This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here

Difference between revisions of "Value Set Expansion Minutes"

From HL7Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 42: Line 42:
 
###We looked at our definitions again.  It would probably be good that in this VSE project we explicitly document our understanding of the etiology of the Expansion and the stakeholders who produce/publish/curate any persistent expansions
 
###We looked at our definitions again.  It would probably be good that in this VSE project we explicitly document our understanding of the etiology of the Expansion and the stakeholders who produce/publish/curate any persistent expansions
 
###continue to explore having two objects: a Binding resource, and a Profiling resource (in FHIR-speak).  This might involve removing some of the things that are specified in Binding, and certainly removing some of the things currently specified in the FHIR Expansion Profile
 
###continue to explore having two objects: a Binding resource, and a Profiling resource (in FHIR-speak).  This might involve removing some of the things that are specified in Binding, and certainly removing some of the things currently specified in the FHIR Expansion Profile
 
+
##We had a wide-ranging discussion on binding and profiling, we examined Frank's slides in further detail. 
 +
##There seems to be support with the notion of focusing on operations rather than the individual data items in the artifact that controls the binding ("binding parameter specification"?) and the profile (FHIR expansion profile elements).  But there may be some issues with applying these operations anywhere.
 +
##We need to examine what we have called 'binding strength' and what these operations are, and what the defaults may be.
 +
##What approach should we take in order to cover all these pieces and line up FHRI, V3, and V2?
 
# Next call plans:
 
# Next call plans:
 
##Continue discussions in this area on next week's Binding Semantics call.
 
##Continue discussions in this area on next week's Binding Semantics call.
# Call adjourned at 3:00PM EDT.  Next call will be at the same time on September 5, 2017 and will be the final VSE call this cycle.
+
#Call ran over time, and was adjourned at 3:06PM EDT.  Next call will be at the same time on September 5, 2017 and will be the final VSE call this cycle.  We will continue the discussion in San Diego at the WGM next week.
  
 
=2017-08-22=
 
=2017-08-22=

Revision as of 19:05, 5 September 2017

Meetings occur every other week - Tuesdays @ 2pm ET for 60 min. - alternating with VBS call

Telephone uses standard HL7 Vocab number: 1 (770) 657-9270,,,598745# - NOT THE SHARED SCREEN NUMBER FOR MIKOGO OR OTHERS

Meeting will be one of the following web share environments

2017-06-13 meeting to be chaired by Carmela Couderc using this GTM:

Please join my meeting from your computer, tablet or smartphone.
https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/418498861
 
You can also dial in using your phone.
United States: +1 (646) 749-3122
Access Code: 418-498-861

Normal web share sessions:

Mikogo session

https://go.mikogo.com/?sp=&sid=368206475

If the above link does not work, you can follow these steps instead to join a session:
# Go to http://go.mikogo.com
# Enter the Session ID: 368-206-475
# Enter your name
# Click "Join Session"

Join.Me session

https://join.me/tedsnewsessions

The above link works with any browser. Once there:

  1. Click on "Knock To Enter"


Meeting on September 5, 2017 will be chaired by Ted Klein using the join.me session

2017-09-05

Chair - Ted K so JOIN.ME will be used for web share
Attendees:  Ted Klein, Rob Snelick, Carmela Couderc, Susan Barber, Rebecca Baker, Rob McClure
Note that the last call was cancelled due to lack of quorum, continuing with the same planned agenda
Call commenced at 2:06PM EDT, quorum reached
Agenda:
  1. Continue discussion on Expansion process as illustrated by the Current proposed process and Frank's new slides.
    1. This is a continuation of the discussion last week on the Binding call
    2. From the binding call last week:
      1. We noted that it would cleaner if we could separate Binding (controlling the set of concepts) and Profiling (controlling the metadata for each concept, and which subset is used for a particular implementation instance). Both of these control the content of the Expansion.
      2. We looked at our definitions again. It would probably be good that in this VSE project we explicitly document our understanding of the etiology of the Expansion and the stakeholders who produce/publish/curate any persistent expansions
      3. continue to explore having two objects: a Binding resource, and a Profiling resource (in FHIR-speak). This might involve removing some of the things that are specified in Binding, and certainly removing some of the things currently specified in the FHIR Expansion Profile
    3. We had a wide-ranging discussion on binding and profiling, we examined Frank's slides in further detail.
    4. There seems to be support with the notion of focusing on operations rather than the individual data items in the artifact that controls the binding ("binding parameter specification"?) and the profile (FHIR expansion profile elements). But there may be some issues with applying these operations anywhere.
    5. We need to examine what we have called 'binding strength' and what these operations are, and what the defaults may be.
    6. What approach should we take in order to cover all these pieces and line up FHRI, V3, and V2?
  2. Next call plans:
    1. Continue discussions in this area on next week's Binding Semantics call.
  3. Call ran over time, and was adjourned at 3:06PM EDT. Next call will be at the same time on September 5, 2017 and will be the final VSE call this cycle. We will continue the discussion in San Diego at the WGM next week.

