LB 2006May - Ballot Items

From HL7Wiki
Revision as of 14:40, 19 July 2010 by Gwbeeler (talk | contribs)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Notes: Items 99, 100, 104, and 111 were addressed when the entire Vocab publishing was updated in 2008. Many of the remaining items, however remain valid for consideration. GWBeeler 14:40, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The following items were received in May 2006 from the Lab SIG for domain LB.

Return to Category:Referred Publishing Items

Content from Reconciliation Spreadsheet
Item ID Source Artifact Level Issue Proposed Disposition
99 Richard HARDING Vocabulary tables generally Neg-Mi Provide alternative rendering of the vocabulary tables to a) make them easier to read when displayed on 1024*768 resolution. Look at the ActCode vocabulary domain when it is displayed on 1024*768. I do not want to scroll to read the important data. Currently I have to scroll sideways (almost a full screen width) to read the text at the top of the page. I must also scroll to see the description that applies to a code. Resolution:

Publishing Committee recommends that the submitting domain find this negative vote "Not Related" because it does not address issues with the normative content of the domain, but rather is focused on an inconvenience in the representation.

Nevertheless, the Publishing Committee undertakes to ask Tooling to address improvements in Vocabulary representation in html.

100 Richard HARDING Vocabulary tables generally Neg-Mi Provide alternative rendering of the vocabulary tables to a) make them easier to read when printed eg add horizontal rulings that print, provide a more aesthetic format and b) to make them print adequately in portrait mode. Resolution:

Publishing Committee recommends that the submitting domain find this negative vote "Not Related" because it does not address issues with the normative content of the domain, but rather is focused on an inconvenience in the representation.

Nevertheless, the Publishing Committee undertakes to ask Tooling to address improvements in Vocabulary representation in html.

101 Richard HARDING Excel Views generally Neg-Mj Default values must appear on Excel Views - they are currently shown on TableViews.

Fixed values (as shown on the table view) must be adequately highlighted on the Excel View. Bob Dolin has an outstanding ballot item on this one from January 2005 (well over one year ago) that complained of this in the PA domain. The problem is not with Lab it is with Tooling / Publishing. Note also another comment in this ballot where I identify that Fixed and Default do not seem to be defined in the Vocabulary documentation, or V3 Guide. I intend to take the "Paul Biron approach" with this ballot - I will not withdraw my negative on this item without greater assurance that the matter identified has been fixed.

Resolution:

Publishing Committee notes that this issue has also been adressed by M&M, and like M&M Publishing recommends to the referring committee that they find this negative vote "Not Related" to the ballot content of the domain being balloted.

Publishing notes that M&M has agreed that the default value should appear in the Excel View, which currently lacks a column for displaying it and that M&M intends to seek a tooling correction from Tooling Committee.

104 Richard HARDING Vocabulary tables generally A-S Provide alternative rendering of the vocabulary tables to make the indenting of the hierarchies more obvious. Publishing Committee undertakes to ask Tooling to address improvements in Vocabulary representation in html.
111 Richard HARDING A-S Publish the meaning of the three codes A, L, and S as a legend at the bottom (or top) of each vocabulary table.

I continually have to keep looking this up every ballot cycle. "specialized (S) and thus is both coded and contains child concepts; abstract (A) which does not have a code of its own but does contains child concepts; or a leaf term (L) which is coded but contains no children"

Publishing Committee undertakes to ask Tooling to address improvements in Vocabulary representation in html.
114 Richard HARDING Entry-point HTML in download pack A-S index.htm should be in the root directory that the downladed zip file is extracted to. That is, one should not have to navigate to it via html/wecome/introduction/

This changed without notice at the current ballot cycle.

Consider for Pubs task list
115 Richard HARDING A-S The download pack is of limited usefulness if the initial download has as many issues as this ballot and notifications of changes are not made via the V3BallotUpdates list.

Either toast the download system or commit to notifying regular updates via V3BallotUpdates.

Consider for Pubs task list
116 Richard HARDING Interactions Annex Neg-Mi When printed, this material truncates at the right (which is precisely the material I am trying to cross-reference).

Consider using a smaller font size. Consider truncating the Interaction name column from the right. Consider word-wrapping the Interaction Name column when necessary.

Resolution:

Publishing Committee recommends that the submitting domain find this negative vote "Not Related" because it does not address issues with the normative content of the domain, but rather is focused on an inconvenience in the representation.

Consider for Pubs task list.

117 Richard HARDING Interactions Annex A-S These tables are currently very hard to read onscreen (paralax error).

Consider putting some backgronud highlighting behind every second or third line.

Consider for Pubs task list
120 Richard HARDING Tables of Attribute-level descriptions. A-Q A question of style.

I wonder at the value of these descriptions if the target audience for this content is a message implementer. These are DMIM descriptions. The language is very RIM-derived (these descriptions are copied (with some significant adjustments) from the RIM documentation). So the style questions are: Who is the target for this material? If it is the message implementer, is it appropriate to publish it so prominently? If it is the message implementer, is it appropriate to use the RIM-speak. Should we hide the DMIM descriptions in the published document for the domain - they seem to me to be for a different audience than the one we want to view this document most.

Consider for Pubs task list.
121 Richard HARDING Tables of Attribute-level descriptions. Neg-Mi If we intend to publish DMIM walkthroughs in the current way,

When printed, this material truncates at the right (which is the descriptive material) when the two leftmost columns autosize quite wide (look at informationRecipientParticipation in Lab for an example). Consider using a smaller font size for these tables. Consider limiting the size of the leftmost columns and word-wrapping.

