MnM Minutes WGM 201010 Cambridge
- 1 Sunday, October 3, 2010 - Q3
- 2 Monday, October 4, 2010 - Q3
- 3 Monday, October 4, 2010 - Q4
- 4 Tuesday, October 5, 2010 - Q1
- 5 Tuesday, October 5, 2010 - Q3
- 6 Tuesday, October 5, 2010 - Q4
- 7 Wednesday, October 6, 2010 - Q1
- 8 Thursday, October 7, 2010 - Q1
- 9 Thursday, October 7, 2010 - Q2
- 10 Thursday, October 7, 2010 - Facilitator's Roundtable
- 11 Friday, October 8, 2010 - Q1
Sunday, October 3, 2010 - Q3
- Agenda Topics Review
- Hot Topics Triage
PRESENT: Woody Beeler, Lorraine Constable, John Koisch, Bruce McKinnon, Austin Kreisler, Mead Walker, Gregg Seppala, Andy Stechishin, Jean Duteau, Kathleen Connor, Brian Pech, Anil Luthra, Kevin Coonan, Rene Spronk, Sarah Gaunt, Grahame Grieve, David O'Driscoll, David Rowed, Michael Steine, Anita Walden
- Hot Topics to discuss
- MnM Involvement with SAIF, including BF
- TemplateId on the Query Response
- Behavioural Framework (Join OO)
- Attribute Context Conduction
- Role Link
- CMET status + DCM concerns
No Tue Q2 and no Wed Q2.
- ACTION: Grahame will update the WGM schedule and email it to the list.
Monday, October 4, 2010 - Q3
- RIM Reconciliation
Absent a quorum, time was spent drafting proposed reconciliation findings for all RIM comments.
Monday, October 4, 2010 - Q4
- Core Principles Reconciliation
Tuesday, October 5, 2010 - Q1
- Grahame Grieve, Woody Beeler, Jean Duteau
- Core Principles Reconciliation
Core Principles Reconciliation
- Worked through the Negatives assigned to Grahame and most of the Negatives assigned to Woody.
- Brought Lloyd in to discuss two comments that needed in-person discussion.
- All actions are documented in the consolidated reconciliation spreadsheet for Core Principles.
Tuesday, October 5, 2010 - Q3
- Hot Topics - "MnM Involvement with SAIF, including BF"
- Woody Beeler, Xia Jing, John Koisch, Lorraine Constable, Adri Burggraaff, Li Zhou, Alexander Henket, Patrick Loyd, Grahame Grieve
There was good discussion of the issues surrounding past dynamic model abd behavioral model efforts; of the need to proceed; of the interest that MnM had expressed in advancing this (during an earlier conference call); of the interest that the TSC has expressed in seeing this pursued, etc.
As a consequence of that discussion, those present agreed to the following "sense of the meeting", as drafted by John Koisch and later edited by Woody Beeler. The exact actions to be undertaken were documented during a subsequent Joint Meeting at O&O with M&M.
"We believe that the behavioral framework from the SAIF provides a metamodel for describing traceability between specifications, the linking of behavior to information, and descriptions of conformance that can help implementers. This framework must be extended by consideration of HL7 requirements from several quarters, including the the existing dynamic model as expressed in the MIF. The effort will have with two intents:
"1) to describe the way existing HL7 specifications would be migrated to SAIF-compliant specifications "2) To extend the expressiveness of HL7 specifications to encompass more of the community's requirements.
"We believe this model-to-model application will provide a gap analysis of the MIF to eventually move to what we are terming MIF++. There are several extensability points present in the MIF that can be used and the process should identify gaps in terms of information expressed current model and, therefore, in the MIF that will need to be extended.
"What we want to do is to create metamodel models, classes, and definitions to meet the objectives from the SAIF, requirements from groups like O&O and the existing Dynamic Model. We want to develop this material as part of an iterative and incremental process that engages other groups within the community to insure that this solution meets HL7's requirements, including conformance, modeling consistency, traceability, and usefulness."
Tuesday, October 5, 2010 - Q4
- Hot Topics - "Query Mechanism which specifies templates for the response"
- Update on MIF-to-UML work at OMG
- Woody Beeler, Alexander Henket, Patrick Loyd, Jean Duteau, Brian Pech, Rik Smithies, Robert Worden, Rene Spronk, Lorraine Constable
Discussion of Query Mechanism to specify a template for the response
- We discussed the use cases for this requirement.
- We discussed the rejected alternatives.
