CS January 2011 WGM Minutes

Attendees:

Thursday Q3

• Administrative Updates
  • Rik Smithies and Hans Buitendijk were re-elected as co-chairs
  • The DMP accepted through the e-vote
    • Against: 0, Abstain: 1, In Favor: 5
  • The updated mission statement was accepted
    • Against: 0, Abstain: 0, In Favor: 5
• CS Model Review
  • Rik stepped through the updates in progress.
  • Med WG raised a question whether the changes to R_OrderableMedication with higher level CPM is o.k.
  • We also learned that CPM does not have appropriate CMET to use (yet) either.
  • A similar problem is occurring with in the Supply space
  • We agreed to stick with the Med WG CMETs for now while they are reconciling their ballots. Once done, we will check with John Hatem to determine what, if any, adjustments to Rx CMET references should be made.
    • This should occur before the May meeting.
  • We will include the now stable context conduction methods.
• May Ballot
  • Given the above, and other work to be done, we will not likely make the May ballot with everything.
  • To get back in the swing we can target for Comment level. To be finalized during conference calls.
• Next Meetings
  • Will pick up an every other week schedule, Friday 10-11 US East Coast.

Thursday Q4

• This session was an informal discussion between Clinical Statement and Structured Documents

• The topic was the "right hand side" of CDA in the forthcoming release 3 (R3), and how this relates to Clinical Statement (a cut down and older version of which is the right hand side (RHS) of CDA in R2)

• Rik Smithies
  • Question "how to recreate CDA R2 in CDA R3"
    • Beauty of CDA R2 is that out of the box it is easy to understand and use
    • R3 is likely to be more powerful, with an RHS that allows all RIM based models.
    • The problem is that this will look very different from R2 and may immediately put off those that want to upgrade, not to mention those that start with R3.
  • We want to give an immediate direct upgrade path.
  • With this, new features can be ignored and will not detract, but are there for the "power users".
  • How can Clinical Statement help with that?

• Grahame Grieve - a migration path is needed. It would look like R2 and so like Clinical Statement, for that reason.

• Austin Kreisler
  • Suggested a new CS based project to produce this CS template for CDA
  • Would want to be SAIF branded
  • Needs some updates for relevant RIM changes
    • eg new criteria moods CRIT.MOOD etc
    • new context conduction

• GG - reposition CS as a vehicle to help out new ARB led approach

• RS - a cut down current CS as template for CDA

• GG - would need to use RIM ITS.

• RS - What would schemas be like for this, or would it be schematrons?
  • How would this template be used/validated against?
  • A "complete" template, that says only what is allowed?
    • Anything else mentioned is not allowed (which would be an "incomplete" template - see http://wiki.hl7.org/index.php?title=Incomplete_Static_Models).

• GG - has a RIM object to RIM graph checker and a RIM graph to RIM graph checker. It is in OHF source code (and Lloyd may be using it).