Resolution:

Publishing Committee recommends that the submitting domain find this negative vote "Not Related" because it does not address issues with the normative content of the domain, but rather is focused on an inconvenience in the representation.

Consider for Pubs task list.

126 Richard HARDING POLB_TE Order Activate A-S STYLE ISSUE:

Suggest making the diagram much smaller (eg if you reduce it to 60% of current size, it will print in portrait mode). I am unsure that the diagram deserves all this real estate. (Most non-HL7 documents would constrain this diagram to a half-page-width column).

Improper referral - is a recommendation to referring committee
127 Richard HARDING POLB_TE Order Activate A-S Style Issue:

Suggest making the diagram much smaller (eg if you reduce it to 60% of current size, it will print in portrait mode).

Improper referral - is a recommendation to referring committee
134 Richard HARDING A-S I find the current listing of interactions hard to comprehend. We have all of the interactions for all three topics mixed into a single list.

Having all of the Interactions bundled in together defeats the purpose for which we developed Topics. Please develop a more suitable format for publishing Interactions where we have the with and without RR division.

Improper referral - is a recommendation to referring committee
136 Richard HARDING Section numbering A-Q Because there are no Storyboard sections in Laboratory, their Application Roles are numbered 2.1, 3.1, 4.1.

Application roles in most other domains are numbered 2.2, 3.2 etc Is this a problem?

Publishing response: No Problem, we decided to NOT have empoty sections some time back.
138 Richard HARDING Structured Sort names A-Q Do Structured Sort Names have any value for a message implementer that requires them to be published? If not, then please do not publish them.

I note that they are not captured reliably according to the rules in the V3 Guide. Many examples exist but POLB_IN122100 ". . . Promise Activate Request" seems to be a Notification and not a Request. And Request in a SSN does not seem to be a valid word according to the V3 guide. Should we remove the offending section from the V3 guide?

Consider for Pubs task list
142 Richard HARDING Receiver Responsibilities Tables Neg-Mj The Receiver Responsibilities tables currently have three columns: Reason, Trigger Event, Interactions. It is essential that they show Interaction Name.

This data should be autopopulated from the interaction ID and must not be entered by the domain editor. I can see three options:

  • Add an extra column and autopopulate this. It probably does not need to be hyperlinked.
  • Remove the Trigger Event column before adding the extra column. This might not be the preferred option.
  • Replace existing Trigger Event and Interaction IDs with their names and reinstate the existing hyperlinks.
Resolution:

Publishing Committee recommends that the submitting domain find this negative vote "Not Related" because it does not address issues with the normative content of the domain, but rather is focused on an inconvenience in the representation.

Consider for Pubs task list.

143 Richard HARDING Receiver Responsibilities Tables Neg-Mi The width of these tables is not shown completely on a 1024 * 768 resolution without scrolling. The most important data (the Interaction ID and/or its name - see previous ballot comment) is not shown.

Similarly, when printing, the most important data is truncated at the right. Please adjust so that it displays and prints better.

Resolution:

Publishing Committee recommends that the submitting domain find this negative vote "Not Related" because it does not address issues with the normative content of the domain, but rather is focused on an inconvenience in the representation.

Consider for Pubs task list.

144 Richard HARDING Interaction Indexes Neg-Mi The width of the Interaction Indexes tables is not shown completely on a 1024 * 768 resolution without scrolling. The most important data (the Interaction ID) is not shown.

Similarly, when printing, the most important data is truncated at the right. Please adjust so that it displays and prints better. You could reduce font-size or reduce the width of the first column.

Resolution:

Publishing Committee recommends that the submitting domain find this negative vote "Not Related" because it does not address issues with the normative content of the domain, but rather is focused on an inconvenience in the representation.

Consider for Pubs task list.

145 Richard HARDING Diagrams generally A-S look at the Trigger event section of a Laboratory topic. The text is displayed without truncation on a 1024*768 resolution (THANKS FOR DOING THIS !!!!! WELL DONE ! IT HAS BEEN A PROBLEM FOR ME SINCE FIRST BALLOT), the important part of the diagrams are not displayed.

Suggest telling domain editors the max size of diagram that displays correctly (whether in pixels or inches). I note that these particular diagrams seem amenable to a size reduction. PLEASE DO NOT PLACE ANY ADDITIONAL WORKLOAD ON DOMAIN EDITORS TO RESIZE THEIR CURRENT DIAGRAMS AS A RESULT OF THIS COMMENT. This could be a consideration for editors creating new diagrams.

Consider for Pubs Task List
150 Richard HARDING All Neg-Mj The navigation icon (the little red book) shows that Storyboards are still Normative.

This has been ballotted several times before. It confuses readers no end. We now have Normative domains with normative storyboards. Isn't that ridiculous!!!! The V3 Guide provides no indication that the Storyboards are not normative. There is a table in the Package Note to Readers that indicates that storyboards are in fact Informative, but that makes the colour of the little book inappropriate. Whao looks at the package note to Readers anyway? And most of its content is outdated eg the V3 Principles have all been ignored. I intend to take the "Paul Biron approach" with this ballot - I will not withdraw my negative on this item without greater assurance that the matter identified has been fixed.

Resolution:

Publishing Committee recommends that the submitting domain find this negative vote "Not Related" because it does not address issues with the normative content of the domain, but rather is focused on the representation of a table of contents widget.

Consider for Pubs task list.