INM Action Items

Open Action Items. Each item may be edited individually. New item numbers in the 2xxx range

Back to Infrastructure and Messaging TC

ITEM: 108 Closed(see 1076)

== ITEM: 1 == Opened: 12-Jan-03 We need to document difference between abstract specification and XML ITS DataTypes. Andrew H will get list of differences from Paul Biron.

• 05-Jan-04 , Grahame Grieve , New , XML
  • INM Telcon: Grahame reported that this is still in progress
• 06-May-04 , Grahame Grieve , Open , XML
  • Still open – slated for release 2
• 30-Sep-04 , Grahame Grieve , Open , XML
  • CQ WGM: deferred and slated for R2
• 24-Jan-05 , Grahame Grieve , Open , XML
  • INM WGM Orlando: no change
• 02-May-05 , Grahame Grieve , Open , XML
  • INM WGM Noordwijkerhout: no change
• 05-May-05 , Grahame Grieve , Defered , XML
  • we still think this is a good idea, but no progress yet. May happen as part of R2
• 15-Sep-05 , Paul Biron , Open , XML
  • 20050915 WGM Give to Paul – part of a way to generate requirements for R2
• 28-Nov-05 , Paul Biron , Reviewed , XML
  • 20051128 Paul will try to have content for Phoenix
• 28-Nov-05 , Paul Biron , Reviewed , XML
  • 20060626 Reassign to Grahame
• 26-Jun-06 , Grahame , Reassigned, XML

== 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: 27 == Opened: 26-Jan-05 Old Item: 215 Present Units proposal to Facilitators Roundtable on Jan 27

• 26-Jan-05 , Grahame Grieve , New , vocab
  • INM/Vocab WGM Orlando: Agreed to prepare a proposal for Faciliator’s Roundtable. Within the PQ datatype Unit: change from CS to CV and allow the domain to be set in the model. Could set a domain and call it
• 04-May-05 , Grahame Grieve , Open , vocab
  • Changed from New to Open, assigned Grahame.
• 14-Sep-05 , Grahame Grieve , Open , vocab
  • 20050914: IM WGM San Diego: Close – Stan has developed proposal
• 28-NOV-05 , Grahame Grieve , Open , vocab
  • 20051128: Open pending verification

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!.
• 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 (MCCI)

• 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.

== ITEM: 179 == Opened: 12-Jan-05 Old Item: 946

Explore Single set of rules for sending Attachments with v3 messages and documents

• 12-Jan-05 , INM Chairs , Open , Vocab
  • Added by Larson following receipt of email from Bob Dolin on as follows: “We’ve created two new MIME types for use with structured documents that we’d like to officially register with INM. The first (text/x-hl7-text+xml) is used to constrain Act.text. The second (text/x-hl7-title+xml) is used to constrain Act.title, which was changed from ST to ED datatype at the last harmonization meeting. Each of these types are undergoing ballot - the former is part of CDA and SPL, the latter is part of SPL. Can you let me know how to proceed?.”

Later conversation with Bob revealed these 2 new MIME types were heard and approved in RIM Harmonization. What do we do with them now? Is this a v3 or a v2 issue or both? Should these items be added to v2 t Imported Table 0834 “MIME Types” for use in component 3 “Type of Data” in the RP Reference Pointer data type? If so, it would be an HL7 added value to an external table. Or, should it be added to External Table 0291 “Subtype of Referenced Data” as an HL7 enhancement. It would live there alongside our other HL7 enhancement

• 26-Jan-05 , INM Chairs , Open , Vocab
  • INM/Vocab WGM: Add them to v2.7. Grahame will add to the data types document for release 2.
• 04-May-05 , INM Chairs , Open , Vocab
  • INM/Vocab WGM Noordwijkerhout: Confirmed that these are planned for v2.7 and release 2 of v3 data types.
• 16-Sep-05 , INM Chairs , Open , Vocab
  • 20050916: Need to confirm that these changes are on the change list for 2.7 and for V3 Data Types
• 28-Nov-05 , Paul Biron and Doug Pratt, Open , Vocab
  • 20051128 INM Telcon: Paul will talk to Bob about text/x-hl7-text+xml. Doug will take on for V2.

• 2006050508 InM WGM San Antonio: Doug Pratt, open
  • 20060508 InM San Antonio: Awaiting v2.7
• 2006050508 InM WGM San Antonio: Doug Pratt, open
  • 20060508 InM San Antonio: Verify with Bob Dolin that the issue is inconsistencies in MIME type table in V2. Do we understand this? Is it ED vs. multipart MIME? Add as hot topic in Fall WGM as well. Doug, to send em to Bob.

