Difference between revisions of "MnM Minutes CC 20080208"
(→Agenda) |
|||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
==Agenda== | ==Agenda== | ||
| − | + | ===Approval of past minutes=== | |
| − | + | ===Techical Editing Project review of materials, as requested by Jay Lyle (25 min)=== | |
| − | + | ||
| − | + | '''See [[V3_Technical_Editors_Project_Works_in_Progress]] ''' | |
| − | + | ||
| − | *Other TBD | + | (Need Beeler, McKenzie, and TechEd representatives, at minimum.) |
| + | ===Review and Approve Project Scope Statements for CMETs (Nelson) (15 min)=== | ||
| + | ===Null Flavor Issue to Help resolve Data Types Ballot issue (Grieve) (10 min).=== | ||
| + | Grahame summarized the question by email as: | ||
| + | |||
| + | So this will be discussed on the MnM call due shortly. Woody asked me to make a draft motion to get things going. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Clearly there is quite a lot of scope for genuine work here, and I think that it's worth doing so. But we shouldn't rush this. So for now, we should focus on the immediate question, about what is the correct NullFlavor to use if a user does not provide an answer to an entry on some kind of form. | ||
| + | |||
| + | There appears to be three options for this case: | ||
| + | *ASKU - asked but answer still pending | ||
| + | * NA - not applicable in this context. | ||
| + | * NI - no information | ||
| + | |||
| + | It seems to me that there's not much to say, and not much need to say anything - there's no answer. Who knows why? maybe the user was in a hurry, but what difference does it make? how would you process the information differently if you knew which of the various reasons that the user didn't fill the content in? | ||
| + | |||
| + | So it should simply be NI - there is no information, and we don't really have good information as to why. | ||
| + | |||
| + | There's a related issue - people seem to think that because there's a nullFlavor, it should be used, and that simply using NI is... improper. I don't see why. | ||
| + | |||
| + | I move the following motion: | ||
| + | The the correct nullFlavor to use in this circumstance is NI, | ||
| + | and that the nullFlavor documentation in the new Core Properties | ||
| + | document should describe this use of NullFlavor | ||
| + | |||
| + | I also move: | ||
| + | that MnM create an open hot topic, and put the content from | ||
| + | Dipak and Julie into the hot topic. We should start be making an | ||
| + | agreed mission statement for NullFlavor: what is nullFlavor actually | ||
| + | intended to achieve. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Then we have the grounds for deciding what to do with Dipak and Julie's comments. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===Other TBD=== | ||
Revision as of 15:48, 8 February 2008
M&M Conference Call, February 8, 2008
Logistics
Join GoToMeeting at
- https://www1.gotomeeting.com/join/846611869
- GoToMeeting ID: 846-611-869
Conference Call: Use HL7 Conference Call servicer
- Phone Number: 702-894-2444
- Participant Passcode: 459876#
(for more detail refer to meeting schedule)
Agenda
Approval of past minutes
Techical Editing Project review of materials, as requested by Jay Lyle (25 min)
See V3_Technical_Editors_Project_Works_in_Progress
(Need Beeler, McKenzie, and TechEd representatives, at minimum.)
Review and Approve Project Scope Statements for CMETs (Nelson) (15 min)
Null Flavor Issue to Help resolve Data Types Ballot issue (Grieve) (10 min).
Grahame summarized the question by email as:
So this will be discussed on the MnM call due shortly. Woody asked me to make a draft motion to get things going.
Clearly there is quite a lot of scope for genuine work here, and I think that it's worth doing so. But we shouldn't rush this. So for now, we should focus on the immediate question, about what is the correct NullFlavor to use if a user does not provide an answer to an entry on some kind of form.
There appears to be three options for this case:
- ASKU - asked but answer still pending
- NA - not applicable in this context.
- NI - no information
It seems to me that there's not much to say, and not much need to say anything - there's no answer. Who knows why? maybe the user was in a hurry, but what difference does it make? how would you process the information differently if you knew which of the various reasons that the user didn't fill the content in?
So it should simply be NI - there is no information, and we don't really have good information as to why.
There's a related issue - people seem to think that because there's a nullFlavor, it should be used, and that simply using NI is... improper. I don't see why.
I move the following motion:
The the correct nullFlavor to use in this circumstance is NI, and that the nullFlavor documentation in the new Core Properties document should describe this use of NullFlavor
I also move:
that MnM create an open hot topic, and put the content from Dipak and Julie into the hot topic. We should start be making an agreed mission statement for NullFlavor: what is nullFlavor actually intended to achieve.
Then we have the grounds for deciding what to do with Dipak and Julie's comments.
