve available value sets (for POC)
    3. Create New Value Set (for POC)
    4. Modify existing value set metadata (for POC)
    5. Modify existing value set CLD (for POC)
    6. Retire/deprecate/delete existing value set (for POC)
    7. Import value set (i.e. externally published)
    8. Expand value set definition (for POC)
    9. Compare two VSDs
    10. Compare two value set expansions
    11. View, search, compare change audit log for value set changes in JIRA ticket or GitHUB, needs some research
  5. Code System Operations
    1. Retrieve available code systems (for POC)
    2. Create new code system (for POC)
    3. Import code system (complete or subset, i.e. externally published content)
    4. Modify existing code system metadata (for POC)
    5. Modify code system content (add/update/delete concepts, designations, descriptions, properties, relationships, etc.) (for POC)
    6. Update code system status (for POC)
    7. View, search, compare change audit log for code system changes needs research
  6. Concept Domains
    1. Note that this is not special because in UTG we are modeling Concept Domains as a code system; therefore no special functions
  7. Context Bindings
    1. Add new context binding (relationship between a C:ConceptDomain code, C:HL7Realm code, V:valueSet definition plus some metadata) needs research
    2. Modify existing context binding needs research
    3. Deprecate/retire/remove existing context binding needs research
  8. V2 Tables
    1. Add new V2 Table
    2. Update existing V2 Table metadata
    3. Deprecate/retire/remove existing V2 Table
    4. Flag code system content to be represented in a V2 Table
3. Content list
  1. FHIR vocabulary, V2 tables/CS/VS/CD, V3 CS/VS/CD, CDA VS (for POC)
    1. Do we need to ask Grahame about an import from Art Decor? yes, but not for PoC; discuss with Kai and Alexander in San Diego
  2. Has CDA created any artifacts in IGs (not through harmonization)?
  3. We must have a discussion (in San Diego?) about new codes for V2 tables in IGs (but not in the international normative Standard). What to do about these?
    1. There is a need to identify and document the maintenance and access process for these new codes.
4. July harmonization content update
  1. Content for both V2 and V3 released on July 25. Cycle complete.
Actions
1. Ted to begin to update the architecture diagram to show the external value set and bindings sources of truth and the data flow into the UTG repository
2. Ted to work with Grahame on the full set of metadata for the V2 tables and how it is represented
3. Rob Hausam to get a list of the vocabulary artifacts are are only in Art Decor
4. Is there any way we can get a list of the CDA value sets that have not been through Harmonization? (other WGs not SD, such as Genomics) From Trifolia? Do we need to ask about this in San Diego?
Call adjourned at 1:01PM EDT.
1. Next call scheduled for August 15, Ted to chair

July 18, 2017

Audio call-in: HL7 Conference Line; +1 770-657-9270. Passcode: 598745
Today's Screen Share: https://join.me/tedsnewsessions. Click on 'Knock to Enter'
Attendees: Ted Klein (chair), Susan Barber, Frank Oemig
First call in over a month. Call began at 12:12PM EDT when quorum reached.

Review of Status
1. State of FHIR based Proof of Concept
  1. Skype discussion group for project
  2. Content
  3. Currently have the content for CDA, FHIR, V2, and V3
    1. All represented in FHIR codeSystem and valueSet resources
  4. Value Set editing
  5. Location is on Grahame's Github; will be moved to HL7 once approved after San Diego
    1. https://github.com/grahamegrieve/vocab-poc
Items:
1. No further work on voting strawman
2. Determine how we will be handling the tables for the V2 mapping in to FHIR resources
  1. We need to identify those things that are missing or improperly represented in the V2 content in the FHIR resources
3. Work underway to setup a JIRA/Confluence environment for prototyping workflow
New Business?
1. List of required functions to demonstrate in San Diego
  1. Examine the functions from the Tooling Project requirements and add them to the list (the subset for demonstration in San Diego)
2. Content list
  1. FHIR vocabulary, V2 tables/CS/VS/CD, V3 CS/VS/CD, CDA CS/VS
  2. Has CDA created any concept domains in IGs (not through harmonization)?
  3. We must have a discussion (in San Diego?) about new codes for V2 tables in IGs (but not in the international normative Standard). What to do about these?
    1. There is a need to identify and document the maintenance and access process for these new codes.
3. July harmonization content update
Call adjourned at 1:05PM EDT.
1. Next call scheduled for August 1, Ted to chair. Frank sends apologies.

