This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here
Difference between revisions of "CMHAFF call, Thursday, August 17"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | Attendees: | + | Attendees: David Tao, Nathan Botts, Gary Dickinson |
| − | AGENDA | + | AGENDA |
| + | *Nathan is working on a cMHAFF website, supported by a relational database, which will eventually allow querying to trace cMHAFF to other documents (best practices, legislation, guidelines) that cMHAFF derives content from, or refers to. | ||
*Review specific comments in latest draft '''[[File:cMHAFF_STU_Ballot_Draft.docx]]''' | *Review specific comments in latest draft '''[[File:cMHAFF_STU_Ballot_Draft.docx]]''' | ||
**DKT4 decision tree. Agreed that the decision tree diagram format is helpful. Decided to also look at the Children's Health decision tree Nathan sent me, as perhaps closer to what we want. | **DKT4 decision tree. Agreed that the decision tree diagram format is helpful. Decided to also look at the Children's Health decision tree Nathan sent me, as perhaps closer to what we want. | ||
| Line 8: | Line 9: | ||
**DKT22 reorganization of "Informing Users" section. Does it make sense? Yes, it helps. It's possible we will | **DKT22 reorganization of "Informing Users" section. Does it make sense? Yes, it helps. It's possible we will | ||
**DKT29-30 granularity vs precision -- are both needed? Not sure we understand the distinction. David will look again at the French guidelines and other sources to see if the meaning can be clarified. | **DKT29-30 granularity vs precision -- are both needed? Not sure we understand the distinction. David will look again at the French guidelines and other sources to see if the meaning can be clarified. | ||
| − | **The following were not discussed, as we ran out of time | + | **The following were not discussed, as we ran out of time. Will be part of the next week's agenda. |
***DKT38-39 "syncing" data and "pairing" of devices: should they be within the same section? | ***DKT38-39 "syncing" data and "pairing" of devices: should they be within the same section? | ||
***DKT41 decision on what to do with provenance discussion | ***DKT41 decision on what to do with provenance discussion | ||
Latest revision as of 20:15, 17 August 2017
Attendees: David Tao, Nathan Botts, Gary Dickinson
AGENDA
- Nathan is working on a cMHAFF website, supported by a relational database, which will eventually allow querying to trace cMHAFF to other documents (best practices, legislation, guidelines) that cMHAFF derives content from, or refers to.
- Review specific comments in latest draft File:CMHAFF STU Ballot Draft.docx
- DKT4 decision tree. Agreed that the decision tree diagram format is helpful. Decided to also look at the Children's Health decision tree Nathan sent me, as perhaps closer to what we want.
- DKT6 and DKT8. Decided NOT to impose criticality levels in any formal sense, at least not at this point. Conditional SHALL[IF] statements provide enough flexibility. If necessary, levels can be added later for conformance statements that need them.
- DKT13 -- How do we find authoritative references for things like "secure coding" or do we just leave it open-ended? Nathan will look for appropriate reference.
- DKT22 reorganization of "Informing Users" section. Does it make sense? Yes, it helps. It's possible we will
- DKT29-30 granularity vs precision -- are both needed? Not sure we understand the distinction. David will look again at the French guidelines and other sources to see if the meaning can be clarified.
- The following were not discussed, as we ran out of time. Will be part of the next week's agenda.
- DKT38-39 "syncing" data and "pairing" of devices: should they be within the same section?
- DKT41 decision on what to do with provenance discussion
- DKT42-44 new "Interoperability" section
- DKT50 revisit "Conditions and Agreements" and how it differs from "Informing Consumers/Users"
- DKT57 Should Windows platform considerations be included or not
- Nathan agreed to recommend which (if any) criteria from Finland should be added to cMHAFF. This will be done on August 31st.
- File:National authorisation criteria of Finnish PHR v2.2 Nokia Translation.xlsx -- FINNISH National Authorisation (Certification) Criteria for PHR (unofficial translation into English) Contains approximately 80 criteria in 6 categories. (NATHAN BOTTS)
