This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here
Difference between revisions of "CGIT concall 20150216"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| (4 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
=Minutes from Meeting= | =Minutes from Meeting= | ||
| + | ==Attendees== | ||
| + | *Nathan Bunker | ||
| + | *Rob Snelick | ||
| + | *Ioana Singureanu | ||
| + | *Frank Oemig | ||
| + | *Mario Hyland | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Update from AEGIS conformance activities== | ||
| + | *Working with HL7 leadership looking for funding for conformance work | ||
| + | *FHIR items will be supported | ||
| + | *Context aware testing around CCD/CDA | ||
| + | *Lab keeps moving forward. Had a successful IHE Connectathon. Will be supporting both "happy path" and "negative testing". | ||
| + | *Need to talk about negative test cases. Some progress in mentioning negative testing. Need to provide guidance on negative testing. | ||
| + | *What is the relationship between HL7 and the AEGIS Development Integration Lab? HL7 is working on the SOWs that AEGIS will be operating under. HL7 is identifying initiatives where funding can be acquired. | ||
| + | *Has anyone looked at the immunization profiles? Rob Snelick did look a little. | ||
| + | *Will be targeting large corporate sponsors to fund development of certain profiles. | ||
| + | *DIL is meant to help developers? DIL is designed to be end-to-end system of exchange of information. Developer working in a TDD environment (Test Driven Development) can use it to survail the communication between two end-points. Could be used to submit those messages to a certifying body. Healthy Way uses us that way, and a couple of other organizations. | ||
| + | *The cost of the lab is covered by the sponsors. Makes sense that the effort would be funded by sponsors. | ||
| + | *Lot of the discussions are going on with the DOD. | ||
| + | *FHIR is big right now. | ||
| + | *Question: On terms of content and negative testing: What are some of the things you are testing for and where are you getting your requirements from? | ||
| + | *Outbound request, will alter the request in-flight and watch how the system responds. | ||
| + | *What is your footing for the negative testing? Need to get others into this conversation. AEGIS does not write the negative tests, but instead works with the work groups to establish that. | ||
| + | *AEGIS will implement anything that the work group identifies. | ||
| + | *The problem is that these situations are not documented, but agree we need to get buy-in from the group to define the cases. | ||
| + | *Need to document this so that all implementers have consistent view of what to do. | ||
| + | *Analogy: if the industry recognizes the best-practices is to implement industry standards, then why is it that all of these organizations developing their own testing approaches. Finding implementation through interpretation. If we can bring everyone together as part of testing, then we can find the problems. | ||
| + | *The process has to be iterative. | ||
| + | *Where CGIT can help out: Some of these basic best practices can be made more consistent. We don't want everyone to re-invent it. Problem is that many of the groups have gone down this path and done their own thing. Need to take a holistic viewpoint. Need a functional profile, at a level that they can be tested. Certification have only gone so far. But need the rest of the story correctly specified. | ||
| + | *How you handle errors should be consistent. | ||
| + | *TEsting must be done on a generic level, to check whether the standard is implemented. | ||
| + | *AEGIS would like to create the projects through TSC and CGIT. Not sure if CGIT has time to review the work we are doing. | ||
| + | *Action Item: We need to continue to work with AEGIS to tease out the general requirements. | ||
| + | *In theory this would be good but in reality it's been very difficult to come to agreement in the lab space. A whole set of issues in terms of work flow and the different stages of a lab result. | ||
| + | *There is some basic level ACK processing rules that should be done consistently. We need to carve out for CGIT the general purpose processing. Leave the functional behaviour to the domain. | ||
| + | *We have talked for years about Best Practices. Tooling needs to enforce consistency. | ||
| + | *Need a unified conformance guide. | ||
