Conformance Weekly Meeting 2017 06 19

Meeting Information

• Date: Monday, June 19, 2016
• Time: 10:00 am, North America Eastern Time (New York, GMT-04:00)
• Phone Number: +1 770-657-9270
• Pass Code: 644843
• Web Meeting: Uber Conference

Proposed Agenda Topics

• Request from Templates for new Project
  • Update from John Roberts
• Birth and Fetal Death Reporting IG: Two conformance questions raised by Mead Walker on listserv (Mead Walker)
  • Follow-up by Rob Snelick on research into OBX-6
• Requiring all occurrences within a data type (Craig Newman)
• Review and approve WGM minutes
• Cochair Election
• Data Types Project
  • Any updates?
• Review FHIR Resource QA Tracker
  • DSTU QA Guidelines
  • Conformance has been asked to look at this list and see if anything needs to be added:
    • Google Spreadsheet
• FHIR Conformance Review
  • First proposed topic (looking at Slide 2): Usage & Cardinality
  • Original document FHIR Constraints and Rules

Attendees

• Nathan Bunker
• Craig Newman
• Trevor
• Frank Oemig
• Rob Snelick
• John Roberts

Discussion

• PHER Invite: Thursday, June 29. Discussions about implementing backwards compatibility. Conformance is invited to join.
  • Discussion is being continued from last time.
• Update on project proposed by Templates
  • Waiting for PSS that Kai may have already started.
  • Conformance to join Templates at 2pm Central meeting
• Birth and Fetal Death Reporting question
  • Curly braces are an annotation {1} or just a 1 is fine in UCUM. Anything inside a curly brace should not have a semantic meaning.
  • Still up-in-the-air on what you should do, many different options available. PHER couldn't come up with a standard.
  • Craig can get some examples from Immunization
• Requiring all occurrences within a data type - question from PHER brought by Craig Newman
  • V2 field allows multiple occurrences and there is a type that classifies it, and it has multiple required values (e.g. address might have physical and mailing)
  • Overall consensus is, if the sender knows it then it should be sent if a required-to-support code, that seems to be a sensible answer
  • But not sure if this is enforceable this is given the current state of how things are written
  • Would like to see more formalism in this area
  • Discussed footnote on Page 17 of HL7 v2.8.2 Chapter 2B that tries to refine the definition of RE. There are issues with the definition.
    • The conflicting definition should really be defined by a different profile
    • Created from conversation 6 years ago
  • Take away: when writing 2+ chapter, need to very explicit on the expectations are for these requirements. Need to look at value sets and how they interact with field usage.
    • Local guides need to explicitly document their expectations. This is a stop-gap for now.
    • Conformance leans towards reporting all, but it should be documented so it's clear.
• Approve WGM
  • Rob needs to review again
• Data Types
  • Need to make sure the data types are named to not conflict with current data-types
  • Need to discuss data type names across versions that serve the same purpose
  • Will discuss this more on the next call