June 20, 2017

Audio call-in: HL7 Conference Line; +1 770-657-9270. Passcode: 598745
Today's Screen Share: https://join.me/tedsnewsessions. Click on 'Knock to Enter'
Attendees: Ted Klein (chair), Susan Barber.
Call was cancelled at 12:24PM EDT, when quorum could not be reached.

Review of Status
1. No further work done since the Madrid WGM
2. Grahame is constructing a demonstration prototype based on FHIR tooling this summer; hopefully will be ready before the September WGM in San Diego
3. Ted is pursuing getting JIRA/Confluence setup to test workflow configurations
Items:
1. Voting Strawman analysis: we spent so much time on this in the Spring without coming to any conclusions, recommend abandoning this for now until we get basic tooling and workflow prototyped
2. Open items?
Actions
1. Ted to setup a conference call with Grahame to discuss progress, requirements, objectives, etc.
Next call scheduled for July 4, but this is a national holiday in the US. That call will be cancelled. Next call will be July 18.

April 11, 2017

Note that Ted is NOT available today, and Rob McClure will run today's meeting.

The Screen Share for TODAY ONLY will be: Mikogo session

https://go.mikogo.com/?sp=&sid=368206475

If the above link does not work, you can follow these steps instead to join a session:
# Go to http://go.mikogo.com
# Enter the Session ID: 368-206-475
# Enter your name
# Click "Join Session"

Attendees: Rob McClure (chair),
Call began at xxxPM EDT, when quorum reached
Agenda:

Review of Status
1. We are still working through the details of the voting strawman, which is not in any way yet complete
2. Continue with thoughts on the vote weighting
Items:
1. In order to satisfy the needs to be able to find governed terminology artifacts by HL7 published Standard, and vice-versa, we need another process flow that shows the relationship information flow back from the publishing process through to update the terminology store. Also, design requirements to support these functions need to be added.
2. We probably need to begin to put together an explicit list of the requirements for the different components of the UTG model.
Actions
1. ?
Next call scheduled for 2 weeks hence on April 25, 2017.
1. Note that Ted is again traveling in China on this day, and will be unable to run or attend this call.
Call adjourned at xxxPM EDT.

March 28, 2017

Note that North America has gone onto Summer Time (Daylight Saving Time); ET is now UTC-4.

Attendees: Ted (chair), Susan Barber, Frank Oemig, Rob McClure
call began at 1:05PM EDT; quorum reached.
Agenda:

Review of Status
1. V9 of document with notes on voting strawman is in Dropbox
2. Voting Strawman Analysis document V2 is in Dropbox
3. PSS has been approved, it is still waiting on TSC
Items:
1. Discussion of relationship of this project and the Vocabulary Tooling Project #??? (with Russ)
2. Continue working through the voting strawman and proposed Use Case
  1. It was noted that it is most likely preferable that no proposal entered the process from the submitter without consensus approval from the submitting WorkGroup. Note that Lloyd stated that the process must accommodate change requests that come in from sources other than HL7 WorkGroups.
  2. Frank noted that this is probably not a good idea, as it disincents people from becoming members of HL7, and reduced the benefit of HL7, while potentially increasing the cost of the maintenance process.
  3. Perhaps we can use the Maturity Model levels in the UTG process for all artifacts, where a terminology object cannot get above a certain maturity level without having gone through the UTG process. The process itself may have different paths that may result in different maturity levels.
  4. It is an open question of how much participation we can expect there to be on any proposal beyond the proposing WG and the oversight groups.
  5. Frank raised the question of how to assign the weighting for the voters and who assigns it.
Actions
1. Ted to cancel or find a leader for the April 11 call.
Next call scheduled for 1:00PM April 11 (two weeks hence)
1. Note that Ted will be unable to run the call on April 11, unavailable (traveling)
Call adjourned at 2:01 PM EDT.

March 14, 2017

Note that North America has gone onto Summer Time (Daylight Saving Time); ET is now UTC-4.

Attendees: Ted (chair), Susan Barber, Rob Hausam,
call began at 1:05PM EDT; quorum reached.
Agenda:

Review of Status
1. Actions:
  1. V8 of document in Dropbox
  2. Voting Strawman Analysis document in Dropbox
    1. We looked at the use case, and talked about just what would be "pro-forma" and what would not be for FHIR use cases.
    2. We agreed that even pro-forma vocabulary should go through the new governance process - as long as the process is lightweight and effective and productive.
    3. Continue working through FHIR allergy-verifcation-status example for the new process. This is an internally defined code system, and a value set built on 'all codes'.
    4. It is unclear exactly the constituents and role of the management groups. It was noted that FMG is not the same kind of group as the other Product Line overnight groups. Should it be FHIR-I instead?
    5. Susan asked if it is reasonable to assume that such a large number of participants can be expected to be engaged in the process to review proposals and cast a vote.
  3. Updated diagrams loaded to Dropbox
2. PSS has been approved, it is still waiting on TSC
Discussion of relationship of this project and the Vocabulary Tooling Project #??? (with Russ)
Review of voting strawman continue on Use Case
Actions
1. Rob H will take the question about the oversight group to FHIR-I
2. Ted will update the 2 documents to dropbox
Next call scheduled for 1:00PM March 28 (two weeks hence)
Call adjourned at 2:00 PM EDT.

February 28, 2017

Note this is the new time, being tried to see if we can get enhanced attendance Attendees: Ted (chair), Rob Hausam, Rob McClure, Frank Oemig, Susan Barber call began at 1:04PM ET after quorum reached Agenda:

Review of Status
1. PSS is in the process of being approved by TSC
2. Document is at version 7 right now
Review of voting strawman
1. Example analysis document
  1. We spent nearly the entire call discussing the proposed example, and realized that we have not yet specified what kinds of vocabulary maintenance operations will be in scope for the new process vs. those that will be out of scope i.e. part of the model design/decision/voting/QA processes, whether that model is a FHIR Resource, a RIM class or attribute, a new V2 message element, or a new CIMI template.
  2. We seem to have decided that new value sets whose CLD is 'all codes from underlying code system' should be treated as pro-forma, and not subject this rigorous maintenance process.
Review of updates to diagrams based on call notes
1. Overall Process Diagram page 5
2. Updated color-coded State Machine page 6
  1. Folks would like to see Submitter and Terminology Curator shown the same way Community is shown
3. Small updates to the 5 diagrams in Annex A
Next Steps
Actions
1. Ted will update the Overall Process Diagram and integrated into a new v8 of the document
2. Ted will update the example strawman and the new v8 of the document into DropBox.
Next call scheduled in two weeks on March 14 at 1:00PM ET for one hour.
Call adjourned at 2:01PM ET.

February 23, 2017

Attendees: Ted (chair), Carmela, Rob Hausam, Frank Oemig, Rob McClure call began at 3:35PM ET after quorum reached

Agenda:

Review of Status
1. PSS is in the process of being approved by TSC
2. Document is at version 6 right now
New schedule for calls discussion
1. Some key folks such as Lloyd cannot make it at this time, which also conflicts with much upcoming travel for Ted. New day/time proposed: every other Tuesday 13:00ET or 15:00ET. beginning next Tuesday 2/28/2017
  1. We discussed the time change, there are many HL7 calls on Tuesdays as well. If we had this call at 13:00 ET, it could only be 1 hour, since the binding semantics call is at 14:00. But Lloyd and Frank would have a conflict if the call ran longer than 1 hour, as there are other calls at 16:00 ET on Tuesdays.
  2. We agreed that we would try next Tuesday every other week 13:00 ET for one hour duration.
  3. If this doesn't work, we'll move it again.
Review document v6
1. State Machine
  1. Missing state and transitions when approved proposal is applied, if errors or problems cannot be validated or applied, need to report and reinject into the process somewhere.
  2. If proposal voting expires (failure to meet quorum), then it may go back to Editing state, or may go archive
  3. Out of manual resolution process, the states are likely ok, but we need to identify somehow that the state transitions may be managed through the tooling or through the manual processes.
  4. Ted notes that we may need to limit the controversial transition so that it cannot be an endless loop
  5. Make it very clear that "Editing" state is creation of a proposal - NOT the terminology store content
2. Overall Diagrams
  1. "Change Needed" should be "Change to HL7 Terminology Needed"
  2. Make it clear that any submitted proposal is a COMPLETE proposal
  3. It may be very useful to show a very high level picture of 3 phases: construct a proposal, decide on a proposal, apply a proposal to update the HL7 Terminology. Perhaps make three different colors, and use these to color key the States to illustrate which part(s) of the overall process each State belongs to
3. Voting Strawman
Next Steps
Actions
1. Ted to update the call calendar and put in the new schedule.
2. Ted to update the State Machine as per the decisions above
3. Next call scheduled at the new day/time Tuesday February 28, 2017 at 1:30PM ET.
  1. Note that Ted will be attending the Clinical LOINC meeting in Salt Lake City and may be unable to run or even join the call

February 9, 2017

call had to be cancelled due to inability to attain quorum as of 4:00PM EST (30 minutes into the 60 minute call) We will try again in two weeks on February 23

Attendees: Ted (chair), Susan Barber

Agenda:

Review of Status
1. All 3 actions from last call completed
2. State machine diagram for proposals added to document
3. PSS is in e-vote at FTSD, and will pass (enough yes votes already, but not yet closed)
4. SGB requested to be added as a co-sponsor to confirm and give the organizational imprimatur to the principles
5. DropBox folder created for documents
  1. Everyone with the link on the main page can view the documents
  2. Folks shared for edit permissions so far: Susan

Email Ted for a share to be able to Edit them; permissions should be set so anyone can view them

Review current document
1. Review proposal state machine
2. Review voting strawman - needs enhancements and work
Next Steps
1. Need a comprehensive overall constructive critique of document
2. Need to review schedule and project plan for completion
Actions

January 26, 2017

call began 3:37PM EST

Attendees: Ted (chair), Rob Hausam, Susan Barber

Overview of Project, Goals, Schedule
Review of PSS
Review of UTG document draft
1. Available for download at http://www.hl7.org/documentcenter/public/wg/vocab/UTGPdocument_v4.docx
Review of updated intro diagram
Key topics to be reviewed and confirmed
1. Voting strategy
  1. Rob questioned if it should be FMG or FHIR-I for FHIR since FMG is not really a workgroup and is not like the other product oversight groups. Or is it that the other product lines (V2, V3, CDA, CIMI) do not yet have formal management groups?
  2. We began reviewing the proposed voting strawman in the Google process doc in some detail and made some tweaks. It needs more work and clarification, and needs to be put into the main process document
2. Coordination with ballots
3. Integration of External Terminologies Requests
4. ??
List of items that need improvement/clarification on the document
1. Path/process for the 'structural vocabulary'
2. Coordination and engagement of consensus pool
  1. Do we need a subprocess for consensus pool formation, signup, notification, tracking, etc.?
List of items to be defined
1. Concordance/index for interest groups
2. Knowledge set for voting levels
3. Major tool components needed
4. Exploration of federated Terminology Store architecture
5. State machine for proposals
6. State machine for terminology objects
7. QA process to discover errors or software bug issues after proposals are applied before they are released
8. Other ??
Actions
1. Add submit queue to consensus process
2. Rename Endorsement Acquisition process to Consensus Process
3. Ted to put the voting strawman as updated in the process document and release v5 to the site asap

We are out of time, call adjourned at 5:00PM EST. Next call in 2 weeks on February 9 same time same channel.

UTG Agendas and Minutes

Contents

Agendas and Minutes

October 31, 2017

October 17, 2017

October 3, 2017

August 29, 2017

August 15, 2017

August 1, 2017

July 18, 2017

June 20, 2017

April 11, 2017

March 28, 2017

March 14, 2017

February 28, 2017

February 23, 2017

February 9, 2017

January 26, 2017

General Information

Navigation menu

Personal tools

Namespaces

Variants

Views

More

Search

Navigation

groups

meetings

general

Tools