|
|
| (306 intermediate revisions by 8 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | Open Action Items. Each item may be edited individually. New item numbers in the 2xxx range
| + | #REDIRECT[[InM_Action_Items]] |
| − | | |
| − | Back to [[Infrastructure and Messaging TC]]. Switch to [[INM Transmission and Transport Action Items]] or [[INM Closed Action Items]].
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | == ITEM: 15 ==
| |
| − | Opened: 24-Jan-05 Old Item: 203
| |
| − | For Version 2.7, add language to Chapter 2 to the effect that CQ does not express an opinion at this time on the restarting of set IDs relative to groups or
| |
| − | message.
| |
| − | | |
| − | * 24-Jan-05 , Tony Julian , Open , V2
| |
| − | ** INM WGM Orlando: Motion approved 20050506: edit needs to be done in 2.7
| |
| − | * 26-Aug-05 , Tony Julian , Open , V2
| |
| − | ** 20050826: Larson: this item needs a proposal submitted to the v2 database and then it can be closed.
| |
| − | * 28-NOV-05,Tony Julian,Reviewed,V2,20051128 This cannot be done until V2.7 is opened.
| |
| − | | |
| − | *2006050508 InM WGM San Antonio: Tony Julian, open
| |
| − | **20060508 InM San Antonio: Remains open
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | == ITEM: 33 ==
| |
| − | Opened: 28-Jan-05 Old Item: 221
| |
| − | | |
| − | '''The detectedIssue CMET should be moved to the CMET domain, and not be defined locally in MCAI'''
| |
| − | * 20050128, INM Chairs, Open
| |
| − | ** INM WGM Orlando: Added. When creating the next version of MCAI, the detectedIssue CMET should be moved to the CMET domain, and not be defined locally in MCAI Pharmacy has a use-case for a message that shows all controlActs(+detectedIssue) related to a single order. This can be implemented today as a shared message. If implemented as a wrapper this would require that the tools support stubs with exit points.
| |
| − | * 20051105, INM Chairs, Open
| |
| − | ** Rene: will remain open until such time where the controlAct domains will be up for a new release.
| |
| − | * 20051128, INM Chairs, Reviewed
| |
| − | ** No Update
| |
| − | | |
| − | == ITEM: 34 ==
| |
| − | Opened: 28-Jan-05 Old Item: 222
| |
| − | | |
| − | '''Need to create a controlAct wrapper for “event replay”.'''
| |
| − | *20050128, INM Chairs, New
| |
| − | **INM WGM Orlando: Added. Need to create a controlAct wrapper for “event replay”. Pharmacy has a use-case for a message that shows all controlActs(+detectedIssue) related to a single order. This can be implemented today as a shared message. If implemented as a wrapper this would require that the tools support stubs with exit points. (transmission wrapper - controlAct - order - 1..n - historic control acts)
| |
| − | *20051103, INM Chairs, open
| |
| − | **Rene: will remain open until such a time when the control act domains are up for ballot again. Lloyd McKenzie will have to provide input in this.
| |
| − | * 20051128, INM Chairs, Reviewed
| |
| − | ** No Update
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | == ITEM: 71 ==
| |
| − | Opened: 29-Sep-04 Old Item: 318
| |
| − | Draft procedure for agreeing to updates to 396. Will bring draft to CQ.
| |
| − | | |
| − | * 12-Jan-05 , Stan Huff , New , vocab
| |
| − | ** Larson: The procedure should incorporate the decision made at the Atlanta WGM as follows: “All changes to sections for which Vocab is the steward, must be submitted to the v2 change proposal database.”
| |
| − | * 04-May-05 , Stan Huff , Open , vocab
| |
| − | ** INM Noordwijkerhout: Stan will wridte procedure. It will include 1) submit to database ; 2) vocab reviews and makes decision taking in to account such things as redundancy, version and other policy requirements; 3) once approved is immediately valid; 4) notify INM editor Policy needs good definitions but also need to focus on operational factors.