== 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: 965 == Closed: 26-Jun-2006

== 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.

== ITEM: 975 == Closed: 26-Jun-2006

== 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: 1004 == Opened: 03-Oct-05 Old Item: 0 20051003: Post Project Scope for Data Types Abstract and related documents XML ITS DT and UML.

• 03-Oct-05 , Grahame Grieve , New , ITS
  • 20051003: Post Project Scope for Data Types Abstract and related documents XML ITS DT and UML.

20051114: open, deferred to May ballot

• • 20060112 PHX WGM: No change

== 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

== 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

== 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

== 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

== 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

== 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.

ITEM: 1027

Opened: 20051129

Fix Escape Character reference to v2 ED data type, discovered issue, from e-mail from Alberto Sáez Torres

• 20051129, Tony Julian, New
  • Page 2-13 , in Figure 2-1. "Delimiter values" The paragraph: "Escape character for use with any field represented by an ST, TX or FT data type, or for use with the data (fourth) component of the ED data type." Should say (in my opinion) "?or for use with the data (fifth) component of the ED data type"
• 20051129, Tony Julian, V2
  • Research indicates that this has been wrong since the figure was included. I suggest that this is a technical correction - From Substantivity Guide: Technical corrections that implement the original intent of the committee. For example, if a committee meant to add an attribute to one segment, and it was mistakenly added to another; this can be fixed.
  • E-mail sent to INM and ARB lists to solicit opinion

• 2006050508 InM WGM San Antonio: Tony Julian, open

ITEM: 1028

Opened: 20051129

Change v2 maximum length to be non-normative, suggested by an e-mail from Alberto Sáez Torres

• 20051129, Tony Julian, New

In Chapter 2.5.3.2 "The maximum length is not of conceptual importance in the abstract message or the HL7 coding rules. The length of a field is normative." Should say "..The length of a field is not normative." (In my opinion)

• 20051129: email response from J Larson:
  • I believe it would be a substantive change to insert the word NOT since the ARB has ruled that length changes are substantive. As we know, not everyone has agreed with this ruling, but it is the one we need to live with.
• 20051129, Tony Julian, V2
  • Research indicates that the text 'The length of a field is normative' has been in the standard since 2.3. I will communicate with "Older" members of INM/CQ to gather their understanding.
  • E-mail sent to INM and ARB lists to solicit opinion.
• 20060104: Joann Larson (an older member of InM)
  • I would say that this is a moot point at present because InM approved proposal #435 regarding the removal of "maximum length" from the chapters at the San Diego WGM 20050916 by a vote of 6-0-1. Length will be addressed in chapter 2B and in implementation specs. In v.7 we will be balloting this proposed change.

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.

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)">

• 2006050508 InM WGM San Antonio: Frank Oemig, open
  • 20060508 InM San Antonio: Remains open

ITEM: 1031

Opened: 20060109

Fix the InM acronym in the Mission Statement and forward to HL7 HQ. (Admin)

• 20060109, Tony Julian, new
• 20060508 WGM San Antonio, open
  • 20060508 WGM San Antonio: Tony will send updated copy today.

ITEM: 1033

Opened: 20060109

Proposal 965 – verify with MNM how this is a legal construct. (MFMI)

• 20060109, Robert Grant, new

ITEM: 1050

Opened: 20060313

Send pubs documentation structure (sequence of sections) to Miroslav Koncar, for restructuring of the ATS document

• 20060313, Joann Larson, new
• 20060313, Larson: email sent to Miroslav as follows: The current Publishing Facilitator's Guide can be found on the v3 Ballot site under Background Documents.

The section of the ATS that is not consistent with the PFG is the Preface. See section 9.3.

The Preface is to be "numbered" and labeled as follows: i. Notes to Readers ii. Acknowledgements iii. Changes From Previous Release

The Overview requirements appear to have gotten muddled since I wrote this ballot comment last summer. The PFG shows an inconsistency between section 9.4 and the model in section 1 and 1.1. When I questioned Helen Stevens about the correct format last summer, she gave me the model as it appears in 1 and 1.1. Given the current discrepancy I believe it is better to not make any format change to the Overview until the PFG stabilizes.

In short, this line item should probably be disposed of as Persuasive with Mod. Fix the Preface, but leave the Overview alone until such time as there is a clear statement of proper format.