- interaction per query
- make the new template ID a parameter
- This is revising a harmonization proposal "Add QuerySpec.responseTemplateid attribute" (also on the Wiki)
- There was a comment that we do not have a real implementation of "Query By Example" so the argument against ParameterItem due to QBE requirements was not deemed sufficient.
- The RIM definition of ParameterItem does not preclude sending the templateID as a parameter item.
- This seems akin to the QueryLimit information.
- It was deemed that this proposal was the easiest
- Currently the proposal is suggesting all templates must be satisfied. There appears to be a use case for "one of" the templates to be satisfied.
- What should the data type be? In R1, SET<II>, in R2, QSET<II>. ACTION: Determine what the data type should be.
- It appears that we could "undeprecate" the ResponseElementGroupId parameter that had been deprecated.
ACTION: InM will advance the harmonization proposal for the next harmonization meeting.
Update on MIF-to-UML work at OMG
Jean presented a summary of his lunchtime conversation with Robert Lario.
Robert will be producing a document that summarizes the analysis. He has requested some volunteer hours to help produce the report.
The next step after the report appears to be to build a super-profile.
Wednesday, October 6, 2010 - Q1
- Hosting Joint with Vocabulary
Woody Beeler, Carmela Couderc, Rita Scichilone, Kevin Coonan, Debbie Bogert, Beverly Knight, Brian Schwallier, Jim Case, Ted Klein.
- Vocabulary queried about the "proscription" from doing RIM "structural" attrinbute changes during the August Harmonization Meeting. Beeler responded that the curren RIM annual ballot process, coupled with MnM's desire to review all RIM and RIM-related vocabulary changes" in Harmonization, as well as the ballot, leads to this limitation. The reasoning is that we cannot expand the scope of the RIM between the May and September ballots which are usually the first and second membership baallotsd for a given release.
- ACTION: From MnM to make make the explanation of this process more clear in the Harmonization Meeting and Harmonization Process documentation on the Wiki.
- Universal binding (UV binding of Value Sets to Concept Domains) for coded attributes whose data type is not CS requires Affiliate Council approval because such bindings become mandatory for affiliate use. Vocabulary asked what was the best way to handle such bindings, if they arise. The group agreed:
- Review the proposal in Harmonization first, thereby avoiding having Affiliate Council review a binding that is subseqequently rejected in Harmonization;
- If the proposal is accepted at Harmonization, It will be posted in the database as a "Representative" binding, and forwarded to the Affiliate Council to consider the request that it be made Universal;
- If the Affiliate Council concurs, the binding will be moved to Universal, otherwise it will remain as Representative.
- Put these rules on Wiki pages in re; Harmonization and the Harmonization checklist is where rules are and needs to be shared better. Bev/Ted 7-0-1
- Ted had been asked by Lloyd for the preferred "pattern" for Concept Domain names. The group agreed that this is
MIF "ProperName" which is UpperCamelCase (allows _ and -) and length 60. Bev/ted 6-0-1
MOTION: Given the very short ballot cycle, it was moved to not ballot Core Principles for January, but rather to prepare the last and best for the May 2011 Ballot. (The Vocabulary content has significant changes.) Also that for the May 2011 Ballot MnM and Vocabulary will declare content that was not changed "out of scope". Finally (by amendment), we will seek to integrate the glossary into the next publication by "inclusion" of the name and content rather than only by reference. Ted/Bev 6-0-1
MnM will host this quarter again in Sydney
Thursday, October 7, 2010 - Q1
- Hot Topics - "Versioning"
Woody Beeler, Rene Spronk, Adel Ghlamallah, Tessa van Stijn
Action from Versioning Wiki page "Interaction and Versioning"
MOTION: Believe that the Conclusions listed in "Required Actions" are the correct ones and should be adopted and implemented as soon as possible. To that end moved that M&M Take formal action to adopt this at their next Conference Call (Oct 22) and approve a Project Proposal for the Required Actions. The proposal will be a joint proposal (MnM InM IC V3Pub) and forwarded to both the FnT SD (MnM InM IC) and SSSD (Publishing) for review and forwarding to TSC. 3-0-0
Thursday, October 7, 2010 - Q2
- Hot Topics - "Attribute Conduction"
Rik Smithies, Austin Kreisler, Rene Spronk, Jean Duteau, Marc Koehn, Debbie Bogert
Discussion of Context Conduction for Attributes
We considered Austin's original proposal. Given Victor's input on the Hot topic, we decided on the following:
- we would create a new "Block All Attribute Conduction" attribute of type BN on ActRelationship
- The "conductible" property part of Austin's proposal would remain the same
- We also need to document in Core Principles that attributes with conductible set to true will effectively conduct as old-style OP, i.e. propagating, override.
