This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here
Difference between revisions of "MnM Minutes CC 20110323"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| (3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | |||
<!-- | <!-- | ||
EDITORS - When converting the content from Agenda to minutes: | EDITORS - When converting the content from Agenda to minutes: | ||
| Line 6: | Line 5: | ||
2) Delete the Logistics template reference | 2) Delete the Logistics template reference | ||
{{:MnM Conference Call Logistics}} below | {{:MnM Conference Call Logistics}} below | ||
| − | -->[[Category:2011 MnM Minutes | + | -->[[Category:2011 MnM Minutes]] |
__NOTOC__ | __NOTOC__ | ||
=M&M Conference Call 4:00PM Eastern Time (Date above)= | =M&M Conference Call 4:00PM Eastern Time (Date above)= | ||
| − | |||
[[:Category:2011 MnM Minutes|Return to MnM Minutes]] | [[:Category:2011 MnM Minutes|Return to MnM Minutes]] | ||
==Agenda== | ==Agenda== | ||
*Approve [[MnM_Minutes_CC_20110316| Minutes Prior Meeting on 3/16]] | *Approve [[MnM_Minutes_CC_20110316| Minutes Prior Meeting on 3/16]] | ||
*Over-looked Core Principles Ballot Reconciliation Item | *Over-looked Core Principles Ballot Reconciliation Item | ||
| − | + | ==Attendees== | |
| + | Kreisler, Savage, Beeler, Stechishin, Seppala, Pech, McKenzie | ||
==Approve [[MnM_Minutes_CC_20110316| Minutes Prior Meeting on 3/16]]== | ==Approve [[MnM_Minutes_CC_20110316| Minutes Prior Meeting on 3/16]]== | ||
| − | + | MInutes approved - Kreisler/Seppala unanimious | |
==MISSED Core Principles Ballot Items - Reconciliation== | ==MISSED Core Principles Ballot Items - Reconciliation== | ||
Two items were missed in the final processing of [http://www.hl7.org/documentcenter/public/ballots/2010SEP/reconciliation/recon_v3_cppv3models_r1_n4_2010sep.xls Ballot Reconciliation for Core Principles]. | Two items were missed in the final processing of [http://www.hl7.org/documentcenter/public/ballots/2010SEP/reconciliation/recon_v3_cppv3models_r1_n4_2010sep.xls Ballot Reconciliation for Core Principles]. | ||
Items 188 and 189 - Have a "B" comment grouping (meaning Beeler should have dealt with them). They were marked that way because they had '''no chapter designation''' and talked about "The model...". When reviewed them, we realized they were talking about the "Vocabulary Model" and marked them to the "Vocab Work Group", but failed to tell Vocab. | Items 188 and 189 - Have a "B" comment grouping (meaning Beeler should have dealt with them). They were marked that way because they had '''no chapter designation''' and talked about "The model...". When reviewed them, we realized they were talking about the "Vocabulary Model" and marked them to the "Vocab Work Group", but failed to tell Vocab. | ||
| + | ===Item 188 [at 5/0.0] (B Neg-Mj) 0/0/0=== | ||
| + | '''Moved/Seconded/Vote McKenzie, Savage 6-0-0''' | ||
| + | =====Voter Comment===== | ||
| + | The model should support cross-mapping terms that mean the same thing within a coding system and across coding systems. | ||
| + | =====Disposition & Disposition Comment - "Not persuasive with mod"===== | ||
| + | We propose to include the following in 5.3.3 "The vocabulary model presented here is a high-level model reflecting only those relationships defined in this specification. The complete vocabulary model, developed in support of Common Terminology Service Release 2, and the HL7 Model Interchange Format (MIF) can be reviewed as part of the MIF Informative Document . <LINK this to the MIF document>" | ||
| − | + | To the voter - the complete model is much richer and includes both properties and relationships that allow the sorts of functionality that you cite. | |
| − | + | ===Item 189 [at 5/0.0] (B Neg-Mj) 0/0/0=== | |
| + | '''Moved/Seconded/Vote McKenzie, Savage 6-0-0''' | ||
| + | =====Voter Comment===== | ||
| + | The model should support the ability to subset a group of concepts. For example, I have a concept of Specimen Type and a subordinate grouping of these that represent a specimen obtained from a patient (i.e. blood, urine liver tissue etc.) and genetic sample type extracted (i.e. RNA, DNA, mRNA, rDNA, GDNA, snRNA …). | ||
| + | =====Disposition & Disposition Comment - "Not persuasive with mod"===== | ||
| + | As preceding | ||
| − | + | ==Management of CMETs - proposal from TSC (Austin)== | |
| + | ===Introductory Discussion Notes=== | ||
| + | Questions have been raised on management of identifiers - there is a staff function that could be available to support this. | ||
| − | == | + | Noted: |
| + | * that the IDs are easy to maintaqin, but that Name and Attribution-level are significant. | ||
| + | |||
| + | * istinction between managing CMET approvals (ballot) and their naming/responsibility assignment. | ||
| + | |||
| + | CMETS - Management Observations- | ||
| + | *Some need formal management, others are "stand-alone" (need a new naming standard for these) -- | ||
| + | *Similarly - distinctions about where it is appropriate to enforce CMET use as opposed to not. | ||
| + | *Attribution levels -whether to continue to manage or not, if so which | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===Consensus Motion=== | ||
