Feb 14th, Templates Minutes

Meeting began 21:00 GMT

Attendees:

Grahme Grieve, GG

Galen Mulrooney, GM (chair)

Mark Shafarman, MS

Ian Townend, IT

GG distributed an updated version of the templates spec

GG motioned that we accept the changes to section 1.4 as written in response to various comments. MS seconded. 3/0/0

Regarding ballot line number 2, GG motioned that we accept as Persuasive with Mod, with the following rationale: "The problem here is that "interoperability contract" was a badly chosen term. As agreed in committee, I have changed it to "interoperability Paradigm" and beefed up the clarification to clarify why paradigms matter in the template specification" MS seconded. 3/0/0

Regarding ballot line number 3, GG motioned that the issue raised is not related, as it was based on a misunderstanding of the concept being proposed, thus, the section will be re-written to be more clear. MS seconded. 3/0/0

Regarding ballot line number 11, GG motioned that we accept as Persuasive with Mod, replacing "semantics are correct" with "is valid". IT seconded. 3/0/0

Regarding ballot line number 19, The SIG voted in San Diego to accept as Persuasive with Mod, with the comment: "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." GG motioned that we accept the re-written version as fulfilling this requirement. MS suggested a modification to the text, which GG incorporated. IT seconded. 3/0/0.

Regarding ballot line number 30, the responder argued that "How can you be balloting this as DSTU if you haven't resolved how this will be done? The logical mechanism is with a minimum/maximum model, similar to how we handle stubs, though this will have an impact on how we define template id references." GG motioned that we find this non-persuasive, as we believe that it's not worth holding the entire specification up to resolve the implementation of incomplete templates but we do need to note the requirement since it is known and It's work to do. Btw this section has been folded into section 4.5. IT seconded. 3/0/0

Regarding ballot line number 31, GG motioned that we accept as Persuasive, and will remove the offending text from the document. IT seconded. 3/0/0.

Next week's meeting: GG will assemble a list of ballot items to be voted on as a block - primarily A-T's and A-Q's. This will be distributed via the listserve a couple days before the call so folks can review. Also, it is desirable to invite Lloyd and other interested parties (particularly M&M and/or Board Members) to debate the notion of specifying application behavior in an HL7 Ballot. Lloyd seems to argue that this is against HL7's normal practices. Yet others argue that application behavior has always been implicitly defined in 2.x, and is explicitly being defined today in projects such as the EHR and HSSP. As Lloyd feels strongly about this and will not withdraw his negative, we need to find resolution within a larger group, or will be forced to call a vote to find his position non-persuasive.

Meeting ended 22:00 GMT