MnM Minutes WGM 201005 Rio de Janeiro

Sunday,May 16, 2010 - Q3

Agenda

• Agenda Topics Review
• Hot Topics Triage

Minutes

PRESENT: Rene Spronk, Austin Kreisler, Patrick Loyd, Grahame Grieve, Lorraine Constable, Hugh Glover, Jean Duteau, Lloyd McKenzie, Woody Beeler, Gregg Seppala, Rik Smithies

• Agenda Discussion
• Hot Topics to discuss
  • Object Identity
  • Safe interpretation of data subset
  • CMET process & Direct Model referencing
  • Template versioning
  • Cumulative Dose and Dose Check Quantity
  • Incomplete Static Models
  • IVL<TS>
  • Context Conduction in non-serialized models

• ACTION: Grahame will produce a webpage of the most common datatype problems and link to it from the M&M wiki.
• Context Conduction was decided to be dealt with outside of the WGM.

• ACTION: Woody will update the WGM schedule and email it to the list.

Sunday, May 16, 2010 - Q4

Minutes

PRESENT: Austin Kreisler, Jean Duteau, Woody Beeler, Gregg Seppala

Agenda

• Tooling Overview For Facilitators

Minutes

Given who was present, we changed the agenda to summarize issues and tasks for tools needed to develop and publish Ballot 2010Sep. Formal approval was not sought, but the results reflect a clear consensus of the discussants.

Desktop Publishing needs to support:

• Publishing Cycle
  • Prepare Graphics, (clickable) from Visio
  • Extract xml (like uvpa.xml) from DB
• Position source:
  • Put files in right directories
  • Clean temporary directories
• Run Generator
• Position interim output:
  • Put files in right directories
• Run publish domain

Suggestions/Tasks:

• Provide "Scorched Earth" BAT files for Temporary files
• Document and expose Bat File for Static Model documentation merger migration
• Clean up for Publishing "Temp" files
• Define a step-by-step process using SVN

PubDb Issues:

• Provide a reference PubDb with SC MT QI MI CI domains and a merge capability to replace prievious stuff; include corrected vtPubSections
• Domain merge is missing annotation types and not updating with "new" annotations

Visio Issues:

• Visio "Repair document" SCREWS the design (Switches all class codes to "ACT" and then tries to drop attributes that are not in Act.)

Monday, May 17, 2010 - Q1

Agenda

• MIF2 Reconcilliation

Minutes

PRESENT: Lloyd McKenzie (chair), Ravi, Jean Duteau, Michael Steine, Tessa van Stijn, Woody Beeler (for last 15 minutes)

• Worked through the MIF2 comment spreadsheet.
  • 1. 17 - MOTION: Ravi/Jean
    2. 19 - MOTION: Ravi/Jean
    3. 20 - MOTION: Ravi/Jean
    4. 34 - MOTION: Ravi/Michael
    5. 36 - MOTION: Ravi/Jean
    6. 37 - MOTION: Ravi/Michael
    7. 39 - MOTION: Ravi/Jean
    8. 41 - MOTION: Jean/Michael
    9. 42 - MOTION: Ravi/Jean
    10. 43 - MOTION: Ravi/Jean
    11. 44 - MOTION: Ravi/Woody

• • Typos - MOTION: Woody/Ravi
  • Affirmatives - MOTION: Ravi/Woody

We will finish the rest of the Affirmatives either in another quarter or in a teleconference call.

Monday, May 17, 2010 - Q2

Agenda

• Joint with Project Services

Attendees

• Woody Beeler
• Jean Duteau
• Rick Haddorf
• Ioana Singureanu

Minutes

Rick and Ioana joined MnM to talk about an analysis that Project Services is undertaking to document and streamline the development and balloting processes as HL7 moves to SAIF. They took notes relative to the slide deck they presented. Our discussion focused on the current harmonization and review processes used for the RIM in MnM. We also noted that they should confer with Vocabulary relative to Harmonization and with V3 Publishing relative to ballot cycles, etc.

Monday, May 17, 2010 - Q3

Agenda

• RIM Reconciliation

Attendees

• Woody Beeler
• Peter Hendler
• Alexander Henket
• Ioana Singureanu

Minutes

Because there was a marginal quorum, we agreed not to reconcile Negative votes. We discussed all line items and agreed upon actions for the A-T A-S and A-C categories of votes. These are documented in the reconciliation spread sheet that will be posted after preliminary recommendations have been drafted for the Negative votes.

Monday, May 17, 2010 - Q4

Agenda

• Core Principles Reconcilliation

Tuesday, May 18, 2010 - Q1

Attendees

• Grahame Grieve
• Woody Beeler
• Pedro J. Rodrigues
• Michael Steine

BARELY quorum

Agenda

• Core Principles Reconciliation

Minutes

Core Principles Reconciliation

Because of marginal quorum, we only addressed a number issues assigned to Grahame Grieve and for which the negatives were being found "Persuasive" or "Persuasive with mod". These are flagged in the spread sheet with "TueQ1" in the grouping column.

Continued Reconciliation on Conference Calls

In order to continue reconciliation on a schedule that will permit G. Grieve to participate, we agreed to schedule these for an hour each Thursday at 4PM Eastern time, beginning June 3.

