V29 n2 ballot recon

V2.9 Ballot reconciliation

Chapter 2

Comment Number

Ballot

Chapter

Section

Page #

Line #

Artifact ID

Resource(s)

HTML Page name(s)

URL

Vote and Type

Sub-category

Tracker #

Existing Wording

Proposed Wording

Ballot Comment

Summary

In person resolution requested

Comment grouping

Schedule

Triage Note

Pubs

Disposition WG

Disposition

"Disposition CommentorRetract/Withdraw details"

Disposition/Retract/ Withdrawal Date

Mover / seconder

For

Against

Abstain

Retracted / Withdrawn

Disposition External Organization

Responsible Person

Change Applied

Substantive Change

Submitted By

Organization

On behalf of

Commenter Email

Submitter Tracking ID

Referred To

Received From

Notes

2

2

02.05.05.02

A-S

"Chapter 2.5.5.2In the example message fragment should be: |1234\P\|"

**website comment**

INM-AT-1

Technical Correction

InM

Persuasive with mod

Editor will fix

Timo Tarhonen

HL7 Finland Voter #6

timo.tarhonen@tto.fi

3

INM

2

02 - TOC

6

A-T

Right below 2.9.2 - error in generating the TOC.

INM-AT-1

Agreed

InM

Persuasive with mod

Editor will fix

Brian Pech

32

Pubs

2A

02A.13.14

29

NEG

The changes in 2.A.13.14 and 2.A.13.15 look fine, but it seems like the same changes should be applied to 2.A.13.17, 2.A.13.18, 2.A.13.20 and 2.A.13.21. I suggest you make the same changes in those sections as well.

VOCAB-1

Persuasive with Mod

Craig Newman

33

Pubs

2A

02A.50

57

NEG

The OG (observation grouper) data type was part of 2.8.2 but seems to be missing from 2.9. I'm assuming that is an oversight and that it should be included.

VOCAB-1

Persuasive with Mod

Technical Correction

Craig Newman

34

InM

2

02 - Note to Balloters

NEG

Deprecate

Section should remain, even with a note about backwards compatibility. Very few implementations use enhanced mode, and retaining original mode would be descriptive for implementers not familiar with enhanced.

INM-NG2

Agreed

InM

David Burgess

LabCorp

35

InM

2

02.14.10.03

NEG

When NTE-9 is no populated then NTE-3 MAY be populated.

Senders SHOULD NOT send empty NTEs. Hard to think of an NTE without either NTE-3 or NTE-9. Suggest removing existing wording.

INM-NG1

InM

Not Persuasive

NTE-3 has always been optional. With the addition of NTE-9 (Coded Comment) NTE-3 became conditional, which requires a conditionality predicate. The modal verb should remain MAY.

David Burgess

LabCorp

36

Vocab

2A

02A.13.14

A-Q

Does fully qualified OID have to be in the HL7 registry, or is organizational branch sufficient.

VOCAB-1

Referred and tracked

Refer to Vocab

David Burgess

LabCorp

42

Pubs

2

02.05.03.05

13-14

A-T

See section Error! Reference source not ound., "Error! Reference source not found."

Correct error message page 14

INM-AT-1

Agreed

InM

Persuasive with mod

Editor will fix

Freida Hall

Quest Diagnostics

Freida Hall

freida.x.hall@questdiagnostics.com

45

InM

2

02.09.02

NEG

The ballot notes indicate that 2.9.2 and 2.9.2.1 are deprecated, yet there is no indication of that in the actual sections.

INM-NG2

InM

Hans Buitendijk

46

InM

2

02.09.03

NEG

The ballot notes indicate that the title of 2.9.3 was changed, but it was not.

INM-NG2

InM

Hans Buitendijk

47

InM

2

02.17.05

NEG

The ballot notes indicate that the section was withdrawn, but it was not.

INM-NG2

InM

Hans Buitendijk

106

INM

2

02.04

10

A-S

Clarification

IBM's SNA LU6.2 and SUN Microsystems's NFS are examples of complete proprietary networks.

IBM's SNA LU6.2 is an example of a complete proprietary network. IETF NFS is an example of a complete open network.

This statement is outdated since Sun transferred control of NFS to IETF (which has an open standards development process), and Sun no longer even exists

Update NFS example

INM-AT-1

Agreed

InM

Persuasive

Editor will fix

Nick Radov

Optum

107

INM

2

02.05.04

15

A-S

Clarification

The following special characters SHALL NOT be used as delimiters due to conflicts with other parts of the standard: . - + " ( ) * %.

Those 8 characters are implicitly prohibited because they are used as fixed markers in other parts of the standard. But this isn't immediately obvious to implementers who haven't read the whole thing, so explicitly prohibiting them would help to avoid misunderstandings.