• 20060324: larson: email sent to Miroslav stating: The Publishing Facilitator's Guide has been updated so that the instructions on how to format the Overview section are clear and consistent. There is now a section 9.4.1 which reads as follows:

"The Overview’s first sub-section SHALL be entitled “Introduction and Scope” a this section SHALL contain a description of the Document at a minimum sufficient for a person unfamiliar with the work to understand the document’s business, scope and relationship with HL7. The Introduction and Scope section SHALL also explain the need for a Specification."

The Publishing Facilitator's Guide is in ballot in the May 2006 ballot cycle as an informative document. Pubs would appreciate any feedback you might have if you care to comment on it.

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

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

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: 1060

was Item 32 re: Dynamic Discovery Message - moved responsibility to MnM

• 20050127: INM WGM: ask the Conformance SIG to work on a dynamic discovery message for supported features by the receiver (profile ids, application roles, interactions, responseModeCodes)
• 20060508: InM WGM Refered to MnM
• 20060517: Larson: Referral not documented in the minutes. Has this been done? Time did not permit discussion during Monday Q4 at San Antonio.
• 20060520: Rene: Although idea was brought forward to InM as a proposal, those that brought forward the proposal have lost interest in solving this using v3 interactions. Suggest to close this action item, and to re-initiate discussion only if a) another use-case is brought forward, or b) the conformance SIG requests that we find a solution for the use-case. Frank Oemig (a Conformance SIG co-chair) indicated that they didn't see a current need for discovery interactions. Suggest to close.

ITEM: 1061

V2.6 Add event type R25 to Table 0003 in v2.6 as a technical correction.

• 20060109 InM WGM: Add event type R25 to Table 0003 in v2.6 as a technical correction.
• 20060508 InM WGM: Done in V2.6 sent for publication.

ITEM: 1062

ask implementers if anybody is actually using QueryByparameter.ResponseElementGroupId

• 20060508, INM co-chairs, new, MCAI
  • Plan is to remove this attribute, as it causes problems with the dynamic model, especially Receiver Responsibilities. Create harmonization proposal to delete it if nobody uses it.
  • 20060525 Rene: e-mail has gone out to impl and INM lists to check whether or not this is used
  • 20060608 Rene: no response. See Harmonization: Remove ResponseElementGroupId from QueryByparameter class

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.

ITEM: 1064

Opened: 20060508

formally document updatemode/auditing methodology in the abstract DT spec.

• 20060508, new, XML SIG, Abstract data types

ITEM: 1065

Opened: 20060508

Extend proposal 971 by Pharmacy SIG requirement, and to check moodCodes

• 20060508, Michael van Campen/Rene, new, COMT
  • 20060508: new action item created as result of formal approval of 971.

ITEM: 1066

Opened: 20060508

Create a definition for Committee Ambassador for the new INM DMP, Admin

• 20060508, Rene Spronk, new, Admin
• 20060525 See also 1071. Draft is being circulated on the INM list.

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.

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.

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.

ITEM: 1071

Opened: 20060508

20060508: Create new wording in the DMP to reflect the chair can set the mode of discussion to allow for free form discussion. , Admin

• 20060508 San Antonio WGM, Rene Spronk, new
  • 20060508 San Antonio WGM: New item. Update DMP to reflect the following: The chair can set the discussion mode: 1) formal Robert’s Rules; 2) suspend Robert’s Rules for designated period of time for free form discussion leading up to a motion; 3) suspend Robert’s Rules for designate period of time for free form discussion of a controversial topic which might or might not lead to a motion.
  • 200605020 Suggested wording reads: "In the event that the committee wishes to hold a free form discussion on a (controversial) topic, one that may, or may not, result in a motion, the INM TC shall use the following procedure: The presiding co-chair of the committee will announce a designated period of time which can be used for free form discussion of a (controversial) topic. Given the nature of free-form discussions the order of those speaking as part of the discussion won’t be enforced by the presiding co-chair. Roberts Rules will apply in all other matters of process. Motions may be made by discussion participants during or after the free form discussion."
  • 20060525 Rene: first drafts have been sent to the INM list. Minor changes have been suggested.

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.

ITEM: 1073

Opened 20060113 Phoenix WGM

20060113 WGM Agreed to fix the ballot reconciliation spreadsheet for the drop down to match the correct dispositions etc.

