MnM Minutes WGM 200901

Sunday Q3

Agenda

• Agenda Topics Review
• Hot Topics Triage

Minutes

See updated agenda.

Sunday Q4

Agenda

• Tooling Discussion

Minutes

• SVN and Publishing
  • Directories
  • Branches and tags for ballots and normative edition
    • Tag - a "badge" applied to each member of a set of files saying those files belong to a set identified by the tag. Implemented in SVN as a "tag folder" with a set of pointers to the content. Seen as a "folder" under "tags" (sibling to "trunk") one folder/per assigned tag
      • Branch is defined "at a particular version" and is a new set of files and changes that may differ from the trunk.
    • Proposal
      • Use tags to identify each ballot.
        • Applied at the end of the ballot cycle (1 week before close).
        • Include a domain "manifest" for each domain.
      • Use branch to hold each Normative Edition, with NO INTENT to merge later.
    • Observation -- be CONSERVATIVE and only version that which
      • (a) is needed for publishing, and
      • (b) needs version management

Monday Q1

Agenda

• Business Meeting (SWOT, DMPs, etc.)

Minutes

• Reviewed SWOT

http://wiki.hl7.org/index.php?title=MnM_SWOT

• Reviewed and updated MnM Strategic Plan, in particular to define the committee's role in SAEAF.

http://newgforge.hl7.nscee.edu/frs/?group_id=27

• Discussed the future role of MnM
  • Should MnM own the Data Types?
  • Is MnM active enough in SAEAF? The consensus was that we probably have not been.
• Woody will create a draft for a scope statement for the SAEAF related activities.
• Woody urged the other co-chairs to attend the Steering Division calls.

Monday Q2

Agenda

• RIM and Core Principles ballot reconcilliation
• Proposed re-org of document from technical editors

Minutes

• We reviewed Ravi's comments on the RIM ballot (the ballot was for comment only).
  • COMMENT -- The codingStrength identifiers are moved into the vocabulary models. So at present user has to traverse back and forth between rim and vocabulary's to get this information which is very tedious.
    • RESPONSE -- Suggest that the representation for CNE of structural attributes be picked up from Vocabulary and displayed in RIM representation.
  • COMMENT -- The list of structural attributes needs to present which is missing. At the moment present the partial list is present in the XML_ITS specification document. CfH harmonisation proposal dated FEB 2006 related to this (discussed and accepted) is never implemented so far.
    • RESPONSE -- Add immutable status after "Mandatory" in the attribute detail. Also include a list of immutable attributes in an appendix.
  • COMMENT -- The cardinality for these attributes (Attachment.id and Attachment.text) are 1..1 which similar to the structural attributes. Are these attributes Mandatory similar to Act.classCode or Do they have to be marked 0..1 as against to 1..1.
    • RESPONSE -- Prepare a harmonization proposal to either assert that these are required, or make them 0..1. Other option is to display "not required" for all attributes with a blank conformance indicator.
• Discussion of reorganizing the Core Principles document.
  • TODO: GET LINK TO REVISED DOCUMENT

http://wiki.hl7.org/images/b/be/CorePrinciples_notes_090111.doc

Monday Q3

Agenda

• RIM and Core Principles Ballot

Minutes

• Review of comments on the RIM ballot (comment only ballot).
  • Comment by Tom de Jong
    • We need to review Exposure and Procedure to make sure their definitions are appropriate since SubstanceAdministration. If needed, a harmonization proposal should be submitted to handle this.
  • Comments by Rita Hall
    • See spreadsheet
  • Comments by Agha Kahn
    • Spreadsheet was empty.
  • Comments by Austin Kreisler
    • See spreadsheet
  • Comments by Rene Sponk
    • See spreadsheet

• We will propose to the Facilitators' Roundtable that we intend to do a harmonization call on February 27th.

Monday Q4

Agenda

• Transition to Datatypes (& Wrappers?) R2

Minutes

• Transition to Dataypes R2
  • SET → DSET
  • CE → CD
  • GTS → QSET<TS>
  • BAG<T> → COLL<T>
  • IVL<INT> → INT
  • IVL<PQ> → PQ
• Lloyd and Grahame will document mappings.
• The mappings will be documented as tagged annotations of the R1 attributes in the database.
• Motion: (Grahame/Andy) Accept the actions proposed in Interaction and Versioning (Hot Topic). Motion passes (8:0:0).

