This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here
2016-06-17 PC CIMI POC Call Minutes
Revision as of 15:24, 17 June 2016 by Jlyle (talk | contribs) (Created page with " <!-- LOOK FOR THE APPROPRIATE SECTION ****** TO ENTER INFORMATION--> Back to PC CIMI POC Minutes ==Minutes Template== ===Meeting Information=== {|border="1" cellpadding="...")
Back to PC CIMI POC Minutes
Minutes Template
Meeting Information
HL7 PC-CIMI-POC Meeting Minutes Location: HL7 WGM, Montreal |
Date: 2016-06-17 Time: 9:00-10:30 ET | ||
Facilitator | Jay Lyle | Note taker(s) | Jay Lyle |
Attendee | Name | Affiliation
| |
y | Richard Esmond | PenRad | |
Galen Mulrooney | JP Systems | ||
y | Jay Lyle | JP Systems / VA | |
y | Harold Solbrig | Mayo | |
y | Susan Matney | Intermountain | |
y | Joey Coyle | Intermountain | |
Laura Heerman Langford | Intermountain | ||
Agenda
Agenda Topics
- . Semantic binding: Three concepts (model, code, observable), Five candidate slots.
- . root bound to "observable," to "observable descendants," or left to node model?
- . Observable model gaps (e.g., "technique" vs "procedure")
- . ADL style
Minutes
Minutes/Conclusions Reached:
- We agree that the three bindings in play are distinct
- the observable concept
- the thing represented by the LOINC code
- the entire model
- We agree that the entire model is represented by the archetype id
- This makes a root node model binding unnecessary
- Though a question remains: what identifier or code is used to recognize isosemantic models?
- We agree that the "code" element (in an observation) is where a LOINC code goes
- "Code" is a type, so it's not very descriptive. Perhaps this could be renamed to something expressing "observed concept that might contain
Meeting Outcomes
Actions
|
Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items
|
© 2012 Health Level Seven® International. All rights reserved.