MnM Minutes WGM 201101 Sydney

Sunday Jan. 09 Q3

Attendees

Abdul-Malik Shakir, Andy Stechishin, Angus Millar, David Rowed, Geoff McDonnell, Grahame Grieve, Jacque Alsop, John Koisch, Lloyd McKenzie, Lorraine Constable, Mead Walker, Rene Spronk, Rik Smithies, Rob Savage, Russell Searle, Sam Heard, Sarah Gaunt, Woody Beeler,

Agenda

Establish Agenda for WGM from Hot Topics and Other Items

Steps:

• Reviewed the existing Hot Topics
  • Marked some as Resolved but not closed
  • Opted to defer some
  • Listed the rest for consideration in Sydney
• Added additional elements

Resulting list and resulting slot:

• Monday Q1
  • Core Principles Ballot Planning
  • RIM Ballot Planning
  • MIF Ballot Reconciliation
• Monday Q3
  • Patient Care and MnM re DCM modeling
• Tuesday Q3
  • Process for DAMS
• Wednesday Q2
  • Plan Action for Resolved Hot Topic Issues
• Thursday Q1
  • Data Types releases kerfluffle
• Thursday Q3
  • CMET Management
  • Static Model Quality Checklist
• Tuesday Q4
  • Role Identity

Monday Jan. 10 Q1

Attendees

Lloyd McKenzie - lloyd@lmckenzie.com Woody Beeler - woody@beelers.com Stephen Royce - stephen.royce@nehta.gov.au Bo Dagnall - bo.dagnall@hp.com

Agenda

MIF ballot reconciliation

Only one item - Keith Boon Not Persuasive - Woody/Stephen

Other ballots

Thur. Feb. 3 as first Core Principles reconciliation

Motion: Go forward with MAY ballot cycle for RIM release 4 and Core Principles Normative Ballot 3 under the existing project scope documents Woody/Bo - approved 3/0/0

RIM release 4 may be amended to include governance information (harmonization process) if the ARB gets far enough in defining how governance should be captured

Monday Jan. 10 Q3 - Joint with Patient Care in re DCM

Attendees

Bo Dagnall, Brett Esler, Carmela Couderc, Charlie Bishop, Corinne Gower, David Rowed, Grahame Grieve, Heather Leslie, Hugh Leslie, Jared Davison, Linda Bird, Lloyd McKenzie, Nweni Tun, Patrick Loyd, Rik Smithies, Sam Heard, Stephen Chu, Stephen Royce, Woody Beeler,

Intro

Opened with open forum on the "issues", steps that might be reasonable to undertake, given that the primary DCM proponents are not here, and that this meeting and the Orlando meeting precede the next ISO Meeting.

Discussion of the distinction of a need for a methodology as opposed to the definition of the role and function of DCMs, in generis.

What is purpose of DCMs?

Grieve: HL7 static models are fairly abstract in clinical content (e.g. observations), but these are too abstract to be useful in the context of creating sets of data, reports, and the like for use in a particular clinical setting. (A detailed setting). The DCM is intended to provide this function.

Question:

• Where do these fit in the "interoperability" space?
• How do we keep them aligned across settings?
• How does Clinical Statement relate - as a model against which the "templates" that derive from a DCM can be applied.

Proposal for consideration

• Patient Care to undertake as part of PC business between now and Orlando
  • Develop a set of requirements and "expectations" for the evaluation of DCM methodology
• Feasibility Demonstration Project (Team to be assembled, volunteers below)
  • Start with archetypes as the base
  • Establish adornments that map these to the V3 Ontology (Structured Vocabulary and RIM)
  • Create tools that then consume these to produce useful HL7-V3 artifacts (templates, or such)
• Present each of these in Orlando (May 2011)

Moved by Loyd/Bishop 15-0-1

Volunteers for feasibility demo project - Grahame Grieve(lead), Stephan Royce, Jared Davison, Hugh Leslie, Heather Leslie, Patrick Loyd, David Rowed

Monday Jan. 10 Q4 - Joint with Structured Documents

Attendees

Austin Kreisler, Calvin Beebe, Christof Gessner, Grahame Grieve, Jacque Alsop, Juha Mykkannen, Keith Boone, Larry McKnight, Linda Bird, Lloyd McKenzie, Nweni Tun, Ray Murakami, Rik Smithies, Rob Hausam, Sam Heard, Sarah Gaunt, Stephen Royce, Woody Beeler,

What makes Models ready for use in Documents?

Background: In CDA R3, the right hand side of the model (clinical statement side) will be the RIM directly. This will allow all existing models to be used in a CDA document. But it doesn't mean that all models are appropriate - how do we decide what models are appropriate?

• Some discussion about serialisation - but this is not important to MnM.
• Including large models presents some challenges for a document based paradigm
• Note: language and author do conduct directly, and the semantics are not unclear.
• Can only include a model if the interpretation of the model is not dependent on the context in which the model is used (including trigger event)
  • Agreement that this issue should be visible at the MnM level
  • inclusion of narrative within a computable model?

Lloyd's Notes Displayed during session

Model re-use across paradigms

• Model constraints imposed by Struc Docs on right-hand side
• Model granularity
• Information conducted from header/ControlAct wrapper
• Conduction across entries
• Context conduction of act.text
  • Human-readable = "some" header stuff, section titles, act.text
• Use of open classes in DIMs and SIMs

Decision

Create a project sponsored by MnM, OO, SOA, and SD with the scope "To define a methodology such that committees can construct domain committee models that can be leveraged in any and all of the document, message, and service paradigms, as well as the process by which such models are constrained to apply to a selected paradigm"

Calvin Beebe volunteered to draft the project proposal. To be distributed to both lists, and then for a joint call to approve