| |
| − | * 01-Jun-05 , Stan Huff , Open , vocab
| |
| − | ** Vocab Telcon: Discussion – Table 396 issue:-HL7 v2.x table 396 is the table of tables. One of the changes in 2.6 was to make content extensible without requiring a re-ballot. Need to document the process of how we put new entries, or update entries to table 396. Current process is to submit a V2.x proposal through the HL7 website.-Proposed solution is that every time a terminology is registered in the OID it would automatically go into Table 396 I V2.x. Vote taken and passed.-The content of tables is only available through the ballot, the document can be updated but there is no place online that you can look it up. Same problem of how to
| |
| − | * 15-Sep-05 , Tony Julian , Reviewed , vocab
| |
| − | ** 20050914: Approved. Tony will check to see if in the substantivity guide.
| |
| − | * 28-Nov-05 , Tony Julian , Reviewed , vocab
| |
| − | ** 20051128 Telcon - Open with Guilt!.
| |
| − | * 20060510 WGM: Substantivity guide has not been updated.
| |
| − | * 26-Jun-06 , Tony Julian , Reviewed , vocab
| |
| − | ** 20060626 Telcon - Shift guilt to ARB - ask to approve with email ballot!.
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | == ITEM: 110 ==
| |
| − | Opened: 02-May-05 Old Item: 407
| |
| − | | |
| − | '''Complete the documentation for Option #2 and resolve the format of the URN''' (Data Types)
| |
| − | | |
| − | * 02-May-05 , Charlie McCay , New , Attachments and II/IIRef ** Noorwijkerhout
| |
| − | * 28-Nov-05 , Charlie McCay , Open , MCCI
| |
| − | ** 20051128 INM Telcon: Move to MCCI
| |
| − | * 20060110, Charlie McKay, Open
| |
| − | **20060110: WGM: Probably URI instead of URN – related to IIRef discussion. No update.
| |
| − | *20060412, Charlie McKay, Open, Data types
| |
| − | **20060412: Charlie McKay: part of datatypes R2 work - will require a proposal.
| |
| − | | |
| − | == ITEM: 132 ==
| |
| − | Opened: 01-Jul-04 Old Item: 518
| |
| − | Request PIC to create a process to ensure that those that bring forward v2 proposals should include a v3 mapping analysis
| |
| − | | |
| − | * 01-Oct-04 , Doug Pratt , New , Admin
| |
| − | ** Not always possible (some elements are V2 artifacts) but the analysis needs to be done always.
| |
| − | * 05-May-05 , Doug Pratt , Open , Admin
| |
| − | ** 20050506: Doug will ask PIC about status.
| |
| − | * 16-Sep-05 , Joann Larson , Open , Admin
| |
| − | ** 20050916: Joann will take to PIC
| |
| − | * 28-Nov-05, Joann Larson , Open , Admin
| |
| − | ** 20051128 INM Telcon: Joann will take to PIC
| |
| − | *20060508 WGM San Antonio, open
| |
| − | **20060508 WGM: We think this is on the PIC agenda. Rene is attending this Thursday. Noted that Robert Worden is trying to attend all groups having v2/v3 agenda items. Rene: the agenda item wasn't discussed (due to a lack of time) during the May2006 WGM.
| |
| − | *20060911: WGM, INM: Joann: open, PIC meets on Thursday
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | == ITEM: 961 ==
| |
| − | Opened: 11-Aug-05 Old Item: 0
| |
| − | Developing a list of '''basic criteria for shared messages''', so that shared messages doesn’t end up being a dumping ground. Perhaps a topic in MCCI R2?
| |
| − | | |
| − | * 11-Aug-05 , Lloyd McKenzie , Open , MCCI
| |
| − | ** INM requests more details. Lloyd will provide them to Tony, and we will discuss the topic in San Diego. Lloyd to start a discussion thread about “undo” on MnM list server. Rene will bring forward notification interactions shared messages. Hope to publish shared messages in January cycle. Lloyd to offer help with shared messages publication database
| |
| − | * 11-Aug-05 , Lloyd McKenzie , Open , MCCI
| |
| − | ** Lloyd added a fifth: sending out a “broadcast” message – such as a user notification that the system is going down in 5 minutes, etc. Lloyd needs to forward this last one to INM.
| |
| − | * 28-Nov-05 , Lloyd McKenzie , Reviewed , Shared Messages
| |
| − | ** 20051128 INM Telcon: no update.
| |
| − | *20060110, Michael van Campen, Shared Messages
| |
| − | ** 20060110: INM WGM: Michael van Campen will create a list of candidates to be included/excluded. Rene will assist.
| |
| − | ** 20060508 WGM: Open.
