This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here
Difference between revisions of "CTS2N - 3-April-12"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| (2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
** Aknowledged and agreed by all three members | ** Aknowledged and agreed by all three members | ||
** Russ will follow up with HL7 on how we make this official. | ** Russ will follow up with HL7 on how we make this official. | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Work Items Review == | ||
| + | * (AE) Functional requirement is not implemented in the PIM | ||
| + | ** Verify with PIM authors on weather we are correct or not. | ||
| + | ** Then what? | ||
| + | *** Exclude the requirement all together? | ||
| + | *** Add a section of the document that talks to why each requirement was not included in the PIM | ||
| + | *** Discuss the use of CTS 2 within the broader context of a terminology enabled application | ||
| + | * Ana has began making corrections to the Word version of the DSTU. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | == What Should CTS 2N Look Like == | ||
| + | |||
| + | This is a discussion on what the end goal of CTS 2N should be. What should the end product look like? What should it include/not include. What should the normative CTS 2 look to accomplish. | ||
| + | |||
| + | * What functionalities do I require as an implementer to say I am CTS 2 compliant? | ||
| + | ** This speaks the need for a '''HL7 CTS 2 conformance profile'''. | ||
| + | * CTS 2 should be aligned with HL7 core principles of vocabulary | ||
| + | * CTS 2 could include appendices outlining different implementation/representation choices for the SFM (OMG v PHAST) | ||
| + | * Should CTS 2N include or reference an HL7 Terminology Model (MIF)? | ||
| + | ** How to include model updates identified by PHAST | ||
| + | * Should CTS 2N provide rational to the decisions made in the PIM. | ||
== Action items for Next Week == | == Action items for Next Week == | ||
# Russ will follow up with HL7 on how we make voting rules official. | # Russ will follow up with HL7 on how we make voting rules official. | ||
| + | # Ana will email to list the mapping spreadsheets | ||
Latest revision as of 15:07, 3 April 2012
Contents
Minutes 14-Feb-2012
Roll Call and Agenda Check
- Ana Estelrich (AE)
- Monica Harry (MH)
- Senthil Nachimuthu (SN)
- Russell Hamm (RH)
- Craig Stancl (regrets)
- Kevin Peterson (regrets)
- Frank Oemig (regrets)
- No additional agenda items
Announcements
- AE - Attended the OMG meeting two weeks ago. PHAST has implemented Read Only aspects of CTS 2 from the SFM, and had identified extensions and errata in the SFM. Quwstion is to identify how the OMG PIM aligns with the SFM. Would like to align with the international standard. PHAST comments on the OMG PIM are located on github [| here].
Action Item Review
CTS 2 Voting Rules
- By default I believe we adopt the Vocabulary WG calls. We will unlikely have 2 chairs on CTS 2 calls.
- (RH) Propose voting rules of one Vocabulary chair and three participants for binding votes.
- Aknowledged and agreed by all three members
- Russ will follow up with HL7 on how we make this official.
Work Items Review
- (AE) Functional requirement is not implemented in the PIM
- Verify with PIM authors on weather we are correct or not.
- Then what?
- Exclude the requirement all together?
- Add a section of the document that talks to why each requirement was not included in the PIM
- Discuss the use of CTS 2 within the broader context of a terminology enabled application
- Ana has began making corrections to the Word version of the DSTU.
What Should CTS 2N Look Like
This is a discussion on what the end goal of CTS 2N should be. What should the end product look like? What should it include/not include. What should the normative CTS 2 look to accomplish.
- What functionalities do I require as an implementer to say I am CTS 2 compliant?
- This speaks the need for a HL7 CTS 2 conformance profile.
- CTS 2 should be aligned with HL7 core principles of vocabulary
- CTS 2 could include appendices outlining different implementation/representation choices for the SFM (OMG v PHAST)
- Should CTS 2N include or reference an HL7 Terminology Model (MIF)?
- How to include model updates identified by PHAST
- Should CTS 2N provide rational to the decisions made in the PIM.
Action items for Next Week
- Russ will follow up with HL7 on how we make voting rules official.
- Ana will email to list the mapping spreadsheets
