Difference between revisions of "MnM Minutes CC 20100430"
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
=M&M Conference Call Noon Eastern Time (April 30th, 2010)= | =M&M Conference Call Noon Eastern Time (April 30th, 2010)= | ||
| + | [[Category:MnM Minutes]] | ||
==Logistics== | ==Logistics== | ||
Join GoToMeeting at | Join GoToMeeting at | ||
Revision as of 19:01, 19 May 2010
Contents
M&M Conference Call Noon Eastern Time (April 30th, 2010)
Logistics
Join GoToMeeting at
- https://www1.gotomeeting.com/join/846611869
- GoToMeeting ID: 846-611-869
Conference Call:
- Noon Eastern Time
Use HL7 Conference Call service
- Phone Number: 770-657-9270
- Participant Passcode: 459876#
(for more detail refer to meeting schedule
Attendees
- Richard Haddorff - Project Services co-chair
- Andy Stechisin
- Austin Kreisler
- Dale Nelson
- Bryan Peck
- Donald Lloyd
- Freida Hall - Project Services co-chair
- Gregg Seppala
- Ioana Singureanu - scribe
- Lloyd McKenzie - chair
Agenda
- Approve Previous Call Minutes
- Roll Call
- (35 min) Project Services Presentation
- (15 min) Planning for Rio de Janeiro WGM
- Rene: Request discussion in Rio of two new MnM Hot Topics: Object identity (of obvious interest to those that persist RIM-objects) and Safe interpretation of subsets of data (the methodological aspect of wider question by Bob Dolin).
- (15 min) CMET Reconciliation and Publication Donald Lloyd and Andy Stechisin
Project Services Presentation
New approach to presented by Richard Haddorff - Co-Chair Link to presentation: SAIF and Sound: Fast Track to Standards Development
Comments:
- Ballot to ITS link is confusing, they are not part of ballots, they are reused by PIMs.
- Platform Specific models are not balloted, only the algoritm for deriving a platform specific model from a PIM.
- The group felt that the reconciliation post DSTU may require changes to the CIM or PIM. *
- We need to see whether more rigorous analysis could benefit the quality of the standads but two ballots for a DAM may not be sufficient.
- Typically HL7 specification are developed over many years. Therefore the work group expressed skepticism that the process may be accelerated.
- The proposed process for RIM balloting introduced a new step - an officiala acceptance/publication of pending chagtnes.
- Currently, RIM changes are adopted by projects before the harmonization comments are published and long before the RIM normative specification is changed.
- Project Services define more clearly the issues aroudn RIM change management. Project Services will submit a more specific proposal regarding publishing pending changes for the RIM to the project teams working on related artifacts.
Planning for Rio de Janeiro WGM
Lloyd will send a call for hot topics. Rene has already submitted two new MnM Hot Topics:
- Object identity (of obvious interest to those that persist RIM-objects) and
- Safe interpretation of subsets of data (the methodological aspect of wider question by Bob Dolin).
CMET Reconciliation and Publication
This issue need to be resolve prior to Rio because it impedes the Normative edition. Since Dale is not longer available to track the CMETs, we are falling behind in reconciliatio. MnM is supposed to track them even though individual CMETS are the responsibility of the project/domains that are authoring them.
We don't know what ballot each CMET is and the status of their reconciliaiton. We need this information for ANSI to create the normative edition. Andy offered to take on the manual process to manage the status of the CMETs. The rules for inclusion of a CMET into a ballot are vague. The issue will be discussed further in Rio during a dedicated quarter. Andy will touch base with Dale to transition the current CMET management process and then work with Don to address the issues regarding reconciliation of the Normative edition. The consensus of the workgroup was that Andy should proceed as discussed.