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | == ITEM: 967 ==
| |
| − | Opened: 13-Sep-05 Old Item: 0
| |
| − | Security TC is requested to read WS security specification and provide guidance and suggestions related thereto.
| |
| − | | |
| − | * 13-Sep-05 , Glenn Marshall , New , Security
| |
| − | ** 20050913 WGM: New
| |
| − | * 28-Nov-05 , Glenn Marshall , New , Security
| |
| − | ** 20051128 INM Telcon: Doug e-mailed Glenn - We need the info Before phoenix
| |
| − | *20060110, Glenn Marshall , open , Security
| |
| − | ** 20060110 InM WGM Phoenix: Has been read, guidance has not yet been provided.
| |
| − | *20060110, Glenn Marshall , open , Security
| |
| − | ** 20060626 Telecon - Tony to send reminder.
| |
| − | *20060912 WGM – John Moehrke not present, no information available. Glenn to touch base with John on status. Continue OPEN.
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | == ITEM: 976 ==
| |
| − | Opened: 07-Oct-05 Old Item: 0
| |
| − | CNE/CWE 2.7
| |
| − | | |
| − | * 14-Sep-05 , Doug Pratt , New , V2 Cp2a
| |
| − | ** MMS Doug Pratt/Sandy Stuart that the joint working group encourage Doug to submit the stronger text for version 2.7. 11-0-1
| |
| − | * 28-Nov-05 , Doug Pratt , New , V2 Cp2a
| |
| − | ** 20051128 INM Telcon: Doug will submit 2.7 Proposal
| |
| − | | |
| − | *2006050508 InM WGM San Antonio: Doug Pratt, open
| |
| − | **20060508 InM San Antonio: Remains open
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | == ITEM: 1005 ==
| |
| − | Opened: 03-Oct-05 Old Item: 0
| |
| − | 20051003: Prepare RFI for Data Types Abstract
| |
| − | | |
| − | * 03-Oct-05 , Grahame Grieve , New , Data Types
| |
| − | ** 20051003: INM Telcon: Prepare RFI for Data Types Abstract. Needs to be approved and posted by Oct 17.
| |
| − | | |
| − | *Open, deferred to may ballot
| |
| − | *20060112 PHX WGM: No change
| |
| − | *20060511 SAT WGM No change
| |
| − | | |
| − | == ITEM: 1006 ==
| |
| − | Opened: 03-Oct-05 Old Item: 0
| |
| − | 20051003: Prepare RFI for XML ITS Data Types
| |
| − | | |
| − | * 03-Oct-05 , Grahame Grieve , New , XML ITS
| |
| − | ** 20051003: INM Telcon: Prepare RFI for XML Its Data Types. Needs to be approved and posted by Oct 17.
| |
| − | | |
| − | *20051114: Open, May ballot
| |
| − | *20060112 PHX WGM: No change
| |
| − | *20060511 SAT WGM No change
| |
| − | | |
| − | == ITEM: 1007 ==
| |
| − | Opened: 03-Oct-05 Old Item: 0
| |
| − | 20051003: Prepare RFI for UML
| |
| − | | |
| − | * 03-Oct-05 , Grahame Grieve , New , UML
| |
| − | ** 20051003: INM Telcon: Prepare RFI for UML. Needs to be approved and posted by Oct 17.
| |
| − | | |
| − | *20051114: Open, deferred to may ballot
| |
| − | *20060112 PHX WGM: No change
| |
| − | *20060511 WGM: No action until relevant.
| |
| − | | |
| − | == ITEM: 1008 ==
| |
| − | Opened: 03-Oct-05 Old Item: 0
| |
| − | 20051003: Post UML reconciliation package for May 2005 ballot.
