Difference between revisions of "MnM Minutes WGM 201305 Atlanta"
Line 166: | Line 166: | ||
What if a contained object has no subject?? | What if a contained object has no subject?? | ||
− | Discussion recognized that FHIR's light-weight reference mechanism makes it reasonable to represent the subject in (for example) each member of a battery of tests. | + | Discussion recognized that FHIR's light-weight reference mechanism makes it reasonable to represent the subject in (for example) each member of a battery of tests. |
+ | |||
==Discssion of mustUnderstand on optional Booleans== | ==Discssion of mustUnderstand on optional Booleans== | ||
The line item 6 from McKenzie, is moot if all mustUnderstand have minimum cardinality of 1, which is currently on the "warning" track for becoming a rule. | The line item 6 from McKenzie, is moot if all mustUnderstand have minimum cardinality of 1, which is currently on the "warning" track for becoming a rule. |
Revision as of 16:28, 6 May 2013
Return to MnM Minutes for 2013
Contents
- 1 Sunday May 5 Q3
- 2 Monday May 6 Q1
- 3 Monday May 6 Q2
- 3.1 Agenda
- 3.2 Attendees
- 3.3 Methodology Issues that Came out of QA Assessment of FHIR
- 3.4 Distinction between "Type" and "Code" and Other field names
- 3.5 Usage of Terms like "Subject", "Author"
- 3.6 Usage of Terms like "Subject", "Author"
- 3.7 Discussed McKenzie Discussion of "Subject"
- 3.8 Discssion of mustUnderstand on optional Booleans
- 4 Monday May 6 Q3
- 5 Monday May 6 Q4
- 6 Tuesday May 7 Q2
- 7 Tuesday May 7 Q3
- 8 Wednesday May 8 Q1
- 9 Wednesday May 8 Q2
- 10 Wednesday May 8 Q3
- 11 Thursday May 9 Q1
- 12 Thursday May 9 Q2
- 13 Thursday May 9 Q5-Q6
- 14 Thursday May 9 Q2
- 15 Friday May 10 Q2
Sunday May 5 Q3
Agenda
- Hot topic triage
- Agenda planning
Attendees
- Beeler Jr, George (Woody) (Beeler Consulting LLC)
- Grieve, Grahame (Health Intersections Pty Ltd)
- Hay, David (HL7 New Zealand)
- Kramer, Ewout (Furore)
- Loyd, Patrick (ICode Solutions)
- McKenzie, Lloyd (HL7 Canada)
- Shakir, AbdulMalik (City of Hope National Medical Center)
- Stechishin, Andy (CANA Software & Services Ltd.)
- Walker, D. Mead (Mead Walker Consulting)
Hot topics
1. RIM ballot reconciliation - Fixed values for collections of repeating attributes - What's the RIM default - How do we make it work in the schema generator
2. Lloyd will close the "social media" hot topic
3. Discussed "Model to Template Relationship", but no need to bring it up as a hot topic
4. Data types vocabulary schemas - what are we allowed to do within the framework of the ISO spec
5. FHIR RIM mappings - What will RIM mapping look like? - What do we do when the RIM can't do it? - What will it achieve?
Will tackle #1 and #4 in this meeting, #5 slotted for joint FHIR/MnM discussion For Wed Q3, will host FHIR (will release room 219)
Release rooms for Tue Q1, Tue Q4
Move SAIF Artifact Definition Project from Tuesday Q4 to Thursday Q2
Motion: approve agenda for WGM - Woody/Patrick
RIM ballot reconciliation
1. Dale's 2 comments - not persuasive 7-0-1 (Woody/Grahame) 2. blocked context conduction relationships:
- will create value sets containing conductable act relationship codes
- can create a new value set that constrains the base value sets as per the rules in Core principles
- can create a fixed value that is a "list of codes" that draws from the codes in the value set
- need to verify this will propagate properly through the tools to the schemas
- will document this in Core principles
Motion: Woody/Grahame 5-0-0
Woody takes action item to update Core Principles
Based on the above, Woody withdraws his negatives
Data type vocabulary schemes
Monday May 6 Q1
Agenda
Chair - Beeler & Grieve
- FHIR Methodology
Attendees
- Abrahao, Marivan (HL7 Brazil)
- Beeler Jr, George (Woody) (Beeler Consulting LLC)
- Cabrita, Rolim (Interfaceware)
- Duteau, Jean (Duteau Design Inc)
- Fine, Steven (Cerner Corporation)
- Glinski, Steve (Surescripts)
- Grieve, Grahame (Health Intersections Pty Ltd)
- Henderson, Mike (Eastern Informatics, Inc.)
- Jewell, Gabriele (Cerner Corporation)
- Konishi, Yukinori (HL7 Japan)
- Liu, Andrew (HL7 Canada)
- Lynch, Cecil (Accenture)
- Moehrke, John (GE Healthcare)
- Parker, Ron (HL7 Canada)
- Ryal, Tod (Cerner Corporation)
- Shaver, Dave (Corepoint Health)
- Smithies, Rik (HL7 UK)
- Takasaka, Sadamu (HL7 Japan)
- Walker, D. Mead (Mead Walker Consulting)
- Wong, Nat (HL7 Australia)
- Worden, Robert (Open Mapping Software)
- Kavanagh, Richard (NHS England)
- Walia, Randeep (Grafight Scratch, Inc.)
