CGIT concall 20151116

Return to Conformance

Meeting Information

• Date: Monday, November 16, 2015
  • Time: 4:00 pm, North America Eastern Time (New York, GMT-04:00)
  • Phone Number: +1 770-657-9270
  • Pass Code: 644843
  • Web Meeting: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/647877325

Proposed Agenda Topics

• Review draft scope document related to Conformance Tools Gap Analysis project
• Backwards and Forwards compatibility - Pre-adoption of versions
• Review January WGM agenda

Meeting Minutes

Attendees

• Rob Snelick
• Nathan Bunker
• Frank Oemig
• Dave Hamill
• Craig Newman

Items Discussed

• Review draft document related to Conformance Tools Gap Analysis project
  • Document was sent co-chairs for discussion in the meeting today
  • First comment is the scope of this is limited to US realm and CGIT is International
    • Tools will have to publicly available, and these tools could be produced by and/or used by International organizations
    • Only one year, so the scoping is being done to be done in the time frame
    • Project can hire non-US contractors to do work. Not limited to US.
  • Second comment is on language around pre/post conformance testing, what does this mean?
    • Karen worked on this, Dave wasn't sure what this meant. Dave will check on what this means.
    • Several different aspects were discussed about testing, testing conformance of compliance of guide, testing of capabilities of system, testing of products in production, etc.
  • Do you want to develop a set of metrics? Or is this what you are asking them to do?
  • Might want to ask about how it is currently being used?
  • There is underlying assumption that it should be open source.
  • Need to ask for license and management of software.
  • ONC is looking for testing infrastructures, then the testing infrastructure has to be on open source tools?
  • Need to ask for feasibility analysis on using the testing infrastructure.
  • RFP should ask contractors to establish a set of metrics on how to score these.
  • Perhaps ask about how they will discover all the possible options.
  • Perceived need for tooling. How would this be determined?
  • How long will this get? One page, or will be it longer? Hoping to issue it in the next month. Have contractor begin work beginning of next year.
• Pre-adoption of versions
  • Reading email from John Roberts asking CGIT for feedback.
  • Rob Snelick says he doesn't see how this matters. Everything you need to know as an implementer is contained in the definition. As long as it's all compatible. In MSH-21 you make a claim to what this message will contain.
  • Craig Newman: Version should reflect content. Question: are you better off going as high as you can? Should you go to 2.6 or 2.8? So you can use concepts that exist in 2.6, 2.7 or 2.8.
  • Rob doesn't care, he would deprecate MSH-12. From a conformance perspective MSH-21 tells me everything I need to know. Just telling you the version is very wide and next to meaningless.
  • Frank is more on Rob side. MSH-21 is what you should take to examine what the message is about. Looking at who the sender is, is a better signal of conformance. In my interfaces I have ignored the version number.
  • Craig: there are interface engines that will reject the messages HL7 messages that are 2.5.1 and have an OBX after PID (in VXU messages). Sometimes intermediate systems will have problems with it. Someone on PHER call said that interface companies will charge for upgrading HL7 versions. If using features out of a version then declare that in MSH-12. Agree that MSH-21 is better to use.
  • Rob. We do have to decide what should go in MSH-12.
  • If you are creating an implementation guide you should select the minimum version of the HL7 standard that covers the need. However implementing systems should be using MSH-21 to indicate the expected content of the message for the purposes of conformance checking.
  • Nathan will send an email to John summarizing the conversation.

Todo Items

• Nathan
  • Locate and/or prepare SWOT for review at Jan WGM
  • Continue to work on resolution to workgroup health items, look at RCnL and other projects
  • Close RCnL project
  • Work on website, clean it up
  • Add review January WGM agenda for next week meeting

List of Open Issues

• 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)