ITS Concall Minutes 20110215

Return to ITS Main Page

Return to ITS Meeting Minutes

ITS Teleconference - February 15, 2011

Called to order at 4:03 Eastern

Present: Andy Stechishin (AS), Brian Pech (), Grahame Grieve (GG), Paul Knapp (PK), Dale Nelson (DN), Gunther Shadow (GS), Keith Thompson (KT), Rick Geimer (RG), Randy Levin (RL), Lise Stevens (LS), Lloyd McKenzie (LM)

Chair: PK

Scribe: AS

Agenda

1. Role call and agenda
2. Approve Minutes of previous meeting January 25
3. Approve Minutes of Sydney WGM
4. Revisit ITS 1.2, 1.3
   • Discuss potential project ITS R1.1+ (PSS here File:ITS R1.1+ Project Scope DRAFT.doc)
5. Adjourn

Approve Jan 25 Minutes

January 25 minutes were reviewed on Feb 1, Feb 1 minutes not yet posted

Approve Sydney WGM Minutes

Motion: Approve as posted (DN/AS) unanimous

Proposed ITS 1.2 Project

Recap of discussion in Sydney by PK

• Did not see a benefit to community of maintaining 2 branches
• Discussion on MnM minutes of Thursday Q1 (Sydney WGM) specific inclusion points

PK believes that GS may have come forward with something different than was discussed in Sydney but it must also be recognized that this is not exclusive to ITS and likely includes MnM at least.

• GS provided an overview of the proposed project
  • Propose ballot R1.2 structures and R1.2 datatypes
  • A 3rd deliverable of the project would be XSLT transform to produce schemas in 1.2 format
  • All models be based on latest, but make it adaptable so that backward compatible
  • The ITS would cast the 'current state' into a backwards compatible format

• PK: cautions that there may be a breaking change, not sure you can promise no breaking change
• GS: Not promising no breaking changes, no need for forced adoption
• GG: It was decided to avoid this type of arrangement, which would make this a choice at runtime unsure why it was required when for SPL it was clear that could continue on present format
• GS: Hears is is necessary in CDA space CDA 2.1
• GG: CDA 2.1 has come to mean many things
• LS:
  • Would like a specific example
  • Current implementation is based on current RIM with DT 1
  • Mixing and matching of different ITS is very difficult
• GG:
  • Need to be measured in response to implementation issue
  • True that market forked and we (HL7) would prefer not to maintain the fork going forward
• LS:
  • SPL and ICSR share a common reference to the CPM
  • Trying to negotiate a migration pathway
• PK: Makes sense from an implementation sense, tree that discards 2 branches to "come together' a sense that what is being proposed is to continue separate branches, a divergence, a fork
• GG: Trying to find a path, hope that it is clear that we are sympathetic to the question
• PK: Time check: where should discussion occur
• GG: propose changes to project scope

PK:

• Create page on WIki dealing with topic, will give time next week discussion here
• Question to LM: would MnM be able to join next week
• ITS co-chairs would need to communicate with Structured Docs, MnM, and ArB

Adjourn

5:10 pm Eastern