Difference between revisions of "May 27, 2005"

From HL7Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 12: Line 12:
  
 
=== Discussion ===
 
=== Discussion ===
 +
After reviewing the CDC Common Data Elements document, we realized that David Aronow had been right from the beginning and the name "Flavors of Null" was misleading and confusing.  The group unanomously adopted a new moniker - "Missing Value Reason".  This new named helped to clarify and focus much of the rest of the discussion.
 +
 +
The group found the [http://informatics.mayo.edu/wiki/index.php/Image:CDC_-_Data_Elements.pdf CDC document] quite useful (Thanks again, Kim).  There was a question about whether it was still the latest version or not. 
 +
 +
The group reviewed David Aronow's [http://informatics.mayo.edu/wiki/index.php/CaBIG_Flavors_of_Null#Examples_and_Use_cases use cases] and the results of the review are carried there.
 +
 +
 +
While an official synopsis is pending, following are the general conclusions:
 +
 +
* The focus of this group is on the semantics and architectural requirements for MVR's.  The physical representation of MVR's (e.g. separate fields, different values in the same field, etc.) are outside the scope of this group.
 +
* EVS needs to have a centralized but extensible collection of MVR's
 +
* The specification of a CDE should include the ability to select which MVR's, if any, are applicable.
 +
* A mechanism needs to be developed to link a MVR attribute with the corresponding data element - both in  CDE specification time and in the messages themselves.
 +
 +
There will be further discussion

Revision as of 18:26, 27 May 2005

April 7, 2005 Teleconference

Time: 11:00 to 12:00 AM Eastern Time Convert
Phone #: (877)407-0183
PassCode: 680305#

Attendees:

Discussion

After reviewing the CDC Common Data Elements document, we realized that David Aronow had been right from the beginning and the name "Flavors of Null" was misleading and confusing. The group unanomously adopted a new moniker - "Missing Value Reason". This new named helped to clarify and focus much of the rest of the discussion.

The group found the CDC document quite useful (Thanks again, Kim). There was a question about whether it was still the latest version or not.

The group reviewed David Aronow's use cases and the results of the review are carried there.


While an official synopsis is pending, following are the general conclusions:

  • The focus of this group is on the semantics and architectural requirements for MVR's. The physical representation of MVR's (e.g. separate fields, different values in the same field, etc.) are outside the scope of this group.
  • EVS needs to have a centralized but extensible collection of MVR's
  • The specification of a CDE should include the ability to select which MVR's, if any, are applicable.
  • A mechanism needs to be developed to link a MVR attribute with the corresponding data element - both in CDE specification time and in the messages themselves.

There will be further discussion