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

Negation Requirements Project Minutes 25 May 2016

From HL7Wiki
Revision as of 21:27, 25 May 2016 by Jlyle (talk | contribs) (→‎Meeting Outcomes)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Back to Negation Minutes

Minutes

Meeting Information

HL7 PC-CIMI-POC Meeting Minutes

Location: PC call line

Date: 2016-05-25
Time: 11:00-12:00 ET
Facilitator Jay Lyle Note taker(s) Jay Lyle
Attendee Name Affiliation


y Jay Lyle JP Systems
y Richard Esmond
y Gerard Freriks
y Rob Hausam
y Susan Barber

Agenda

Agenda Topics

  1. Review of motion from Montreal; identify a) requirements, b) principles, c) design guidance
  2. Options for ensuring coverage of use case list
  3. Question of use case application list
  4. Scenario patterns: useful?


Minutes

Minutes/Conclusions Reached:

  1. Motion from Montreal
    1. We found the following embedded in the motion(s):
      1. requirements: avoid counterintuitive semantics, intractability (hence, BL not a good idea in information model or semantics) (agreed)
        1. It may be possible to address semantic issue with DL independently of information modeling.
      2. principles: consistency (if we clarify boundaries; e.g., it seems the V3 negation indicator resulted from an overzealous commitment to this principle) (agreed)
      3. design guidance:
        1. avoid Boolean negation in information models (agreed)
        2. avoid negation in unary code patterns (sounds good but we don't have a clear foundation for it)
  2. Options for ensuring coverage of use case list
    1. Wider audience
      1. Jay to send out agenda & attendance reminders
    2. Review of assets for additional cases
      1. WG list (Rob)
      2. FHIM domains (Jay)
      3. openEHR (Gerard)
      4. Ontologist experts: BSmith, WCeusters (Gerard)
      5. IHTSDO (Richard)
  3. Is the use case application list useful (to enumerate not just content to represent, but contexts that may have divergent requirements)
    1. GF: UI is only outlier
    2. RH: different implementers may want to decompose at different points
    3. Yes
  4. Scenario patterns: useful?
    1. Probably

Meeting Outcomes

Actions
  • review Use Cases for completeness, classification for accuracy (all)


Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items
  • Continue review of requirements

© 2012 Health Level Seven® International. All rights reserved.