Control/Query Meeting Minutes (Heading 1)



InM Wrappers R2 Meeting Minutes

March 16, 2007

Attendees:

|Name |Affiliation |E-mail Address |

|Anthony Julian(Chair) |Mayo |ajulian@mayo.edu |

|Vassil Peytchev |Epic Systems Corporation |vassal@ |

|Lloyd McKenzie |HL7 Canada |Lloyd@ |

|Roberto Ruggeri |Microsoft |rruggeri@ |

|Mead Walker |Mead Walker Consulting |dmead@ |

|Andrew Hinchley |HL7 UK |andrewhinchley@cpl-consulting.co.uk |

|Alan Honey |Kaiser Permanente |Alan.p.honey@ |

|Miroslav Koncar |Ericsson |miroslav.koncar@ |

|Justin Stauffer |Epic |justin@ |

I. Call to Order

The teleconference was called to order at NOON US EDT by Tony Julian(Chair) with Tony Julian as Scribe.

II. Roll Call

This is the normal indented paragraph and the style you will probably use most often. (Normal indented).

III. Agenda Approval

a) Roll Call

b) Wrappers R2

c) Planning for the next Wrappers R2 Tele-conference

d) Review INM Work Items

e) Saturday, April 28, 2007 Meeting

f) Other business

g) Adjournment

IV. Scope of the problem

(Roberto)What is the reason why we are looking at changing the portion of HL7 where we could address this by just directing people to do such-and-so?

(Charlie) Part of this effort is to come to closure on this discussion. 2 years ago we released the info, and started on the other aspects. Lets get the change done now and have stability for a few years. Based on implementation experience there are difficulties with the way the transmission wrappers integrate with web service and others, so lets get the changes done now. If we don’t need to, and can do with recommendations, then lets do so. There are improvements needed to the control act – people are doing things in a non-standard way.

(Roberto) we should schedule this release to accomplish the R2 changes and seek stability.

(Mead) I agree that some stability is good. The biggest thing to push for is clarity and simplicity and showing people how to improve ways not to use the richness of the model since the richness is what people don’t always want. If you were doing the transactions at a lower layer, what do you use of the HL7 wrappers? What goes in the batch wrapper and the transmission wrapper? Transmission is the least of problems.

(Charlie) The transmission stuff is the thing that we can get straight, and people get upset about.

(Mead)To follow on Roberto, focus on the things people are having problems with, and focus on the standard.

(Charlie)The UK project is voicing concerns using the current model, and addressing things in non-standard ways: Find ways that the issues can be addressed in a standard fashion. Lets press on. There is a desire to be conservative unless there are use-case driven examples. Let the owners of the work-items decide what is in/out of scope for R2.

V. Review the wiki:



• Batch: Dstu1 is in scope

• Behaviour: in scope

• CACTR2: In scope

• Communication process model: is within a broad scope, broader than we would attach in the may meeting

• (Miroslav): we keep this as input materials, but not in the first frame of our release at this point

• (Charlie – in three years) It is available in three years, instead of producing something that is not useful.

• New wrapper mechanism In scope.

• Consent in queries out of scope(Charlie)

• (Lloyd not doing the query control act wrappers?)

• (Mead)who needs it

• (Lloyd) we do. I can bring forward requirements and make suggestions.

• De-bluing Out of scope

• Bolus(a v2 issue) out of scope.

• Behavioral Contract Wrapper

• (Mead) I would say that adding another wrapper would upset the people who worry about complexity.

• (Lloyd) Behavioral Contract Wrapper can go as sub or super wrapper. They wont be able to use the old wrappers because some elements will only be in the Behavioral Contract Wrapper.

• (Charlie) we need Rene to see whether he will drive through the query things.

• (Lloyd) the QuerySpec.responseTemplateId attribute did not go through harmonization.

• IEHR:

• (Lloyd) IEHR not sure what attribute – this is shared messages, not transport. Why is it INM item?

• INM assumptions with regards to CPM (Charlie)Out of scope

• (Miroslav)We should keep in scope, and find a place in the new wrappers model. Laboratory group is concerned with conversation id to solve some of their problems.

• Interaction (new dynamic model)

• (Miroslav) the idea of the interaction is decoupling the interaction from the receiver responsibility. The interaction is something that will be impacted by not having the receiver responsibility.

• (Mead) is it going away, ro being de-coupled.

• (Miroslav) the receiver responsibility will become non-normative, or expressed in a different way within the process model.

• (Charlie) in this timeframe, or in three years with the new dynamic model

• (Miroslav) the concept is not mature enough to be put forward as normative, cannot be ready in six weeks.)

• MCCI R2 :In scope

• MCCI/CACT R2 Project: In scope

• Normative XML ITS Schema: In scope

• NullFlavor : Not relevant

• Open ATS Issues: (Miroslav) not relevant – out of scope, this effort will have impact on the ATS.

• Query Definition (new wrapper mechanism) Out of scope – INM to consider.

• Query recursion Out of scope - check with response.

• (Andrew) I am not sure if there is interest, raised by CFH.

• (Charlie) I will chase that out.

• QueryAck in Batches

• Out of scope – Problem is do you ack the batch, or the individual interactions?

• Registry: Out of scope

• SOA versus Message Transmission :In Scope

• Serialization :Out of Scope

• Transmission Addressing: In scope

• Transmission Attachment: In scope

• Transmission Pattern: In scope

• Transmission SLA: In scope

• Transmission Wrapper (new wrapper mechanism) In scope

• Use of UUIDs in II.extension Out of scope

• V2.x InM Identifier Reservations Out of scope

VI. Future call schedule:

Tony will schedule a call 11:00am Eastern Daylight Time between now and the WGM.

VII. Saturday April 28, 2007 Cologne meeting:

(Charlie)Keen to meet up and use the day face-to-face. May use available slots in lieu of Saturday meeting.

Between now and the next call we need to get on the action items in scope clarity on the use cases and names of drivers. Identify the ones you care about, and add the concerns to the wiki.

(Miroslav) Suggest that now you have the excel sheet, the first bullet has a link to constrain transmission wrapper, Miroslav and Alan are defining which need to be declared obsolete, or needed elsewhere. Both Would like comments on the spreadsheet.

(Alan) The one thing I really wanted in the spreadsheet Is to get a real good understanding of what good the items are – please document the needs/requirements with the descriptions.

(Charlie) Comment on the spreadsheet, and send to the list.

VIII. Next Meeting Agenda:

1. Call to order

2. Roll Call

3. Agenda Approval

4. Announcements

5. Spreadsheet Comments

6. Work list Items review

7. Planning for the next Wrappers R2 Tele-conference

8. Other business items.

9. Adjournment

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download