| + | *Talking about importance of testing and how to organize it, and that many implementers are not familiar with issues around testing nor do they understand how to approach the issue. | ||
| + | *How does HL7 participate with AEGIS? What do we tell folks who are interested? Right now AEGIS is waiting for funding. TSC is the one who coordinates participation. Right now it's early stages for the project. | ||
| + | *Can people access the AEGIS tool? Need to go with that question back to TSC. Right now the implementation for immunization is still in pilot stage. That means it's free an open for everyone. | ||
| + | *The process says you have to send an email to aegis.net and then you can get an account. TODO Mario will look into process for getting access to tool. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==March 2015 Harmonization Meeting== | ||
| + | *TODO: Need to check out the proposals and see if we need to make comments. Most probably there is nothing for CGIT. Notify Anne Wizauer about the results. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Proper Constraints of Cardinality and Length== | ||
| + | *Talking about constraining from 1..7 to 1..3 or 1..5, which is conformant. The same issue with lengths. In the past reducing the length was okay, but not more than. | ||
| + | *TODO: Write down rules for proper constraints and cardinality and length. | ||
=List of Open Issues= | =List of Open Issues= | ||
| Line 24: | Line 72: | ||
*Review of projects with Vocabulary | *Review of projects with Vocabulary | ||
*Separating conformance in Chapter 2 so it can be tracked separately from the HL7 version releases | *Separating conformance in Chapter 2 so it can be tracked separately from the HL7 version releases | ||
| − | *Conformance concepts in FHIR | + | *Conformance concepts in FHIR (current status is available as Wiki page) |
=Summary of Todo Items= | =Summary of Todo Items= | ||
*Ioana Singureanu will try to get us on one of their conference calls, see if we need to or if we can just circulate to that list of stake-holders. | *Ioana Singureanu will try to get us on one of their conference calls, see if we need to or if we can just circulate to that list of stake-holders. | ||
*Rob Snelick will create a PSS, sometime before May meeting. | *Rob Snelick will create a PSS, sometime before May meeting. | ||
| − | *Rob Snelick will contact Matt | + | *Rob Snelick will contact Matt Grahame again a few weeks before May meeting to ask for an update on the MWB. |
*Nathan Bunker will download DMP, make changes, and upload it again. | *Nathan Bunker will download DMP, make changes, and upload it again. | ||
*Nathan Bunker will look to attend the Harmonization List Serve meetings. | *Nathan Bunker will look to attend the Harmonization List Serve meetings. | ||
Latest revision as of 13:31, 17 February 2015
Return to IC Conference Calls 2015
Contents
Meeting Information
- Date: Monday, February 16, 2015
- Time: 4:00 pm, North America Eastern Time (New York, GMT-04:00)
- Phone Number: +1 770-657-9270
- Participant Passcode: 644843
Agenda Topics
- Review of Open Issues
- Link to Tools on Wiki
- March 2015 Harmonization Meeting
- Update from AEGIS on Conformance Activities
Minutes from Meeting
Attendees
- Nathan Bunker
- Rob Snelick
- Ioana Singureanu
- Frank Oemig
- Mario Hyland
Update from AEGIS conformance activities
- Working with HL7 leadership looking for funding for conformance work
- FHIR items will be supported
- Context aware testing around CCD/CDA
- Lab keeps moving forward. Had a successful IHE Connectathon. Will be supporting both "happy path" and "negative testing".
- Need to talk about negative test cases. Some progress in mentioning negative testing. Need to provide guidance on negative testing.
- What is the relationship between HL7 and the AEGIS Development Integration Lab? HL7 is working on the SOWs that AEGIS will be operating under. HL7 is identifying initiatives where funding can be acquired.
- Has anyone looked at the immunization profiles? Rob Snelick did look a little.
- Will be targeting large corporate sponsors to fund development of certain profiles.
- DIL is meant to help developers? DIL is designed to be end-to-end system of exchange of information. Developer working in a TDD environment (Test Driven Development) can use it to survail the communication between two end-points. Could be used to submit those messages to a certifying body. Healthy Way uses us that way, and a couple of other organizations.