2017-08-22

Chair - Ted K so JOIN.ME will be used for web share
Attendees:  Ted Klein, Rob McClure
call was cancelled at 2:27PM EDT with quorum unattainable
Next call we will resume with our work
Agenda:
  1. Continue discussion on Expansion process as illustrated by the Current proposed process and Frank's new slides.
    1. This is a continuation of the discussion last week on the Binding call
    2. From the binding call last week:
      1. We noted that it would cleaner if we could separate Binding (controlling the set of concepts) and Profiling (controlling the metadata for each concept, and which subset is used for a particular implementation instance). Both of these control the content of the Expansion.
      2. continue to explore having two objects: a Binding resource, and a Profiling resource (in FHIR-speak).
  1. Next call plans:
    1. Continue discussions in this area on next week's Binding Semantics call.
  2. Call adjourned at 3:00PM EDT. Next call will be at the same time on September 5, 2017 and will be the final VSE call this cycle.

2017-08-08

Chair - Ted K so JOIN.ME will be used for web share
Attendees:  Ted Klein, Rob McClure, Rob Hausam, Richard Esmond, Carmela Couderc, Susan Barber
call commenced at 2:05PM EDT with quorum reached
Agenda:
  1. Continue discussion on Expansion process as illustrated by the Current proposed process and Frank's new slides.
    1. This is a continuation of the discussion last week on the Binding call
    2. We will continue the discussion on the clear boundaries between the effects on the expansion of Binding vs. Expansion Profile
    3. We discussed the overlaps and conflicts between the FHIR Expansion Profile and the current definition of the Binding.
    4. Possible new approach: unify into two things
      1. Binding is all in one place and controls the collection of concepts in an expansion. A Binding may be done at an IG and then a derivative binding can be done 'downstream' where we currently think of doing Profiling. Such derivative bindings would follow the rules we are putting together in the Binding Semantics.
      2. Profiling does not affect the concept collection but only the metadata for each concept in the expansion, e.g. language of the designations, etc.
  2. Need to also consider interaction with Sharing Value Set (SVS-IHE) specification SVS wiki page and SVS Spec
    1. We did not look at this.
  3. Next call plans:
    1. As we ran out of time on today's call, we need to continue and refine/explore the discussions on unifying the notions.
    2. We should explore having two objects: a Binding resource, and a Profiling resource (in FHIR-speak).
    3. Continue discussions in this area on next week's Binding Semantics call.
  4. Call adjourned at 3:00PM EDT. Next call will be at the same time on August 22, 2017

2017-07-25

Chair - Ted K so JOIN.ME will be used for web share
Attendees:  Ted K, Richard Esmond, Carmela Couderc, Jeff Danford, Susan Barber
call commenced at 2:05PM EDT with quorum reached


Agenda:


  1. Continue discussion on Expansion process as illustrated by the Current proposed process and Frank's new slides.
    1. This is a continuation of the discussion last week on the Binding call
    2. Frank distributed updated slides to the list this morning
  2. We had a very good discussion on the diagram and looked at both Frank's slides and the process and the profile. The following items are our notes from the discussion.
  3. We updated the VSE generation slides as well with further thoughts on the intermediary object in the expanding and profiling process.
  4. Need to also consider interaction with Sharing Value Set (SVS-IHE) specification SVS wiki page and SVS Spec
    1. We did not look at this.
  5. Next call plans:
    1. Continue discussions.
  6. Call adjourned at 3:00PM EDT. Next call will be at the same time on August 8, 2017

2017-07-11

This meeting conflicted with Vocb use of the call in for harmonization. Also most regular attendees were on other calls so quorum was not met. Meeting ended at 15 min after hour.
Next call is scheduled for July 25 but May need Ted to run the call as Rob will be on travel.

