July 3rd, Templates Minutes

Meeting began at 21:00 GMT

Attendees:
Grahame Grieve
John Koisch
Galen Mulrooney (scribe)
Mark Shafarman (chair)
Ian Townend

Issue 33: GG moved that we find persuasive with mod - we will clarify that the profiles may be defined but cannot be referenced as profiles in a CDA document. IT seconded.
For/Against/Abstain: 4/0/0

Issue 36: GG moved that we find persuasive and declare sections 1-4 as normative and the following sections as informative. IT seconded.
For/Against/Abstain: 4/0/0

Issue 37: GG moved that we find persuasive with mod - This section was removed. We have defined our own format in place of MIF which unambiguously solves the definition problem, and there is consensus on how to solve the existing template problem. See ballot Item #26. GM seconded.
For/Against/Abstain: 4/0/0

Issue 38: GG moved that we find persuasive with mod - this is an item for future work - we will bring the issue to M&M in September. IT seconded.
For/Against/Abstain: 4/0/0

Issue 39: GG moved that we find persuasive with mod - See ballot Item #26. GM seconded.
For/Against/Abstain: 4/0/0

Issue 40: GG moved that we find persuasive with mod - See ballot Item #26. GM seconded.
For/Against/Abstain: 4/0/0

Issue 49: GG moved that we find persuasive with mod - Completely rewrote this section of the document after much discussion. Moved description of various application roles to a life cycle section, some of the registry conformance statements to comments in the registry section, and rewrote the conformance section to focus on templates and instances. IT seconded.
For/Against/Abstain: 4/0/0

Issue 59: GG moved that we find persuasive - moved all references to methodological enhancements to the future work section. IT seconded.
For/Against/Abstain: 4/0/0

Issue 63: GG moved that we find persuasive - moved all references to methodological enhancements to the future work section. IT seconded.
For/Against/Abstain: 4/0/0

Issue 72: GG moved that we find persuasive with mod - moved all references to methodological enhancements to the future work section\, and it is worth publishing what we have agreed on as DSTU. IT seconded.
For/Against/Abstain: 4/0/0

Issue 2: GG moved that we find persuasive with mod - we moved the Registry Conformance Statement 12 to the registry section and make it be conditional in that there are circumstances under which folks might want to discover and collaborate on incomplete templates; thus template registries may opt to accept templates that are not production-ready, however, while registries will not required to support incomplete templates, registries must ensure that templates that are marked as production-ready be valid tempates DSTU. IT seconded.
For/Against/Abstain: 4/0/0

Issue 5: GG moved that we find persuasive - we removed the section. IT seconded.
For/Against/Abstain: 4/0/0

Issue 7: GG moved that we find persuasive with mod - same as conf-12. IT seconded.
For/Against/Abstain: 4/0/0

Issue 28: GG moved that we find this not persuasive - they can only be constrained if they can be represented in the RIM, so the language stands. IT seconded.

Issue 29: GG moved that we find this persuasive with mod - See ballot Item #26. GM seconded.
For/Against/Abstain: 4/0/0

Issue 54: GG moved that we find this not related - This part was removed altogether as part of a different disposition. Grahame to identify the other disposition. GM seconded.
For/Against/Abstain: 4/0/0

Issue 56: GG moved that we find this persuasive - all reference to "IM" have been removed. GM seconded.
For/Against/Abstain: 4/0/0

Issue 57: GG moved that we find this persuasive - change range to set. IT seconded.
For/Against/Abstain: 4/0/0

Issue 61: GG moved that we find this persuasive. IT seconded.
For/Against/Abstain: 4/0/0

Issue 66: GG moved that we find this persuasive with mod - this field is conditional - it must be populated if it's in the registry. GM seconded.
For/Against/Abstain: 4/0/0

Meeting adjourned at 21:50 GMT