- Murty, Kurella (Roche)
Topic: mustUnderstand
Discussion of mustUnderstand - Motion from G Grieve/Rik Smithies to "Rename mustUnderstand to isModifier, and add sentence saying that you must explain why it is that you think it is a modifier and/or what it modifies."
Approved 25-0-0
Topic: Various
Discussions around "messaging-like" paradigm with FHUR similar to V2, can be defined and has been tested.
Discussions on "Profile" resource and what is does. Is rather larger than desired. Was noted that although it is defined as a Resource, it is unlikely to be exchanged as instances.
Security and FHIR
There is a Wiki document in the "FHIR Publication" that is being built with the guidance of Security Work Group lists security-related issues when using FHIR, and how and where these might be addressed.
Monday May 6 Q2
Ewout Kramer and Woody Beeler for FHIR and MnM
Agenda
- Host FHIR
- FHIR Methodology
Attendees
- Beeler Jr, George (Woody) (Beeler Consulting LLC)
- Cheung, James (Kaiser Permanente)
- Fine, Steven (Cerner Corporation)
- Greim MS RN-C, Patricia (U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs)
- Jewell, Gabriele (Cerner Corporation)
- Kramer, Ewout (Furore)
- Liu, Andrew (HL7 Canada)
- Lynch, Cecil (Accenture)
- Moehrke, John (GE Healthcare)
- Pupo, Erik (Deloitte Consulting LLP)
- Ryal, Tod (Cerner Corporation)
- Shaver, Dave (Corepoint Health)
- Smithies, Rik (HL7 UK)
- Walker, D. Mead (Mead Walker Consulting)
- Kavanagh, Richard (NHS England)
- Ott, Russell
- Brancato, Chris
Methodology Issues that Came out of QA Assessment of FHIR
Distinction between "Type" and "Code" and Other field names
Rationale for discussion: "type" and "code" have been used as attribute names for what is likely to be an encoded result.
Discussion suggests that: "code" commonly adds NO understanding; should not repeat name of element in attribute; type works where it is the type of the element; code is not useful; if need further distinction and expand "type"
Similarly, "date" as an attribute name will beg the distinction of which kind of "date" (e.g. see V3 Act) is intended.
Usage of Terms like "Subject", "Author"
There were notes about inconsistencies of use of these terms. Discussion here suggests that:
- Whatever definition for a term like "author" (for example) that FHIR selects should be consistent throughout FHIR
- A Glossary would be very difficult (these tend to be more fine-grained than the usual glossary)
- The RIM vocabulary (participation type codes, for example) provide fairly carefully thought out (and reviewed) set of definitions for things like "author", etc.
Suggest that FHIR consider adopting upper and lower camel case for names - lower for parameters and attributes, upper for resources and elements; etc.
Also the uniqueness criteria for names should be case agnostic. Thus "LastMan" and "lastMan" are not unique.
Usage of Terms like "Subject", "Author"
THere were notes about inconsistencies of use of these terms. Discussion here suggests that:
- Whatever definition for "author" (e.g.) that FHIR selects should be consistent throughout FHIR
- A Glossary would be very difficult (these tend to be more fine-grained than the usual glossary)
- The RIM vocabulary (participation type codes, for example0 provide fairly carefully thought out (and reviewed) definitions fro things like "author", etc.
Suggest that FHIR consider adopting upper and lower camel case for names - lower for parameters and attributes, upper for resources and elements; etc.
Also the uniqueness criteria should be case agnostic. Thus "LastMan" and "lastMan" are not unique.
Discussed McKenzie Discussion of "Subject"
Appears focused on context conduction and the need to clearly state what if ANY assumptions can be made thereabout. What if a contained object has no subject??
Discussion recognized that FHIR's light-weight reference mechanism makes it reasonable to represent the subject in (for example) each member of a battery of tests.
Discssion of mustUnderstand on optional Booleans
The line item 6 from McKenzie, is moot if all mustUnderstand have minimum cardinality of 1, which is currently on the "warning" track for becoming a rule.
Monday May 6 Q3
Agenda
- Joint w/FHIR, ITS
- FHIR Infrastructure issues
Attendees
Topic 1
Monday May 6 Q4
Agenda
- Joint w/FHIR, ITS
- FHIR Infrastructure issues
Attendees
Topic 1
Tuesday May 7 Q2
Agenda
- "Ask MnM"
Attendees
Topic 1
Tuesday May 7 Q3
Joint w/ Structure Documents (refer to their minutes)
Wednesday May 8 Q1
Agenda
- Host Vocab
- ???
Attendees
Topic 1
Wednesday May 8 Q2
Agenda
- Host Vocab, FHIR
- FHIR Vocabulary
Attendees
Topic 1
Wednesday May 8 Q3
Agenda
- Host FHIR
- FHIR Core
Attendees
Topic 1
Thursday May 9 Q1
Agenda
- FHIR Methodology
Attendees
Topic 1
Thursday May 9 Q2
Agenda
- SAIF Artifact Definition
Attendees
Topic 1
Thursday May 9 Q5-Q6
Agenda
- MnM Roundtable
Attendees
Topic 1
Thursday May 9 Q2
Agenda
- SAIF Artifact Definition
Attendees
Topic 1
Friday May 10 Q2
Agenda
- Meeting planning