2017-06-27

Chair - Ted K so JOIN.ME will be used for web share
Attendees:  Lisa Anderson, Russ Hamm, Susan Barber, Carmela Couderc
call commenced at 2:05PM EDT with quorum reached


Agenda:


  1. Continue discussion on Expansion process as illustrated by the Current proposed process and Frank's new slides.
  2. We had a very good discussion on the diagram and looked at both Frank's slides and the process and the profile. The following items are our notes from the discussion.
    1. We reviewed the binding diagram. Carmela suggested that we put the text in the diagram "The connections represent the inputs to the expand process from each of the identified vocabulary objects."
    2. The expansion profile can specify a fixed code system version; if this differs from one specified in the VSD or the Binding, what are precedence rules?
    3. It would simplify things if we could agree to make the statement: "The code systems library with the VSD and the Binding parameters will expand to a superset of concepts for the VSE. The Expansion profile is intended to 1) possibly constrain this superset to a proper subset of concepts; 2) define the specific metadata to be included in the VSE for each concept."
    4. It would help if we make explicit names or labels for the four parts of the binding (because only the part that determines the expansion is used by the expand process in our diagram).
    5. Input to the Binding project: the first part is for the definition and production of a VSE, whereas the other three parts are for the use of the VSE in an implementation (both current use, and future derived uses).
    6. There seem to be numerous elements in the FHIR Expansion Profile which may be in conflict with or certainly duplicative of, items in the VSD and the Binding parameters. Even within the profile itself, there appear to be many ways of constructing mutually exclusive controls that will yield a null VSE, or null metadata for each of the concepts. Is this what is desired? We (vocabulary and FHIR-I) need to go over this is more detail to see how all these moving parts will operate together.
    7. It almost appears that the FHIR Expansion Profile was built because we had no binding syntax, and there exists no means to specify the data missing from an incomplete 'intensional' VSD in order to profile a published and curated VSE in the absence of it being explicitly bound to a data element. Is this a requirement? Do we need to support this Use Case?
    8. It appears that the marketplace wants to have persisted and curated expansions derived from only the VSD and code system libraries, and are free of both Binding statements and Profiles. We need to explore this use case as it has direct bearing on expansion and how they are produced and how the expand process is parameterized.
  3. Perhaps look at FHIR Expansion Profile
    1. We did examine it and some of the comments above surfaced.
  4. Need to also consider interaction with Sharing Value Set (SVS-IHE) specification SVS wiki page and SVS Spec
    1. We did not look at this.
  5. Next call plans:
    1. Everyone please review Frank's slides between now and the next call, as we will review them in some detail on the next call.
    2. Continue discussion on these topics.
  6. Call adjourned at 3:00PM EDT. Next call will be at the same time on July 11,2017

2017-06-13

Chair: Carmela Couderc (see GTM above), Attendees:  Richard Esmond, quorum not reached

Agenda

  1. Announcement: From the TSC report this week: The Project Approval Request by the Vocabulary WG of the FTSD for Specification for Value Set Expansion at Project Insight 1325 and TSC Tracker 13434 was approved. Expansions are the implementable artefacts from a value set definition. The VSD STU does not define the details of the content of a value set expansion, nor the standard layout of that content. This project will define this and any additional artifacts necessary, and produce an STU for Value Set Expansions which is intended to harmonize the diverse approaches the existing product lines have taken to define the content and layout of implementable value set expansions. It will also address the migration strategy for the product lines.
  2. Reviewed the latest version of the expansion process diagram
  3. Briefly discussed the relationship between binding, VSD and VSE
    1. Confirmed that a binding is always to a VSD, however conformance is tested against VSE - more on that when Frank's slide deck is discussed
  4. Adjourned @2:17 pm Eastern
  5. Planned Agenda:
    1. Continue discussion on Expansion process as illustrated by the Current proposed process and Frank's new slides
    2. Perhaps look at FHIR Expansion Profile
    3. Need to also consider interaction with Sharing Value Set (SVS-IHE) specification SVS wiki page and SVS Spec

2017-05-30

Chair: Rob M., Attendees: Ted K, Richard Esmond, Frank O, Carol M, Susan B., Lisa Anderson, Carmela Couderc

Agenda:

  1. Confirm Approval of PSS
    1. Not confirmed - emails sent
  2. Review updated ppt and look at FHIR expansion profile resource.
    1. RM noted that if "profiling" can change the code system version (as FHIR allows) this makes an "unprofiled expansion" impractical because it would have to have all code systems.
    2. Sequencing of expansion steps is important because a code system version needs to be defined to make an expansion that can then be constrained or enhanced.
    3. Group started to like a modification of the first ppt diagram better: Current proposed process. The "Sequencing" must be clarified - code system version first at least.
  3. Next Agenda
    1. RM will not be available - Will confirm that Ted can run call.
    2. continue discussion on process. Perhaps look at FHIR Expansion Profile

2017-05-16

First post-WGM session. Decided to meet week after WGM so attendance may be low
Chair: Rob M., Attendees: Rob H - Quorum NOT met. Call ended after 30min.

Agenda

  1. Further discussion on Expand Process ppt to further clarify steps in expansion and should there be a "un-profiled" expansion as a distinct artifact.
    1. Rob and Rob discussed clarification in what the "un-profiled" would contain. To be reviewed by group.
  2. Next meeting
    1. Review updated ppt and look at FHIR expansion profile resource.

