This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here
CS May 2012 WGM Minutes
Revision as of 20:12, 17 June 2012 by Riksmithies (talk | contribs)
Attendees: Rik Smithies, William Goossen, Michael Tan, Stephen Chu, Elaine Ayers, Kevin Coonan
- Update from Patient Care - William Goosen
- 4 areas passed ballot this cycle
- HL7 Version 3 Standard: Care Provision Domain Information Model, Release 1
- HL7 Version 3 Standard: Care Provision; Care Record Topic, Release 1
- HL7 Version 3 Standard: Care Provision; Care Transfer Topic, Release 1
- HL7 Version 3 Standard: Care Provision; Queries Care Record Topic, Release 1
- also current work to harmonize with PA on encounter
- 4 areas passed ballot this cycle
- Ballot reconciliation
- No negatives received
- Pharmacy alignment - further work at Q4, CS at Pharmacy
- Next ballot
- Outstanding change requests, 044 Patient Care about allergies, 106 ReasonCode for PC and PA.
- Also would like to remove Topics, and stop maintaining 2 versions of the Supporting Clinical Statement, both universal and minimal versions. These are identical, seems pointless.
- There was an e-vote a while ago, but it did not get quorum:
- 1. Remove the Clinical Statement Topics - as topics will be handled via templates in the respective domains.
- 2. Update the Supporting Clinical Statement (universal) CMET and drop the Supporting Clinical Statement (Minimal) CMET.
- (new) Motion to approve points 1 and 2 above, proposed William Goosen, seconded Michael Tan. Passed (For 5, against 0, abstain 0)
- Update on ballot Quality Analysis Report (which is part of what is generated in to the ballot material)
- Invalid Concept Domain References: _RoleClassMutualRelationship and c_NotDefined
- _RoleClassMutualRelationship is new in last ballot and probably a new mistake
- Still unsure what c_NotDefined is. (Chat with Woody later, he is also unsure, but hoping to find out more)
- Some future work items mentioned:
- Respond to CMET list clean up initiative (email 22 Feb.)
- Remove old CMET. How do we deprecate it?
- Product Brief - email 29th March
- http://www.hl7.org/implement/standards/product_brief.cfm?product_id=40
- Review main text of content, some parts don’t make sense.
- 3 year plan - we dont have one
- Dave Hamill reply to co-chairs 10 May
- From: Dave Hamill (HL7) [1]
- Sent: 10 April 2012 16:01
- To: hans.buitendijk@siemens.com
- Cc: Rik Smithies; patrick.e.loyd@gmail.com
- Subject: RE: CS 3-Year Plan
- 3-Year Plans do not require a Project Scope Statement. They are just entered into Project Insight and can be very high level.
- To remove the 3YP red flag, send me a description of your anticipated maintenance work and I’ll enter it into Project Insight. I’ll enter it into Project Insight similar to the items below [not shown]... you’ll notice that each of these items are a placeholder for annual maintenance work. That will take care of your red flag.
- Dave Hamill reply to co-chairs 10 May
- Need for a new project for maintenance and housekeeping
- Idea to check that the CS schema that is in the ballot is good, anecdotal evidence that it is not, such as this mail to list from Mead, that implies the element names get mixed up. (Kevin Coonan said at this point that he has/is using the CS schema with MDHT).
- From: owner-mnm@lists.hl7.org [2] On Behalf Of dmead@comcast.net
- Sent: 28 July 2011 18:25
- To: Modeling & Methodology
- Subject: Source Of, Target Of
- Hi,
- The ICSR is using an act choice structure based on Clinical Statement. In both ICSR and CS, there are recusive act relationships to allow ***chaining things. In both, again, the RMIM lables show the act relationships as "sourceOf", "targetOf", 'sourceOf1"
- I am now finding that, when this gets translated to XML, I am seeing, as elements, "outboundRelationship1, 'outboundRelationship2, ***"inboundRelationship".
- What is the mapping here? Is it source - outbound, target to inbound?
- sourceOf - outbound1?
- sourceOf1 - outbound2?
- Mead
- create examples against schema
- ongoing RIM changes etc
- chase up any mentions x-domains, harmonization issues etc
- Idea to check that the CS schema that is in the ballot is good, anecdotal evidence that it is not, such as this mail to list from Mead, that implies the element names get mixed up. (Kevin Coonan said at this point that he has/is using the CS schema with MDHT).