| |
| − | | |
| − | * 03-Oct-05 , Grahame Grieve , New , UML
| |
| − | ** Post UML reconcillation Package for May 2005 ballot
| |
| − | *20060112 PHX WGM: No change
| |
| − | *20060511 WGM: Open with extreme guilt.
| |
| − | | |
| − | == ITEM: 1009 ==
| |
| − | Opened: 03-Oct-05 Old Item: 0
| |
| − | 20051003: Request withdrawal of negative votes against UML May 2005 ballot.
| |
| − | | |
| − | * 03-Oct-05 , Grahame Grieve , New , UML
| |
| − | ** 20051003: INM Telcon: After Reconciliation Package is posted, need to officially request voters to withdraw negative votes by November 14.
| |
| − | *20060112 PHX WGM: No change
| |
| − | *20060511 WGM: Open with extreme guilt.
| |
| − | | |
| − | == ITEM: 1015 ==
| |
| − | Closed: 06-Jun-2006
| |
| − | | |
| − | == ITEM: 1021 ==
| |
| − | Opened: 20051031
| |
| − | | |
| − | '''Need to add attribute-level descriptions to HMDs in MFMI Release 2'''. Created as part of reconciliation of MFMI R1 M1.
| |
| − | *20051031, René Spronk, open
| |
| − | **Will remain open until MFMI R2 goes out for ballot again
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | == ITEM: 1025 ==
| |
| − | Opened: 20051114
| |
| − | | |
| − | '''Prefaces at Topic Level, Pubs issue''', need to take this up with Pubs. Results from MCCI R2 C1 ballot rec. item 134.
| |
| − | *20051114, Tony Julian, open
| |
| − | **Propose to pubs to have preface at the topic level, instead of just having a preface at the domain level. If one has a varied range of Topics it makes no sense to have all preface comments at the domain level.
| |
| − | *20060113 Tony Julian, open, pubs
| |
| − | **20060113 WGM pubs will consider. Supported by pharmacy.
| |
| − | *20060508 WGM San Antonio, open
| |
| − | **20060508 WGM San Antonio: Ballot item in PFG ballot. Follow the resolution of that.
| |
| − | *20060911: WGM, INM: open. PFG = Pubs facilitators guide
| |
| − | | |
| − | == ITEM: 1027 ==
| |
| − | Closed: 2006-Jun-26
| |
| − | | |
| − | == ITEM: 1028 ==
| |
| − | Closed: 20060710
| |
| − | | |
| − | == ITEM: 1029 ==
| |
| − | Opened 20051129 from e-mail from Alberto Sáez Torres
| |
| − | | |
| − | In the Data Type Chapter, the components table for XTN (Extended
| |
| − | Telecommunication Number) doesn't correspond with the text description.
| |
| − | Page 2-239.
| |
| − | *20051129, Doug Pratt, V2
| |
| − | *20060104: J Larson. The component table and narrative are correct in v.6. There was a formating/numbering problem in v2.5. Component 5 should have been "Country", but it inadvertently got embedded in the note for compoent 4. Is this ready to be closed or should we consider noting an erratum for v2.5? Email sent to A Torres.
| |
| − | *20060710: D Pratt, take up with ARB.
| |
| − | | |
| − | == ITEM: 1030 ==
| |
| − | Opened: 20051129
| |
| − | | |
| − | '''Change cardinality of MSG Data Type in v2.XML specification''', discovered item, from e-mail from Alberto Sáez Torres
| |
| − | | |
| − | *20051129, Tony Julian, New
| |
| − | **In the MSG data type description (message type, used in MSH-9) it is said that all the components (message code, message trigger, message sctructure) are required, but the schema marks all of them as optional.