- The cost of the lab is covered by the sponsors. Makes sense that the effort would be funded by sponsors.
- Lot of the discussions are going on with the DOD.
- FHIR is big right now.
- Question: On terms of content and negative testing: What are some of the things you are testing for and where are you getting your requirements from?
- Outbound request, will alter the request in-flight and watch how the system responds.
- What is your footing for the negative testing? Need to get others into this conversation. AEGIS does not write the negative tests, but instead works with the work groups to establish that.
- AEGIS will implement anything that the work group identifies.
- The problem is that these situations are not documented, but agree we need to get buy-in from the group to define the cases.
- Need to document this so that all implementers have consistent view of what to do.
- Analogy: if the industry recognizes the best-practices is to implement industry standards, then why is it that all of these organizations developing their own testing approaches. Finding implementation through interpretation. If we can bring everyone together as part of testing, then we can find the problems.
- The process has to be iterative.
- Where CGIT can help out: Some of these basic best practices can be made more consistent. We don't want everyone to re-invent it. Problem is that many of the groups have gone down this path and done their own thing. Need to take a holistic viewpoint. Need a functional profile, at a level that they can be tested. Certification have only gone so far. But need the rest of the story correctly specified.
- How you handle errors should be consistent.
- TEsting must be done on a generic level, to check whether the standard is implemented.
- AEGIS would like to create the projects through TSC and CGIT. Not sure if CGIT has time to review the work we are doing.
- Action Item: We need to continue to work with AEGIS to tease out the general requirements.
- In theory this would be good but in reality it's been very difficult to come to agreement in the lab space. A whole set of issues in terms of work flow and the different stages of a lab result.
- There is some basic level ACK processing rules that should be done consistently. We need to carve out for CGIT the general purpose processing. Leave the functional behaviour to the domain.
- We have talked for years about Best Practices. Tooling needs to enforce consistency.
- Need a unified conformance guide.
- Talking about importance of testing and how to organize it, and that many implementers are not familiar with issues around testing nor do they understand how to approach the issue.
- How does HL7 participate with AEGIS? What do we tell folks who are interested? Right now AEGIS is waiting for funding. TSC is the one who coordinates participation. Right now it's early stages for the project.
- Can people access the AEGIS tool? Need to go with that question back to TSC. Right now the implementation for immunization is still in pilot stage. That means it's free an open for everyone.
- The process says you have to send an email to aegis.net and then you can get an account. TODO Mario will look into process for getting access to tool.
March 2015 Harmonization Meeting
- TODO: Need to check out the proposals and see if we need to make comments. Most probably there is nothing for CGIT. Notify Anne Wizauer about the results.
Proper Constraints of Cardinality and Length
- Talking about constraining from 1..7 to 1..3 or 1..5, which is conformant. The same issue with lengths. In the past reducing the length was okay, but not more than.
- TODO: Write down rules for proper constraints and cardinality and length.
List of Open Issues
- RCnL Update
- Review of projects with Vocabulary
- Separating conformance in Chapter 2 so it can be tracked separately from the HL7 version releases
- Conformance concepts in FHIR (current status is available as Wiki page)
Summary of Todo Items
- Ioana Singureanu will try to get us on one of their conference calls, see if we need to or if we can just circulate to that list of stake-holders.
- Rob Snelick will create a PSS, sometime before May meeting.
- Rob Snelick will contact Matt Grahame again a few weeks before May meeting to ask for an update on the MWB.
- Nathan Bunker will download DMP, make changes, and upload it again.
- Nathan Bunker will look to attend the Harmonization List Serve meetings.
- Nathan Bunker will start a list on open issues for the CGIT meetings.
- Nathan Bunker will link to the NIST and other tools on the Wiki.
- Nathan Bunker will reach out to Aegis to invite them to the CGIT meeting. Quick update and to let us to know where the tools exist.
