This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here
<meta name="googlebot" content="noindex">

MnM Minutes CC 20090612

From HL7Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

M&M Conference Call, Friday, June 6, 2009. 4PM EDT


Woody Beeler. Andy Stechishin, Austin Kreisler, Lloyd McKenzie, Grahame Grieve, Gregg Seppala, Lorraine Constable


Approved minutes of 6/5.

Ballot Items being withdrawn by M&M

Agreed to defer discussion of deprecated ballot projects for a later review umtil when we have better information on the project statements and priopr actions.

Context Conduction Issues

Started by (again) getting our arms around the issue:

  1. "Where does it matter?" - When your are placing this in a data store and want to query on it, then it begins to matter. In a single message, it is probably less critical. It is clear that Oracle is seeking to do this. BUT also just seeking an UNAMBIGUOUS instance forces one to ponder context.
  2. Consider seriously Lee Coller's simplificiation of limiting to selected participation types. author, data enterer, responsible party, location subject, record target (CDA - legal authenticator, informant); act relationships - reason, component (of an encounter)
  3. Should not every context of a "component" parent propagate to the components?
  4. Are there not things that implicitly conduct (ie parts of a prescription) - call this inheritance - a natural thing, as opposed to an explitily stated conduction.
  5. How do we identify these "natural" inheritance as opposed to documented conduction? You and I may understand it, but will we expect our software developers to do so?
  6. Discussed example of representing a prescription for a drug at the top level that is handled (administered) differently in two components of that prescription. This appears to make it harder to find a "natural" inheritance.
  7. Suggest that the core design (CDA-R2 sect 4.4, RX) define what it perceives to be "natural" conduction and then use contextConduction to over-ride that.
  8. The notion of "natural" conduction could/should? start with a specific set of Participation types, and ActRelationship types

Core Qusetion (?):

Which ActRelationship types are most "important" or sensitive to context conduction. AND which Participations.

Alternative (lm):

What really messes up is idea of conduction. What if in a given model, there is a certain set of associations that we want to apply in "many/most" places in a model. And then build an id/idRef mechanism to bind these where needed? Candidate locales for id sets and ref sets are defined at design time.

Consensus Summary:

(Unanimously approved, moved by Woody, seconded by Gregg)

  1. We should document current contextConduction in Core Principles, as noted in April meeting (based on Charlie Bishop document) and also seek a list of ActRelationship types where context conduction appears most needed/important/sensitive/relevant. (Also need clear examples here.)
  2. Then, we use the "How to Query Acts" document that has been requested, but never developed, as a vehicle to understand the TRUE requirements for Context Conduction.


5:20 PM EDT