| |
| − | So, the schema should be change from:
| |
| − | <xsd:complexType name="MSG">
| |
| − | <xsd:sequence>
| |
| − | <xsd:element ref="MSG.1" minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="1"/>
| |
| − | <xsd:element ref="MSG.2" minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="1"/>
| |
| − | <xsd:element ref="MSG.3" minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="1"/>
| |
| − | </xsd:sequence>
| |
| − | </xsd:complexType>
| |
| − | To :
| |
| − | <xsd:complexType name="MSG">
| |
| − | <xsd:sequence>
| |
| − | <xsd:element ref="MSG.1" >
| |
| − | <xsd:element ref="MSG.2" />
| |
| − | <xsd:element ref="MSG.3" />
| |
| − | </xsd:sequence>
| |
| − | </xsd:complexType>
| |
| − | *20051129, Tony Julian, V2
| |
| − | ** pending further information
| |
| − | *20051129, Alberto Sáez Torres
| |
| − | **Actually, the MSG-data type is described in section 2.A.44 of Chapter 2A, Page 2-175, but the error is located in the XSD and DTD files for Version 2.5. The XSD affected file is “datatypes.xsd” and the DTD file is “datatypes.dtd”. This is the reason why I’ve CC-ed this message to the XML list.
| |
| − | **(According to the MSG data type, the line from datatype.dtd): <!ENTITY % MSG "(MSG.1?,MSG.2?,MSG.3?)"> Should be changed (in my opinion) to <!ENTITY % MSG "(MSG.1,MSG.2,MSG.3)">
| |
| − | | |
| − | *20060508 InM WGM San Antonio: Frank Oemig, open
| |
| − | **20060508 InM San Antonio: Remains open
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | == ITEM: 1052 ==
| |
| − | Opened: 20060113
| |
| − | | |
| − | '''Review status of Java SIG'''
| |
| − | | |
| − | *20060113, co-chairs, new, organizational
| |
| − | **20060113 WGM: Contact JAVA SIG re meeting/accountability. Might be a project instead a SIG?
| |
| − | *20060407, co-chairs, open, organizational
| |
| − | **The primary objective of the Java SIG as stated in its mission is "This group will define application programming interfaces (APIs) to HL7 version 3 artifacts for the Java platform."
| |
| − | **The Java WGM Minutes of January 2006 state: "The general purpose of the the javaSIG meetings at the HL7 WGM meetings is to introduce new developers to our API. Our API which has been under development since 2002 has numerous features which constitute the infrastructure for any Java based HL7 V3 applications."
| |
| − | **From the September 2005 WGM minutes "The purpose of our meeting was to introduce our API to new potential users and developers. [..snip..] We spent no time on the past history of the API but rather explained the features: [etc.]"
| |
| − | **The last substantive uploaded document of the Java SIG was in September 2004.
| |
| − | **Relevant Bylaw 9.02.05 SPECIAL INTEREST GROUP DISSOLUTION – The Board of Directors shall consider dissolution of a SIG if: [..snip..] The objectives of the SIG have been achieved.
| |
| − | *Dissolve SIG and create a project under Education(?)/Tooling(?) or Implementation(?)
| |
| − | *20060410, co-chairs, open, organizational
| |
| − | **Java SIG will give an update FRI Q1 in San Antonio. Any future actions to be coordinated during/after that meeting.
| |
| − | | |
| − | == ITEM: 1053 - Closed ==
| |
| − | Opened: 20060113
| |
| − | | |
| − | '''Joint work item for use of digital signature in control act wrapper'''
| |
| − | | |
| − | *20060113 Rene, new, security
| |
| − | **2006013 WGM: Joint work item for use of digital signature in control act wrapper
| |
| − | *20060509: SAT WGM On agenda.
| |
| − | *20060912 WGM – no update from Security.
| |
| − | **Confusion on point: security is to mitigate risk, need use case. InM has not supplied use case but is pending questionnaire from Security. Three documents in development: (1)NEMA SPC white paper on risk management related to medical devices; (2) IHE ITI planning committee white paper on an overall structure for security requirements (what are the risk analysis steps, NIST & ISO have a catalog of threats); and (3) standard proposed to ISO TC215 WG4 on evaluation of risks relative to software objects.
| |
| − | **Questionnaire will be based upon these works … what threatens you, what will happen, economic impact (etc). Allows identifying risks and evaluating mitigation options. Should not be how to implement a technology, should be how to mitigate a threat.
| |
| − | **What if there is a jurisdictional requirement to implement digital signature. Issue is why, but how to implement the technology. [Glenn Marshall] Go to w3c and use the digital signature recommendation as is.
