MnM Minutes CC 20090612
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Ballot Items being withdrawn by M&M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:
- "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.
- 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)
- Should not every context of a "component" parent propagate to the components?
- 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.
- 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?
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
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.
(Unanimously approved, moved by Woody, seconded by Gregg)
- 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.)
- 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