Explicitly prohibit illegal delimiters

INM-AT-2

The following special characters SHOULD NOT be used as delimiters due to conflicts with other parts of the standard: . - + " ( ) * %

InM

Nick Radov

Optum

108

INM

2

02.06.01

20

A-S

Correction

"/* escape the field separator */substitute( field_separator, \F\ );/* escape the encoding characters */substitute( component_separator, \S\ );substitute( repetition_separator, \R\ );substitute( escape_character, \E\ );"

"substitute( escape_character, \E\ );/* escape the field separator */substitute( field_separator, \F\ );/* escape the encoding characters */substitute( component_separator, \S\ );substitute( repetition_separator, \R\ );"

When constructing a component you need to substitute the escape character first. If you do it after substituting other delimiters then the escape character may already be present intentionally as part of those sequences, so if you then substitute the escape character you will double escape it and corrupt the data.

Substitute escapate character first

INM-AT-1

Technical Correction

InM

Persuasive

Accept balloter text

Nick Radov

Optum

109

INM

2

02.09.03.0

35

A-T

Correction

This section appears to be blank.

Remove empty section

INM-AT-1

Nick Radov

Optum

110

INM

2.A

02A.31

45

A-S

Clarification

The FT field is of arbitrary length (up to 64k) and may contain formatting commands enclosed in escape characters.

The FT field may contain formatting commands enclosed in escape characters.

This appears to contradict the last paragraph of the section which states that there is no length limit.

Remove FT 64k limit

INM-AT-2

Considered for future use

Changing now would be substantive, but since this is not a negative will 'consider for further use

Nick Radov

Optum

111

INM

2

02.08.03

30

A-S

Enhancement

A field MAY be deprecated by HL7.

A field MAY be deprecated by HL7. Before deprecating a field, HL7 SHALL ensure that all message structures which use that field have an appropriate non-deprecated location to move the data.

We broke previous versions of the standard because we deprecated fields with instructions to move the data to other fields, but those replacement fields were in segments not allowed in some message structures. This made it impossible to follow the standard in some cases. For example, PV1-9 and PV1-52 fields were deprecated with a recommendation to use ROL. And AL1-6 was withdrawn with a recommendation to use IAM-11 or IAM-13. However most ADT message structures didn't include ROL or IAM. These inconsistencies have been fixed in the latest V2.9 ballot, however should add an explicit statement not to do that again.

Don't leave data stranded in deprecated fields

Yes

INM-AT-1

InM

persuasive

Accept balloter text

Nick Radov

Optum

112

INM

2.A

02A.70.03

77

A-Q

Clarification

Definition: "-" or "+" or "/" or "." or ":"

What does a separator/suffix of "." mean? It isn't included in the examples and I don't see a description anywhere. Could we clarify that, or was it included by mistake?

Clarify SN dot separator

INM-AT-1

Great question: Introduced in 2.3

Considered for future use

Investigate and apply to future versions

Nick Radov

Optum

121

InM

2

02.17.05

90

A-T

Initiating Message: MSH|^~\&|LABxxx|ClinLAB|ICU||19910918060544||MFN^M03^MFN_M03|MSGID002|P|2.9 MFI|... Response Message: Original mode acknowledgment of the HL7 message according to MFI Response Level Code of AL. MSH|^~\&|ICU||LABxxx|ClinLAB|19910918060545||MFK^M03^MFK_M01|MSGID99002|P|2.8 MSA|AA|MSGID002 MFI|...

"Initiating Message: MSH|^~\&|LABxxx|ClinLAB|ICU||19910918060544||MFN^M03^MFN_M03|MSGID002|P|2.9 MFI|... Response Message: Original mode acknowledgment of the HL7 message according to MFI Response Level Code of AL. MSH|^~\&|ICU||LABxxx|ClinLAB|19910918060545||MFK^M03^MFK_M01|MSGID99002|P|2.9 MSA|AA|MSGID002 MFI|..."

INM-AT-1

InM

Persuasive

Accept balloter text

Ulirike Merrick

Vernetzt, LLC

150

InM

2

02.09.03.03+D3

36

NEG

Correction

"Note:The V2.1 original acknowledgment protocol is equivalent to the enhanced acknowledgment protocol withMSH-15-accept acknowledgment type = NE and MSH-16-application acknowledgment type = AL, and with theapplication acknowledgment message defined so that it never requires an accept acknowledgment (MSH-15-acceptacknowledgment type = NE)."

"Note:There is no equivalent to the V2.1 original acknowledgment protocol, where the acknowledgement is always sent as a response on the same communications channel. The enhanced acknowledgment protocol with MSH-15 (accept acknowledgment type) = NE and MSH-16 (application acknowledgment type) = AL still requires that the application acknowledgement is sent on a separate communications channel."

This note has been present in error for many versions, It is time to fix this erroneous information.

INM-NG1

InM

Vassil Peytchev

Epic

vassil@epic.com

151

InM

2

2.13.1.0

A-S

"Chapter 2.13.1.0In the table the third column's label could be""Field value: Enchanced mode Immediate ACK"".There could also be a fourth colum labeled ""Field value: enchanced mode application ACK"""

**website comment**

INM-AT-1

InM

Persuasive with mod

Editor will fix consistent with other ack choreographies

Timo Tarhonen

HL7 Finland Voter #6

timo.tarhonen@tto.fi