| |
| − | **discussion of implication of a signature re liability, strength, level of guarantee. Administrative infrastructure is required in obtaining the certificate … which is outside the scope of this committee and the standard.
| |
| − | **CLOSED – No specific resolution. Issues around obtaining signature are outside the scope of InM. Deferring to Security TC work on risk-management and related issues.
| |
| − | | |
| − | == ITEM: 1054 ==
| |
| − | Opened: 20060410
| |
| − | | |
| − | '''Synchronize use of conformance modal verbs with Publishing Facilitator's Guide'''
| |
| − | *20060410 Joann L, new, Admin*
| |
| − | **20060410: Need to go over InM ballot domains for proper capitalization of conformance modal words SHALL, SHOULD, MAY.
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | == ITEM: 1057 ==
| |
| − | '''V2 Datatype CNN'''
| |
| − | *20051129: e-mail from Alberto Sáez Torres who wrote:
| |
| − | 5) Page 2-138 Section 2.A.9.9. Data type CNN (composite ID number and name simplified)
| |
| − | In this element there are some references to a data type "CNS", which in my opinion is the “CNN” data type
| |
| − | **20060109 InM WGM: Doug will examine this
| |
| − | | |
| − | *2006050508 InM WGM San Antonio: Doug Pratt, open
| |
| − | **20060508 InM San Antonio: Remains open
| |
| − | | |
| − | == ITEM: 1058 ==
| |
| − | '''20060104 Check accuracy of 3rd example for NA data type'''
| |
| − | D Pratt
| |
| − | *20051129: e-mail from Alberto Sáez Torres who wrote:
| |
| − | 6) Page 2-175 Section 2.A.45 P. Data type NA (Numeric Array)
| |
| − | The first component is declared as “REQUIRED” (field OPT of the components table) but in the 3º example, it’s shown as non-present (|^2^3^4~5^^^8~9^10~~17^18^19^20|))
| |
| − | ¿This is an error in the example, the OPT or in my understanding?
| |
| − | *20060109 InM WGM: Doug will examine this
| |
| − | | |
| − | *2006050508 InM WGM San Antonio: Doug Pratt, open
| |
| − | **20060508 InM San Antonio: Remains open
| |
| − | | |
| − | == ITEM: 1059 ==
| |
| − | '''V2.7 Cleanup the escape sequence language'''
| |
| − | Frank Oemig
| |
| − | *Change the escape usage language.
| |
| − | | |
| − | *2006050508 InM WGM San Antonio: Tony Julian, open
| |
| − | **20060508 InM San Antonio: section 2.5.4 and section 2.14.9 need to be consistent. Note that the sub component can be omitted. Table should be re-ordered. Open.
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | == ITEM: 1062 (closed) ==
| |
| − | | |
| − | == ITEM: 1063 ==
| |
| − | Opened: 20060508
| |
| − | | |
| − | '''Determine what kind/type of vocab used within the datatype specs should be subject to harmonization and/or ballot time fixing.'''
| |
| − | *20060508, new, Grahame, Abstract Data Types
| |
| − | **There have been DT proposals (+vocab used within DT) during harmonization. Normative DT spec, methodology changes lead to new releases of DT spec. Changes to vocab may need to be more flexible (e.g. done at harmonization, be applicable to last normative spec) than structural DT changes. Only certain vocabs, e.g. compression method, UCUM units, mediatype, currency. Name part type is NOT in this category and is fixed at ballot time.
| |
| − | | |
| − | [[Proposal For Data Type Vocabulary Management]]
| |
| − | | |
| − | == ITEM: 1064 ==
| |
| − | Opened: 20060508
| |
| − | | |
| − | '''formally document updatemode/auditing methodology in the abstract DT spec.'''
| |
| − | *20060508, new, XML SIG, Abstract data types
| |
| − | | |
| − | == ITEM: 1065 (closed) ==
| |
| − | | |
| − | == ITEM: 1066 ==
| |
| − | Opened: 20060508
| |
| − | | |
| − | '''Create a definition for [[Committee Representative]] (a.k.a. Ambassador) for the new INM DMP''', Admin
| |
| − | *20060508, Rene Spronk, new, Admin
| |
| − | **20060525 See also 1071. Draft is being circulated on the INM list.