Meeting adjourned

Tuesday, May 18, 2010 - Q2

Agenda

• Reconcilliation Overflow

Tuesday, May 18, 2010 - Q3

Agenda

• Hot Topics - "CMET Process & Direct Model Referencing"

Tuesday, May 18, 2010 - Q4

Agenda

• Hot Topics - "Template Versioning" & "Cumulative Dose and Dose Check Quantity"

Wednesday, May 19, 2010 - Q1

Agenda

• Hosting Joint with Vocabulary - MIF Reconcilliation

Wednesday, May 20, 2010 - Q3

Hot Topics: "Object identity" & "Safe interpretation of subsets of data"

Back to MnM Main Page

Attendees

Grahame Grieve, Woody Beeler, Lloyd Mackenzie, Rene Spronk, Victor Chai, Sarah Gaunt, Gaby Jewell, Ravi Natarajan

Agenda

Object Nets and Object Identity

Discussion concerning Managing Object Identities. Object identity

Outcomes:

• Without an identifier on an object, it's very difficult to manage the object. So identifiers should never be constrained out
• even if the static model constrains an association out, it may still be actually in the object model because of context conduction or past exceptions
• Role.id is a muddle - not clear what the scope of the identifier is. R2 differentiation of business vs object identifier is helpful but does not resolve the problem. Rene will update Object identity to describe R2 on this matter. Recommend pushing adoption of R1.1 as much as possible in this regard
• Entities - some are identified by code. Propose that Vocab create an property of a code system to say whether a code is also an identifier (Appellation)
• Participations and ActRelationships - do not have identity. In general there should only be one association between an act and a (act|role) with the same type and effective time

Safe Interpretation of RIM Data

See Safe querying of a RIM-based data model (more RIMBAA focused) and Safe interpretation of subsets of data

• Lloyd - Short answer: anything that's required in the applicable model.
• More general answer: in the absence of a conformance context, nothing can be ignored. You can only ignore things because the conformance statement instructed the RIM author that these things must be ignorable
• It's generally safe to interpret an act in the absence of it's context because of moodCode - except for moodCode Opt (if the mood code is opt, the act is incomplete and the owner must be considered)
• You always have to consider the intent to decide how the act must be interpreted. Recommend to consider the actRelationships that point at the act - depends on your intent, and consider the type they have as to whether the context they suggest is relevant to your intent
• It's really hard to interpret any data in the absence of the specification because of the poor quality of our existing models. This is especially apparent in CDA R2 profiles where the choice of Act Relationships is so limited
• you must consider associations established by context conduction
• We can't advise on what could be generally ignored. It does depend, but there's nothing that we can say for sure that can be ignored

Back to MnM Main Page

from: MnM Minutes WGM 20100519Q3

Thursday, May 20, 2010 - Q3 Incomplete model notes

The question for discussion is whether we can say what needs to be said for incomplete models.

First case

Take, as an example, the following cases from CCD:

1. (3.1.2.1.2): A policy Act
   1. SHALL contain exactly one Act / performer [@typeCode=”PRF”]
   2. SHALL contain exactly one Act / participant [@typeCode=”COV”]
   3. MAY contain exactly one Act / participant [@typeCode=”HLD”]

An a complete model, we can say this no problems. But in an incomplete model, how does this work. The issue arises with the last one - we say that this *might* exist, and if it does, it has the following properties. ok, but we also say - being an incomplete model - that anything else might exist. So if two participations exist with typeCode "HLD", is the second legal or not? In the case of that particular CCD example, the answer is probably no - that it shouldn't exist.

So that probably works ok.

But what if the intent was that the policy Act

1. 1. MAY contain an Act / participant [@typeCode=”HLD”] with an role code of "XXX"

How do you differentiate, in an incomplete model, between saying (1) that there can be 0..1 participations with a type code of HLD, and these have to have a role code of XXX, and (2) there can be any number of participations, but that there could be one with a type code of HLD and a role code of XXX, and *if there is*, then the following rules apply.... (insert rules of choice here)

A corollary: if HLD had a specialization called "PHLD" (primary holder (I should have picked a better example ;-)). Does the rule "MAY contain exactly one Act / participant [@typeCode=”HLD”]" include PHLD too? Kneejerk reaction: depends whether the model is = "HLD" or <= "HLD". But in the case of ="HLD" does that mean, this excludes "PHLD" from being in the model, or that it doesn't make a rule about whether "PHLD" is in the model

Aside

An aside that arose from looking through CCD:

CONF-123: CCD SHOULD contain exactly one and SHALL NOT contain more than one Functional status section (templateId 2.16.840.1.113883.10.20.1.5).

This constraint is ambiguous - do we only make a rule here about the presence of a section with the appropriate templateId, or do we also make a rule about the number of sections with loinc code 47420-5 (see CONF-125).

Issues:

1. you can't make a rule about template id in UV Visio at this time....
2. again, how do you differentiate between conditions and rules - is the code being fixed conditional on the template id or absolute (same issue as above)

Second Case

CONF-189: The family history section SHALL NOT contain Section / subject.

Another CCD issue. You can't contain a subject - but can you contain a Participation with typeCode = SBJ? This is potentially a mistake in CCD - or not? Let's *assume* that it's not - this is a variation of the first case - you can't have a subject that conforms to these rules and claims to be a primary subject, but you could have a subject...

or maybe not. Guess we'll write that off as a mistake in CCD caused by ambiguity in CDA....?

Conclusion

The issue arises with collections, effectively: how do we differentiate between the constraints that establish a rule for the context, and the ones that establish the context for the rule. Such a dichotomy doesn't arise in complete models. The examples here are all focused on associations, but that's only because we don't do constraints inside data types. If we did, then such issues would arise. And the probably could if we wanted to start making rules about multiple types of data type flavors in, say, a list of names