2007 01 Notes

January 2007 Working Group Meeting Notes

Attendee List: [image:Templates-WGM-Attendance-2007-01-Print.xls]

Link to the latest official CEN 13606 drafts and the HL7 13606 R-MIM draft and walkthrough: University College of London

Tuesday Q1

IT made the following motion:

• Templates SIG requires guidance from M&M on how one ratifies a particular implementation of templates as being a valid HL7 standard
  • What is the criteria for acceptance?
  • What is the process?
  • Who owns this process? M&M? INM? xITS?
• Request attendance of a walk through of an implementation and certification of its conformance, preferably Thursday Q1 or Q2
• Further request representation from CDA and INM and ITS.

Ian Townend, Ravi Natarajan

For / Opposed / Abstained: 8/0/0

Wednesday Q1

Discussed the term Interoperability Contract used in the ballot. Grahame concedes that it was badly named as it has other implications. Perhaps the term “Interoperability Paradigm” is better, but only HL7 can define a paradigm – so if this is true, then it should be moved into the HDF.

GG moved that we change “contract” to “paradigm” and rewrite the section to clarify the intent. MS suggested a friendly amendment to place a header above the last three paragraphs indicating that examples of the paradigm follow. David Markwell seconded

For / Opposed / Abstained: 11/0/1

GG brought up the problem that the template Id exists within the Act such that a processor needs to parse a certain amount of the Act before knowing what it is, and then backing up to process differently depending on what the template Id. Suggest that perhaps the Template Ids be moved to an ActRelationship. Possible solutions are to have the ITS put the template Id in an attribute, or create a manifest for templates, or create a forwards manifest.

GG moved that we change the Template Specification to make it explicit that the template applies to the class that invokes it using the templateId and the implicit or explicit entry point class type of the template must match the class that contains the templateId. The templates specification must clarify how choices on the template entry point match the class of the invoking object. MT seconded

For / Opposed / Abstained: 7/1/5

Motion GG moved that Templates ask the ITS SIG to consider whether possible ITS solutions to this problem are justified, and if so, how to solve the problem. Ian seconds the motion

For / Opposed / Abstained: 11/0/1

MS moved that we find NHS CfH Line 31 comment that we move the template Id to a different class is non-persuasive DM seconded

For / Opposed / Abstained: 11/0/3

MT proposed and action to craft a really precise paragraph describing whether templates have meaning

Lloyd Item 8: DK motions that we accept with mod, restating 001 to: “Any template authoring tool must produce templates that are conformant to this specification. (Note that more detailed tooling conformance specifications shall be developed further with the appropriate tooling committee)”, and dropping 002-004. MS seconded

For / Opposed / Abstained: 11/0/1

Lloyd Items 10 & 11: CM moves that we reject 34 as metadata is integral to the standard, and accept 35 and 36. In addition we will move any material that references these topics to the appendix. Seconded by DK.

For / Opposed / Abstained: 5/0/1

DK moves that the spirit of Lloyds concerns needs to be accepted, but further, the conformance section needs to be re-drafted to define conformance criteria only for normative content. MS seconded

For / Opposed / Abstained: 5/0/1

Lloyd Item 9: MS moved that we accept the spirit of Lloyd’s concern in the following manner: we will research the static models and if they’re the same, then this will reference those; if they’re different we will note the differences and why, and finally, if the list is not clear in the static model definition, we will ask the author to modify the section. Seconded by CM.

For / Opposed / Abstained: 5/0/1