| |
| − | **20060608 Draft text also available on the Wiki
| |
| − | **20060822 Draft circulated on INM list, requesting feedback
| |
| − | | |
| − | == ITEM: 1067 ==
| |
| − | Opened: 20060508
| |
| − | | |
| − | '''Document the Bolus ResponseModality''', QUQI
| |
| − | | |
| − | *20060509, QUQI editor, new, QUQI
| |
| − | **ResponseModality: Includes "Bolus" is this a meaningful response modality? Need to document it.
| |
| − | *20060822: added to THUR Q2 agenda of the Sep2006 WGM
| |
| − | | |
| − | == ITEM: 1068 ==
| |
| − | Opened: 20060508
| |
| − | | |
| − | '''Document and specify values for the QueryRequestLimit vocabulary''', QUQI
| |
| − | *20060509, QUQI editor, new, QUQI
| |
| − | **QUQI_RM020000UV01, QueryRequestLimit: No vocab values are defined forn this unit of quantity -recommend this is reviewed. Evaluate use-case and code-set values.
| |
| − | *20060822: added to THU Q2 agenda of the Sep2006 WGM
| |
| − | | |
| − | == ITEM: 1069 ==
| |
| − | Opened: 20060508
| |
| − | | |
| − | '''HL7StandardVersion and humanlanguage to be discussed with Pubs''', Pubs
| |
| − | *20060509, Joann, new, Pubs
| |
| − | **HL7StandardVersion: no V3 codes in Vocab-applies
| |
| − | **humanlanguage: no HL7 vocab or ISO recommendation – take up with Vocab. IETF x66 according to Rosetree, not a vocab issue, pubs issue.
| |
| − | | |
| − | == ITEM: 1070 ==
| |
| − | Opened: 20060516
| |
| − | | |
| − | '''Change usage of Act DEF in MFMI''', MFMI
| |
| − | | |
| − | *20060516, Rene, new, MFMI
| |
| − | **The usage of Act DEF in (normative) MFMI is wrong. The reference to the definition is solely based on Act.id and doesn't involve Act.code. Fix in next release of MFMI.
| |
| − | **20060610 created [[Technical correction: Fix use of Act DEF in MFMI]]
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | == ITEM: 1072 ==
| |
| − | Opened: 20060508
| |
| − | | |
| − | '''20060508: seek Board approval to have a formal liaison between HL7 and WS-I.'''
| |
| − | *20060508 San Antonio WGM, TBD, new
| |
| − | **20060508 San Antonio WGM: New item. Need to have a liaison to WS-I. This can be informal or formal. Formal liaison is a Board decision.
| |
| − | *20060511: San Antonio WGM: Motion that we recommend to the organization committee that Don be the HL7 representative to the WS-I initiative. Grahame / Rene 14-0-0. Don is from Inpriva, and active in Eclipse and IHE.
| |
| − | *20060814 InM Telcon - Grahame will approach board.
| |
| − | | |
| − | == ITEM: 1073(closed) ==
| |
| − | | |
| − | == ITEM: 1074 (closed) ==
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | == ITEM: 1077 (closed) ==
| |
| − | | |
| − | == ITEM: 1078 (closed) ==
| |
| − | | |
| − | == ITEM: 1079 (closed) ==
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | == ITEM: 1082 ==
| |
| − | Opened 20060619 Telcon
| |
| − | | |
| − | '''Is use of ID/IDRef model derived?'''
| |
| − | *20060619, Joseph Waller, new, XML ITS?
| |
| − | **ask Lloyd to elaborate on how using ID/IDRef – model derived or not? and if so (or not) how does this end up in schema?.
| |
| − | **20060828, Rene: open. XML SIG has studied the use of XML ID/IDREF for use by the ITS to minimize the size of messages on the wire. Based on the outcome of that they will move the motion during teh upcoming WGM that ID/IDREF can't bse used within the ITS (because of technical implementation reasons as will be stated in the motion). Joseph's question appears to be wider in scope however, he wants to know if the ''samentic concept of ID/IDREF'' exists within the RIM, much as the concept of a ''mixed content datatype'' also exists within the abstract datatype specification.