2017-05-02

Chair - Rob McClure. Attendees: Ted, Rob Snelick, Frank Oemig, Susan Barber, Carmela, Rob McClure, Lisa Anderson (joint commission)
We are using Rob's Mikogo shared screen for today's call
Call began 14:05 EDT
Agenda

  1. Status
  2. Confirm approval state and draft state of PSS
    1. Added Conformance as co-sponsor
    2. Will confirm no re-votes necessary
  3. Madrid Agenda
    1. Monday Q3 time
    2. Timing for future bi-weekly meetings: Need to consider co-sponsors
  4. Next Items
    1. Review PowerPoint diagram in DropBox
    2. Work on explicit list of fundamentals
  5. Call adjourned at xxx EDT. Next call will be setup in the Madrid planning session next week Thursday Q4.

2017-04-18

Call was cancelled. Next call May 2.

2017-04-04

Chair - Ted, Rob Snelick, Frank Oemig, Susan Barber, Carmela, Rob McClure, Lisa Anderson (joint commission), Rob Hausam
We are using Ted's join.me shared screen for today's call
Call began 14:05 EDT
Agenda

  1. Status
  2. Confirm PSS Approvals
    1. Ted reviewed the PSS and where we are, and the CIMI comments relative to the fact that some Normative standards are Logical Models, not just implementation models
    2. PSS with all approvals was forwarded to the FHIR-I chairs today with a request to approve
  3. Next items to be discussed
    1. Agree on Fundamental Principles
      1. A VSE (Value Set Expansion) is, at its most basic, a list of concepts from one or more code systems, which are signified in some known way;
      2. In addition, a VSE might contain additional information associated with the contained concepts.
      3. An instance of a VSE (Value Set Expansion) is an end-product of the expansion process, whose input consists of Code System(s) content, Value Set Definition(s), Binding Information, and Expansion Profile(s).
    2. Outline Approach
      1. Out of time
  4. Actions
    1. Ted will put the powerpoint diagrams he was working on during the call in DropBox.
    2. Ted will cancel the call in the HL7 call calendar
  5. Next call
    1. Continue until we agree on our fundamentals
    2. Next call is scheduled for Tuesday April 18, but neither Ted nor Rob McClue will be available. We will have to cancel this call and resume on May 2.
  6. Call adjourned at 15:04 EDT.

2017-03-21

Chair - Rob, Susan, Carmela, Richard, Ted
Call 1402 EDT Agenda

  1. Finalize PSS approvals
    1. FHIR (LM) has raised concerns about making a normative track spec that does not fully define implementable constructs for impacted product lines. He thinks VSE should be Informative. GG noted that this could not be aligned with CTS2 and this needs to be clarified.
    2. TK notes this is an infrastructure specification as normative out of alignment product family specs could later align.
    3. Changes made to scope.
    4. Will present to CIMI later this week. Contact SD and FHIR to review. Then Vocab in 10 days to finalize.

Next Agenda

  1. Confirm PSS approvals
  2. Begin to outline Approach for project

2017-02-21 Minutes

Rob - chair; Ted, Frank, Carmela
Call commenced at 2:05PM ET after quorum reached.
Agenda:

  1. Continue work on crafting PSS
    1. We began with the version in Dropbox from last call
    2. Saved v0.3

Next meeting March 7 Neither Rob nor Ted will not be available - The meeting will be cancelled. Next meeting March 21.
Next Agenda

  1. Finalize PSS approvals
  2. Begin to outline Approach for project

2017-02-07 Minutes

Ted - chair; Susan Barber, Carmela Couderc
Call commenced at 2:09PM ET after quorum reached.
Agenda:

  1. Continue work on crafting PSS
    1. We began with the version in Dropbox from last call (labeled V0.1, and edited it for V0.2
    2. We made enhancements to the Project Scope and Project Need sections 3a and 3b
    3. We worked extensively on the project deliverable dates; it is unclear if the end date should be for the STU, or include the STU-to-Normative period; Ted to ask Dave H.
    4. We need to decide if Dropbox location is consistent with the TSC guidelines for project repository, and if so, the link and necessary signup information must be put in the PSS. If not, we need to determine an alternate project repository location.
    5. We are almost done, but a little more work is needed.
    6. Ted to update the new draft in Dropbox.

Next meeting Feb. 21 - Rob will run the call, Using Mikogo

2017-01-24 Minutes

Rob - chair, Ted, Richard, Susan, Carol Macumber, Rob H.
Agenda:
Work on crafting PSS
See Draft PSS via link on main page
Next meeting Feb. 7 - Ted will run the call, Using Join Me