| + | :'''That we should move CMET management - names, rules, etc. -into a central responsibility (staffed) with the "rules" around it to be developed by MnM and others involved in SAIF Implementation.''' | ||
| + | |||
| + | :Motion approved - Stechishin/Kreisler 6-0-0, and Andy will coordinate the transition of current data to whomever is designated. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===Further Discussion Notes=== | ||
| + | *If DOMAIN passes ten CMETs, and one fails to pass, what happens? Agreed they can be removed to allow remainder of package to pass. The status of the removed item when it comes up again in a new package is a challenge. | ||
| + | |||
| + | *Need new binding process in which we separate the approval of the model from the use of that model as a particular CMET (sterotype). | ||
| + | |||
| + | **In this environment will a Work Group be able to ignore its responsibility for providing CMETs. | ||
| + | |||
| + | *There is a need to scan for current CMETs that have never been used and decide which we can "toast." | ||
| + | ===Adjourned at 55 min=== | ||
{{:MnM Action Items from 201005}} | {{:MnM Action Items from 201005}} | ||
===Adjournment=== | ===Adjournment=== | ||
Latest revision as of 00:55, 27 March 2011
M&M Conference Call 4:00PM Eastern Time (Date above)
Agenda
- Approve Minutes Prior Meeting on 3/16
- Over-looked Core Principles Ballot Reconciliation Item
Attendees
Kreisler, Savage, Beeler, Stechishin, Seppala, Pech, McKenzie
Approve Minutes Prior Meeting on 3/16
MInutes approved - Kreisler/Seppala unanimious
MISSED Core Principles Ballot Items - Reconciliation
Two items were missed in the final processing of Ballot Reconciliation for Core Principles.
Items 188 and 189 - Have a "B" comment grouping (meaning Beeler should have dealt with them). They were marked that way because they had no chapter designation and talked about "The model...". When reviewed them, we realized they were talking about the "Vocabulary Model" and marked them to the "Vocab Work Group", but failed to tell Vocab.
Item 188 [at 5/0.0] (B Neg-Mj) 0/0/0
Moved/Seconded/Vote McKenzie, Savage 6-0-0
Voter Comment
The model should support cross-mapping terms that mean the same thing within a coding system and across coding systems.
Disposition & Disposition Comment - "Not persuasive with mod"
We propose to include the following in 5.3.3 "The vocabulary model presented here is a high-level model reflecting only those relationships defined in this specification. The complete vocabulary model, developed in support of Common Terminology Service Release 2, and the HL7 Model Interchange Format (MIF) can be reviewed as part of the MIF Informative Document . <LINK this to the MIF document>"
To the voter - the complete model is much richer and includes both properties and relationships that allow the sorts of functionality that you cite.
Item 189 [at 5/0.0] (B Neg-Mj) 0/0/0
Moved/Seconded/Vote McKenzie, Savage 6-0-0
Voter Comment
The model should support the ability to subset a group of concepts. For example, I have a concept of Specimen Type and a subordinate grouping of these that represent a specimen obtained from a patient (i.e. blood, urine liver tissue etc.) and genetic sample type extracted (i.e. RNA, DNA, mRNA, rDNA, GDNA, snRNA …).
Disposition & Disposition Comment - "Not persuasive with mod"
As preceding
Management of CMETs - proposal from TSC (Austin)
Introductory Discussion Notes
Questions have been raised on management of identifiers - there is a staff function that could be available to support this.
Noted:
- that the IDs are easy to maintaqin, but that Name and Attribution-level are significant.
- istinction between managing CMET approvals (ballot) and their naming/responsibility assignment.
CMETS - Management Observations-
- Some need formal management, others are "stand-alone" (need a new naming standard for these) --
- Similarly - distinctions about where it is appropriate to enforce CMET use as opposed to not.
- Attribution levels -whether to continue to manage or not, if so which
Consensus Motion
- That we should move CMET management - names, rules, etc. -into a central responsibility (staffed) with the "rules" around it to be developed by MnM and others involved in SAIF Implementation.
- Motion approved - Stechishin/Kreisler 6-0-0, and Andy will coordinate the transition of current data to whomever is designated.
Further Discussion Notes
- If DOMAIN passes ten CMETs, and one fails to pass, what happens? Agreed they can be removed to allow remainder of package to pass. The status of the removed item when it comes up again in a new package is a challenge.
- Need new binding process in which we separate the approval of the model from the use of that model as a particular CMET (sterotype).
- In this environment will a Work Group be able to ignore its responsibility for providing CMETs.
- There is a need to scan for current CMETs that have never been used and decide which we can "toast."
Adjourned at 55 min
Review Action Items For MnM
Note the following list, and amend the list to assign selected items:
