2017 ARB SanAntonio WGM

2017 January WGM SanAntonio

Sunday Q3 with SGB

• January 15, 2017 SGB/ARB Agenda

Sunday Q5 with TSC

• January 15, 2017 TSC Sunday Evening Meeting

Monday Q2

1. Maverick A
   • V3 Support Discussion ARB Joint with interested parties:

Thursday Q3

1. PSS for LOI
2. Planning based on Monday Q2 V3 Discussion
3. Things that came up this week.
4. Other business and planning
   • Open issues
   • Agenda until next WGM.
   • When do we meet next WGM?
5. Adjournment

Meeting Information Monday Q2

HL7 ArB/MnM Work Group Meeting Minutes Location: Maverick-A, Hyatt Riverwalk, San Antonio, TX, US		Date: 20170116 Time: 11:00am U.S. Eastern
Facilitator	Duteau, Jean/Constable, Lorraine	Note taker(s)	Julian, Tony
Attendee	Name	Affiliation
R	Bond,Andy	NEHTA
.	Constable, Lorraine	Constable Consulting Inc.
.	Hyland, Mario	AEGIS
.	Julian, Tony	Mayo Clinic
.	Knapp, Paul	Pknapp Consulting
.	Kubick, Wayne	HL7 CTO
.	Loyd, Patrick	ICode Solutions
.	Lynch, Cecil	Accenture
R	Milosevic, Zoran	Deontik Pty Ltd
R	Stechishin,Andy	CANA Software and Service Ltd.
Guests
.	Nelson, Dale	Accenture
.	Grow, Richard	U.S. Department of Veterans affairs
.
Legend
X	Present
.	Absent
R	Regrets
Quorum Requirements (Co-chair + 3) Met: Yes

Minutes Monday Q2

1. Call to Order
2. Future of V3 in HL7 - Jean Duteau
   • Jean introduced the topic.
   • Review Thursday Q5
   • Jean will send a report to Wayne Kubrick & Ken McCaslin
   • Statement of Problem
     • Number of v3 artifacts being balloted is significantly reducint
       • Modeling landscape has changed
       • Huge focus on FHIR
       • ONC has adopted C-CDA as a standard for exchange
     • Expert V3 knowledge will diminish over time
     • Tooling has external outdated technology dependencies, supported by volunteers
     • M&M is struggling to support the foundation
   • Catalog of artifacts
     • Current STU
       • Specifications
       • Implementation guides e.g. terminfo
       • Standards
     • Current Balloted
       • Standards
       • DAMS
       • Implementation guides
     • Tooling artifacts
       • RMIM Designer (Dale says 2013 works)
       • Rosetree
       • V3 PubDb Access Based
       • V3 Generator - ANT/XSLT
       • V3 Publishing
   • Support Requirements
     • Foundational Artifacts
       • RIM
       • Datatypes
       • Vocabulary
       • Core principles R2 balloted but in limbo, R3 started, but stopped do to lack of volunteers
         • MIF based
         • PC is looking at changes to negation indicators
       • MIF Changes - EST can support
       • V3 Tooling
         • RMIM Designer - relies on Visio(dale says 2013 works)
         • Rosetree
       • V3 PubDb Access Based
       • V3 Generator - ANT/XSLT
         • Bound together with twine and duct-tape
       • V3 Publishing - needed to build ballot, STU and Normative V3 domains
     • Risk Areas:
       1. What if a RIM structure change was requested?
       2. Change RIM UML
       3. Update RIM Core Mifs
     • Support for Normative and STU standards.
       • Published and support needs are minimal
       • Ned to keep Foundational artifacts as Normative, e.e Extensions and re-affirmations as required
         • Questions
           1. Do any non-foundational Standards need updates?
              • CDA and Common Product model need updates
           2. RIM Normative Edition Balloting - how often do these need to happen?
         • Hugh- to what extent do we need to keep normative. Do we need to do reaffirmation?
         • Wayne - we plan to remove the ANSI logo
         • Mead - need to know what is being used. The users may want changes to content.
         • Paul - may need updates to new needs.
         • Jean - need to know what is in use. Reaffirmation is trivial.
   • Communication
     • Realistic Status -
     • Restrict communication to modelling
     • As support of tools and ballots goes, so goes support of V3 modelling
     • Is there a need to push the onus on producing material out to the organizations creating it, with minimal HL7 International support?
     • How do we frame the message - i.e. this isn't the death of V3, and not FHIR vs V3.

What do we need to do

1. • Develop a list of known 'keepers'
   • Develop a list of standards in use?
     • Include affiliates
   • Expose artifacts and dependencies
   • Which artifacts do we need MIF? UML? HMD?
   • Develop a plan to reaffirm or withdraw
     • Withdraw means still a standard, but just not ANSI accredited

Meeting Information Thursday Q3

HL7 ArB Work Group Meeting Minutes Location: Garden Terrace #135, Hyatt Riverwalk, San Antonio, TX, US		Date: 20170119 Time: 3:00pm U.S. Eastern
Facilitator	Julian, Tony	Note taker(s)	Julian, Tony
Attendee	Name	Affiliation
R	Bond,Andy	NEHTA
X	Constable, Lorraine	Constable Consulting Inc.
X	Hyland, Mario	AEGIS
X	Julian, Tony	Mayo Clinic
X	Knapp, Paul	Pknapp Consulting
.	Kubick, Wayne	HL7 CTO
X	Loyd, Patrick	ICode Solutions
R	Lynch, Cecil	Accenture
R	Milosevic, Zoran	Deontik Pty Ltd
R	Stechishin,Andy	CANA Software and Service Ltd.
Guests
X	Shakir, Abdul-Malik	HI3
X	Duteau, Jean	DDI
X	McDaniel, MaryKay	Cognosante, LLC
X	Murphy, Erin	Cognosante, LLC
X	Baker, J.D.	Sparx Systems
X	Walker, D. Mead	Mead Walker Consulting
.
Legend
X	Present
.	Absent
R	Regrets
Quorum Requirements (Co-chair + 3) Met: Yes

Minutes Thursday Q3

1. Methodology
   • Motion to approve LOI (Patrick/Lorraine) 3-0-0
   • Motion to make meeting joint with MnM (Lorraine/Patrick)3- 0-0
   • V3 discussion
     • What is 'V3'?
       • V3 messaging is RIM, DAMS, etc.
       • CDA is NOT V3 messaging, but based on RIM.
     • MnM Will do inventory of v3 products.
       • Withdraw unused/old content
     • What does it mean to publish a new V3 Domain?
       • Weak link is tooling.
       • Can refactor what it means.
     • We need to identify the customers for V3.
     • Focus on information gathering.
     • Tooling/Publishing of Lists/tools
     • Methodology needs revisiting - lessons from CDA and FHIR.
       • Why change the methodology?
         • Identify common things.
         • Each model has its own schema.
       • Lesson from CDA starts with constrained model. - CDA is being misused.
       • Are customers asking for a single schema.
     • Flaws in Methodology cause lack of new development
     • Sequoia/NHIN, SPL, Adverse event are using V3.
     • Static schemas were good
     • Connectathons are good.
     • Choice in schemas is good.
     • RIM ITS is a single schema.
   • Library activities
     1. List of artifacts from Lynn
     2. Which are the ones we care about (v3 Family)
     3. Ask workgroups for which we can withdraw/maintain.
     4. Determine the tooling requirements
     5. Determine alternative tools for essential artifacts.
        • Consider outsourcing - let 3rd party derive schemas.
     6. Why do we have 4 sets of data-types.
        • Can we fix it - organizational will.
     7. Conformance should be the same.
2. ARB/SGB Sunday Q3
3. Mon Q2 ARB only - Impromptu joint if appropriate.
4. THU Q3 ARB only
   • Continue 3:00 Eastern starting on 1/31/2017.

Todos

• Tony will notify Riki of ARB Approval
• Mario will try to find the missing content from http://wiki.hl7.org/index.php?title=SAIF_Artifact_Definition_Project
• MnM will look at those mapping from V3 into FHIR with problems with data-type variations.