MnM Minutes WGM 201105 Orlando

Sunday May 15 Q3

Attendees

Lloyd McKenzie (chair), Susan Campbell, Grahame Grieve, Stephen Chu, Brian Pech, Sarah Gaunt, Lorraine Constable, Amnon Shabo, Larry Reis, Bruce McKinnon, Andy Stechishin, Woody Beeler, Jean Duteau

Agenda

Establish Agenda for WGM from Hot Topics and Other Items

Steps:

• Reviewed the existing Hot Topics
  • Determined which would be considered in Orlando
• Added a quarter for ballot reconcilliation
• Added a quarter for MnM Business (Co-chairs, SWOT, Project Review, etc.)

Decisions:

• Mon Q1 - RIM/Core Principles Reconciliation
• Mon Q2 - SAIF Artifact Definition Discussion
• Mon Q3 - DCM Pilot Project discussion with Patient Care
• Mon Q4 - Joint with SD - discuss non-conformance of "Don't Ignore"
• Tue Q1 - Design Pattern Process
• Tue Q3 - hData discussion with ArB
• Tue Q4 - MnM Business
• Wed Q1 - Joint with Vocabulary
• Fri Q1 - ActRelationshipType cleanup discussion

Monday May 16 Q1

Attendees

Lloyd McKenzie (chair), Woody Beeler, Lee Coller, John McKim, Stacy Berger, Jean Duteau

Agenda

RIM Reconciliation

• Agreed with all proposed resolutions. Motions and resolutions are noted in the ballot spreadsheet.
• Kevin Coonan's comments were received after the deadline and three of them require harmonization proposals. Hot Topics will be created for them.

Core Principles Reconciliation

• Microsoft's comments were a resubmissions of comments from the September 2010 ballot. All of those comments were dealt with in a previous reconciliation and were found to be Not Related.
• All other comments were dealt with. Motions and resolutions are noted in the ballot spreadsheet.

Tuesday May 17 Q1

Agenda

=== Design Pattern Process

Tuesday May 17 Q3

Attendees

Lloyd McKenzie, Bruce McKinnon, Stephen Royce, Andy Bond, Sarah Gaunt

Agenda

Business Session

Reviewed and updated

• Mission & Charter
• SWOT
• 3-year plan

Motions by Bruce M., second: Stephen R, unanymous

Tuesday May 17 Q4

Agenda

hData discussion

HDATA Discussion

• Consideration of hData model including examples
• Decisions:
  • hData to add some new and extensional metadata content
  • Grahame to draft three hData Content profiles:
    • CDA document section document Profile (undecomposed)
    • General RIM section document Profile
    • Version 2.0 messaging profile
  • Ann to add examplar for decomposed CDA
    • Along with clear description of control points that make this safe

Wednesday May 18 Q1 (Joint with Vocabulary)

Attendees

Woody Beeler (Beeler Consulting) woody@beelers.com Beverley Knight (Infoway) bknight@infoway.ca Brian Schwallier (Health Language) brian.schwallier@healthlanguage.com Tim Benson (Abies UK) tim.benson@abies.co.uk Lloyd Mckenzie (HL7 Canada) lloyd@mckenzie.com Carmela Couderc (Seimens) carmela.couderc@seimens.com Rob Savage (NGC/CDC) hzv3@cdc.gov Wendy Huang (Infoway) whuang@infoway.gov.au Jim Case (NLM/NIH) james.case@mail.nih.gov Ted Klein (KCI) ted@tklein.com Stephen Royce (NEHTA) stephen.royce@nehta.gov.au Grahame Grieve (Health Intersections) grahame@healthintersections.com.au Heather Grain (LG Informatics) heather@lginformatics.com.au

Agenda

• MIF ballot
• Information Model metadata documentation
• IHTSDO alignment (agreement + process + impacts)
• Harmonization - patterns
• Value set definitions in Acts in definition mood
• Registering Concept Domains from International Affiliates

MIF Ballot

• MIF will never end
• phase #1 is complete, submitted to TSC for publishing
• Work will start again, but no timeline

Information Model Metadata documentation

• Need to better describe model metadata
• Listed on the scope statement: Lloyd.
• Beverley to enhance the scope statement, and bring it forward for formal consideration
• a companion for core principles
• for people doing design

Harmonisation - design patterns

• Lloyd explained design patterns and their impact on harmonization, for vocabulary's information
• Vocabulary was aware of the relevance and potential impacts

Discussion of HL7 IHTSDO Process

• Harmonization impacts were discussed
• in order to have a HL7 namespace for snomed, we need a gatekeeper
  • A central authority with documentation of the processes (to ensure due diligence) + with contact details (we don't need that much detail of the process)
  • Much contention about the process - some of this was discussed; vocab still to make decisions
  • General agreement that we would like to move our processes and our current vocabulary content towards a more vigorous base
  • Agreement that this consideration impacts on our direction, but shouldn't slow us from taking immediate action
  • There may be a reason to consider splitting the HL7 namespace into multiple parts with different management processes
• The interests of HL7 - both short and long term - would be well served by enhancing the existing process with the goal of moving as much of the HL7 terminology as feasible and sensible into Snomed-CT (either the core or the HL7 extension)
• We still need to measure the costs of tightening up on the harmonization process and determine where (i.e. which terminologies) they should be imposed
• Woody volunteers to participate in the process going forward, and proposes a meeting during harmonization
• Possible: Add to snomed checklist a flag for "include in Snomed-CT core" (and also exclude)
• We proposed prototyping the process this harmonization as a trial balloon

OIDs and value sets in CDA implementation guides

• Issues with how to handle US realm specific implementation guides and value sets
• OIDs not governed by HL7 are clearly marked
• CDA implementation guide value sets need to be registered in the OID registry
• CDA value sets in MIF - not known whether or when that will happen

Concept domains from International Affiliates

• only one authority can define concept domains - HL7 Intl
• affiliates can request a concept domain through harmonisation (via domain committee or intl affiliates)
• challenge if the concept domain doesn't make sense in the relevant domain committees models
  • i.e. a concept domain represents constructs in lab that assumes a central repository; intl model doesn't support that and don't want to add it
• how to manage that circumstance in harmonisation?.
• Lloyd Proposes
  • if something comes to harmonization that is not aligned, WG can reject proposal, and affiliate must work to align
  • if that turns out not to be possible (committee does not want to adopt requirement in the model), bring it forward to harmonization where it will be accepted
  • domain must still be valid against all the other rules
  • affiliates should inform other affiliates
• General agreement.
  • nice if you could hide them if you don't want to see them
  • could have a property on the domain to tag it
• Lloyd to bring to round table and then to committees and affiliate council list

Adjournment

Adjourned at 10:35