This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here
<meta name="googlebot" content="noindex">

V3 Publishing ConCall Minutes 20080206

From HL7Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Return to V3 Publishing Minutes


Kreisler, Loyd, Lloyd, Beeler, Nelson, Seppala, Wood, Madra, Harding

Agenda Items

  1. Approved agenda
  2. Approved the minutes 01/30/08
  3. Discussion of Attribute level documentation vs. Design Walkthroughs
    At the committee's request, Patrick Loyd opened a discussion thread on this topic last week. The thread of 30 messages invoked a solid discussion, although little controversy, and also considered the tooling implications of these requirements. In general, consensus was reached quickly that neither attribute-level documentation nor narrative design walkthroughs can stand alone. After discussion, the Committee agreed to entertain a moition built around the following:
    • For message models, walkthroughs document high-level model concepts, such as classes, associations, business concepts, usage requirements, and the business processes where this message is relevant. Thus they inform the reader about the design decisions that went into the model, and how the model represents the business requirements.

      Attribute level descriptions document the detail of the message structure so as to enable implementation. Thus, attribute level descriptions become more relevant as one progresses from DMIMs to RMIMs. As RMIMs are further constrained to implementable designs (documents, profiles, templates, and messages) the attribute level documentation becomes critical. Note, however, detailed descriptions of the structural attributes are less valuable, beacause they are covered by the descriptions of the classes.

      Thus, the Publishing Committee believes that a properly documented domain will show this range of documentation, with little or no line item documentation for a DMIM, and little or no walkthrough for a detailed message design. The art of reconciling a ballot is to seek the agreement from well intended voters that the results of well intended efforts by the committee strike the right balance.
    1. Patrick Loyd agreed to refine this description into a motion for adoption on the Jan 13 conference call.
    2. During the discussion, the group also noted that both the line item documentation and the walkthroughs should be persisted in the static model design rather than living separately (in the PubDb and the RMIM Designer). Gregg Seppala agreed to extract this and other tooling requirements from the message thread for summary next week.
  4. Woody - Summarized the current tooling - PubDb 209c (December release), Visio from November, RoseTree 4.1.9 (from January) and rimRepos 2.18.3 (from last weekend will be the foundation for this cycle.
  5. Don Lloyd summarized the new projects:
    • Acute Coronary Syndrome DAM from Cardiology SIG
    • Tuberculosis DAM
    • CCOW (security addition)
    • Attachments (CDA)
    • EHR - functional profiles
    • Core Principles of V3 Models from M&M
    • CMETs next release
    • US Realm - message implementation guide for EHR
    • CDISC
    Discussion of this items led to the assignment of the following action items
    1. We will ssk Ed Hammond, Jim Case & Austin Kreisler to join us to explore and understand the expectations, requirements and balloting objectives of the Domain Experts SIGs that are developing DAMs.
    2. Dale Nelson will layout a CMET Scope and "merger" process to capture and respond to individual CMET projects being raised in committees, so that Don can develop advisory postings for submitters of new projects.
  6. Agreed to add the Impact of the new GOM on Publishing as a future business item
  7. Adjourned