Tuesday Q3

Agenda

• Design Patterns:
  • Guidance on "Organizational Role is part of Organizational Role"
  • Request Responses (one receiver responsibility vs. two)
• OIDs Registry

Minutes

• OIDs Registry
  • The is discussion about managing OIDs internationally.
  • Sylvia Thun suggested a model where country specific registries manage country specific OIDs and coordinate with an international registry.
  • Woody asked whether it really matters if there is more than one OID for the same thing in a registry.
  • Multiple OIDs cause extra effort in determining sameness, but don't interfere with uniqueness.
  • There was general agreement that it would be good if an international body could manage healthcare OIDs globally. The WHO was suggested.
  • Cecil suggested that having an RDF based OID registry would be a Good Thing™.
  • Three options suggested by Lloyd:
    • Clarify that we are only interested in common public namespaces.
    • State that we are comfortable with affiliates overriding HL7 OIDs, but we would encourage them to communicate the override.
    • Would could change SHALL to SHOULD or MAY in the statement that there SHALL only be one OID for a given entity in the OID registry.
  • Decisions
    • We decided to leave the wording at SHALL in the Core Principles document with a footnote that this is something that is under discussion.
    • We will work with Germany and other countries that have OID registries to see if we can import their OIDs into the HL7 registry.

Wednesday Q1

Agenda

• Joint with Vocabulary
• Value Set Conformance and Constraint
• Coordination of Core Principles document
• Harmonization Process
• Presence of Structural Vocabulary in RIM Ballot

Minutes

• Presence of Structural Vocabulary in RIM Ballot (Beeler)
  • We will be balloting the RIM on an annual basis.
  • This is the first year since 2003 that we have balloted the RIM.
  • All changes resulting from the ballot process will be subsequently taken through the harmonization process.
  • Vocabulary constraints to the RIM are open to comment (e.g. ActClass, RoleClass, etc.).
  • Jane Curry asked about comments by David Markwell from 2005 or earlier. She will seek to find them and introduce them for discussion.
• Value Set Conformance and Constraint
  • This is a continuation of an discussion from Monday Q2 in the Vocabulary WG.
  • A maximum value set (MAX) contains everything that may be supported. For a specific instance you can define subsets that are used and that are ignored.
  • There was some question about whether "ignored/not ignored" is the right level of granularity. Greater granularity may be more realistic in the future, but the current distinction is okay for now.
  • There is a general consensus that it would be desirable (but not required) for the conformance statements about attributes and about vocabulary to be consistent and that changes be advanced together.
  • Begin of content considered by the motion below.
    • The UV binding statement consists of an assertion of one principal and two optional value sets. The principal value set (MAX) indicates the complete set of codes that are available for use (excluding CWE extensions note that CWE/CNE talks about whether or not the MAX value set is extensible). The remaining two value sets designate subsets of the principal value set that are:
      • required (MIN) meaning they must be supported (used in some useful manner by the system sending, receiving, or otherwise processing the model) or
      • ignored (IGNORED) meaning they are not used in any useful manner by the system.
    • The set of codes that exist within the maximum value set (MAX) but do not exist in MIN or IGNORED are considered to be "conformance undeclared". Undeclared conformance represents design-time optionality; the final implementation profile should have no remaining undeclared conformance. As a specification is tightened and approaches an implementation profile, the MIN and IGNORED value sets will tend to increase in size and the MAX value set may decrease in size such that, for a complete implementation profile, the union of the MIN and IGNORED value sets will contain the same set of codes as the MAX value set.
    • The rules:
      • When creating constrained artifacts, including realm context bindings (where a UV or other higher level binding exists) and constrained static models, the value set bindings must represent a narrowing of the content of the higher level value set.
        • When you constrain you can leave the MAX the same or make it narrower,
          • you can leave the MIN the same or make it bigger.
          • you can leave the IGNORED the same or make it bigger and
      • at all times MIN and IGNORED are exclusive and must be proper subsets of MAX.
  • End of content considered by the motion below.
  • Motion -- Woody/Jane -- MnM and Vocab endorse these decisions, and ask that they be included for ballot in Core Principles. Motion passes (16:0:0).

Wednesday Q2

Agenda

• Joint with Vocabulary
• Continuation of agenda from Q1

Wednesday Q3

Agenda

• Joint with TSC re: Enterprise Architecture

Minutes

MnM NOT hosting.

Wednesday Q4

Agenda

• Joint with TSC re: Enterprise Architecture

Minutes

MnM NOT hosting.

Thursday Q1

Agenda

• Joint with HSSP, IMN, and ITS
• Dynamic Model

Friday Q1

Agenda

• MnM Wrap-up and Planning for next Harmonization and WG Meetings

Friday Q2

Agenda

• Conformance in Choices
• Shared Messages