- "Block All Conduction" vs "Block All Attribute Conduction"
- we already have the ability to block the other things that conduct, so we decided to make this just attributes for consistency
- Attributes do not conduct at all
ACTION: Austin will take this information and craft a new version of the proposal.
Thursday, October 7, 2010 - Facilitator's Roundtable
- Publishing Calendar
- Workgroup Updates
- MnM Week Update
Woody Beeler (MnM), Jean Duteau (MnM, Pharmacy), Hugh Glover (Medication), Julie James (Pharmacy Vocab), Bob Dolin (StructDoc), Patrick Loyd (O&O, InM, ClinicalStatement), Andy Stechishin (Publishing, Tooling, ITS), John Koisch (ArB), Grahame Grieve (MnM), Austin Kreisler (O&O, StructDoc, PHER), Gregg Seppala (PatientAdmin), Gunther Schadow (CPM, RCRIM), Kevin Coonan (Patient Care), Rene Spronk (RIMBAA), Bev Knight(Vocab)
- HARMONIZATION DATES
- November 9-12, 2010 - Harmonization Meeting (AMENDED by subsequent motion to Nov 11-12, and Nov 18-19, 2010)
- Proposed for 2011
- March 15-18, 2011
- July 5-8, 2011
- November 15-18, 2011
MOTION: Jean/Patrick 13/0/0
- There was a question about Data types R2. With the limited number of topics that are going to ballot, Woody has put forward that the January ballot will be Data types R2. This is subject to final acceptance by both M&M and V3 Publishing.
- Problems with Ed Summit due to resource conflicts
- MOTION: Move Harmonization to the 11-12,18-19 with the same current deadline dates. Bev/Patrick, 13/0/0
- There was a meeting with PHER and CIC about clinical models.
- There was also a meeting with SD to discuss templates as they would be used in DCM.
- Canada is bringing interdependent registries forward.
- This appears to bring some common design patterns to the forefront.
- No proposals or new ballot information.
- Some harm proposals will be coming forward.
- Good progress is being made for moving the CDA Header forward.
- There was a project "Templates for Publishing CDA IGuides" that did not make it.
- We need to bring forward the Templates DSTU.
- hData will be going to DSTU ballot this cycle.
- The Neutral Mapping project is going forward. It does not meet Lloyd's desire as being the glue between SAIF layers, but there is value in the project.
- MDMI presentation was tremendously disappointing.
- There was a problem brought to the attention of the ArB about the balloting of hData.
- ArB has asked the ITS group to explain why they are balloting hData.
- Grahame noted that HL7 allows things to get to ballot and at the ballot is where things are governed.
- The Project Scope Statement can be reviewed to determine if the scope of the project is different from what is being balloted.
- Dietetics was brought forward as well as some models from Clinical Genomics
- The rest of the meeting was about the Behavioural Model
- There will be a bunch of Project Scope Statements coming from the Behavioural requirements. This will result in a work for a number of workgroups to incorporate from the new Behavioural Model.
Friday, October 8, 2010 - Q1
- Hot Topics - "Role Link"
- Planning and Schedule for Sydney
- CMET Status
- DCM Concerns
Discussion of RoleLink
- Grahame questioned if IDENT was the proper role link for this use case.
- Do we need ManagedRoleLink or would we just add ID and StatusCode to the RoleLink?
- We need a new RoleLink type ("EQUIV").
- We need RoleLink to be enabled as an entry point.
- Use the state machine for Participation as a basis for the state machine for RoleLink with the addition of Aborted (or Terminated).
ACTION: Rene will bring this proposal through PA.
- We had some concerns with the DCM methodology.
- William has stated that DCM methodology can not be discussed due to ISO.
- That is not the message that ISO wants to give to HL7.
- PC has decided that they are going to work with MnM on the methodology of DCMs.
Planning and Schedule for Sydney
- We need to add DCM Methodology to the agenda.
- We will look at exchanging the Conference calls between Publishing and MnM. MnM will move to 4pm Eastern Wednesdays effective October 20th and Publishing will move to 12pm Eastern Friday effective October 15th.
- We agreed that Wed Q2 will be scheduled for Behavioural Framework discussions and Wed Q3, we will send people to O&O.