• 20060113 WGM, Tony Julian, new
  • 20060113 Phoenix WGM: Agreed to fix the ballot reconciliation spreadsheet for the drop down to match the correct dispositions etc.

• 20060508 WGM, Tony Julian, open
  • 20060508 San Antonio WGM: Remains open

ITEM: 1074

Opened 20060508 San Antonio WGM

20060508: make sure that the changes promised in the 2.B reconciliation package have been applied.

• 20060508 WGM, John Lyon, new, conform
  • 20060508: Opened. It appears that the changes promised in the 2.B reconciliation package might not have been applied
  • 20060508 WGM, Jenni said she would look at this

ITEM: 1077

Opened 20060508 San Antonio WGM

20060508: Modify section 2.6 of chapter 2 as follows: 1. Add Caution to figure 2-1: Receivers should be made aware that the sender may omit the escape and subcomponent delimeters. 2. Re-order the items so that they are in the proper sequential order.

• 20060508 San Antonio WGM, Tony Julian, new, v2
  • 20060508 WGM San Antonio: Motion made and carried to apply cautionary language to figure 2.1 in section 2.6 in chapter 2 and to re-order the components so that they are in proper sequential order.
  • 20050511WGM: Change has been made, and content sent to HQ.
  • 20050522 Telcon: Waiting for preview of V2.6

ITEM: 1078

Opened 20060508 San Antonio WGM

20060508: Clarify section 2.14.9.2 of chapter 2 to reflect that 2 to 4 characters may be present in the MSH-2.

• 20060508 San Antonio WGM, Tony Julian, new, v2
  • 20060508 WGM San Antonio: Motion made and carried to: replace in section 2.14.9.2 of chapter 2, the sentence “This field contains the four characters in the following order: the component separator, repetition separator, escape character, and subcomponent separator.” WITH "This field contains the two to four characters in the following order: the component separator, repetition separator, escape character, and subcomponent separator"
  • 20050511WGM: Change has been made, and content sent to HQ.
  • 20050522 Telcon: Waiting for preview of V2.6

ITEM: 1079

Opened 20060508 San Antonio WGM

20060508: Check with ARB if changes described in Action Items 1076, 1077 and 1078can be applied to v2.6 as editorial changes

• 20060508 San Antonio WGM, Tony Julian, new, v2
  • 20060508 WGM San Antonio: Opened. The group agreed that the changes voted on as described in Action Items 1076, 1077 and 1078 should be applied as part of the upcoming v2.6 membership level 3 ballot cycle if the ARB allows.
  • 20050511WGM: Change has been made, and content sent to HQ.
  • 20050522 Telcon: Waiting for preview of V2.6

ITEM: 1080

Opened 20060509 San Antonio WGM

20060509: InM to review IHE’s choice of ITS and wrappers for consistency with HL7.

• 20060509 San Antonio WGM, TBD, new, IHE
  • 20060509 WGM San Antonio: Slide 12 of slide presentation by Harry Soloman: “IHE wants to make choices today from ITS & wrappers consistent with approved stds and HL7 direction.”
• 20060612 InM Telcon, J Larson, open, IHE
  • 20060612: InM Telcon: Need to check with Harry Solomon if this is still an issue. If so, the document needs to be posted so InM can review it. It may be that this should be done as part of the regular IHE public comment period. We need to know in detail what IHE is planning to do with the wrappers.
• 20060612: J larson, open IHE
  • J Larson: email sent to Harry Solomon and Charles Parisot inquiring if Action Item is still relevant and, if so, if they could send relevant documents for review.

ITEM: 1081

Opened 20060509 San Antonio WGM

20060509: InM to review IHE’s choices in Web Services for consistency with HL7.

• 20060509 San Antonio WGM, TBD, new, IHE
  • 20060509 WGM San Antonio: Slide 13 of slide presentation by Harry Soloman: "IHE needs to make choices in web services consistent with (1) HL7 V3 messaging, (2) ebXML registry and (3) other web services used in healthcare that are not standardized by HL7 (e.g. federated user authentication, directories)."
• 20060612 InM Telcon, J Larson, open, IHE
  • 20060612: InM Telcon: Need to check with Harry Solomon if this is still an issue. If so, the document needs to be posted so InM can review it. It may be that this should be done as part of the regular IHE public comment period.
• 20060612: J larson, open IHE
  • J Larson: email sent to Harry Solomon and Charles Parisot inquiring if Action Item is still relevant and, if so, if they could send relevant documents for review.

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?.

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