| |
| − | | |
| − | == ITEM: 1083 ==
| |
| − | Opened 20060619 Telcon
| |
| − | | |
| − | '''ask ARB about normative interactions currently explicitly marked as ''examples, non implementable'' now being marked ''implementable'' '''
| |
| − | *20060619, Tony Julian, new, shared messages
| |
| − | **20060828, Rene: to add some detail: originally the shared messages domain was designated to define re-usable [[Message Type]]s (payloads) but not [[Interaction]]s. Interactions, [[Application Role]]s and [[Trigger Event]]s were smetimes added to illustrate the use of the Message Types. The artefacts were designated (in textual form) as being "examples, non implementable". Because they were part of the ballot, their status has progressed to normative. Nowadays the Shared Messages domain also defines re-usable Interactions. We now would like to turn some of the old "Example" interactions into "real, implementable" interactions. Changing the deignation may be a substantive change.
| |
| − | | |
| − | == ITEM: 1084 ==
| |
| − | Opened 20060701
| |
| − | | |
| − | '''Ask Security and/or EHR amd/or MR/IM TC to review the Masking shared messages topic''', there may be regulatory issues, wording needs to be in sync with other parts of HL7.
| |
| − | *20060701, ?, new, shared messages
| |
| − | **Added as a result of shared messages ballot reconciliation.
| |
| − | *20060912 WGM – documented in ballot with shared message item.
| |
| − | **If dealing with anonymization/pseudonymization, there is normative work in TC215 (passed, in resolution). Recommend deferring this discussion pending result from ISO. Addresses drugs, devices, etc in addition to people
| |
| − | **Continue OPEN. Glenn will work with Canadian project to provide info on TC215 work and will report back on TC215 as information is available. Assigned item to Glenn
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | == ITEM: 1086 ==
| |
| − | Opened 20060705
| |
| − | '''Ballot reconcillation for COCT_HD920000'''
| |
| − | *20060705: The CMET was returned to InM for reconcillation
| |
| − | **Tony Julian has 'volunteered' to gather the necessary materials
| |
| − | **Reconcillation will be scheduled as soon as possible, no later than the next WGM
| |
| − | | |
| − | == ITEM: 1087 ==
| |
| − | Opened 20060723
| |
| − | | |
| − | '''Transition to 1 single query control act wrapper stub''',
| |
| − | *20060723, new, ControlAct domains
| |
| − | **INM is encouraging committees to only define queries that start with QueryByParameter. It is on INMs to-do list to request that committees remodel their queries so we can deprecate the query wrapper based on parameterList. There are only a few queries that use the parameterList stub. Existing query definition based on the paremeterList stub (even if normative) can be redefined to start with queryByParameter. The instance on the wire nor the abstract composite model will change if you do so, so there are no backwards compatibility issues.
| |
| − | **Need to a) state the above in a motion, b) communicate this to the other committees, especially those that use the parameterList stub
| |
| − | **See [[Query Stub]] for details.
| |
| − | | |
| − | == Item: 1088 ==
| |
| − | Opened 20060724
| |
| − | | |
| − | '''20060724: Prepare a proposal for Harmonization to add new class to support the Select Column use case.'''
| |
| − | *20060724, new,
| |
| − | **20060724: InM telcon: Item added to support the vote taken that ParameterItem cannot be used to constrain scope by columns (see [[Nature of ParameterItem]] for details) a proposal needs to be proposed for harmonization to add a new class to support the Select Column Use Case.
| |
| − | | |
| − | == Item: 1089 ==
| |
| − | Opened 20060911
| |
| − | | |
| − | ''proposal for cleaning up obsolete language in chapter 5 related to queries''
| |
| − | *20060911, Scott, v2
| |
| − | **New action item for Scott: proposal for cleaning up obsolete language in chapter 5 related to queries, take up with conformance. Note that queries are used in various chapters, these use query profiles as well.
| |
