Quarter 3, Monday, September 8, 2003
Control/Query Working Group Meeting Agenda
September 27 – October 1, 2004
Atlanta, Georgia
General Editor: Jennifer Puyenbroek
Quarter 3, Monday, September 27, 2004
Topic: Meeting Overview, Co-chair Election; v3 Ballot Overview, v2 Ballot Overview, v3 Proposals
Attendees
|Name |Affiliation |E-mail |
|Henderson, Mike |Eastern Informatics |mike@ |
|Larson, Joann |Kaiser Permanente |joann.larson@ |
|Spronk, René |HL7 Netherlands |Rene.Spronk@Ringholm.nl |
|Grassie, Alexis |HL7 Canada |agrassie@cihi.ca |
|Hinchley, Andrew |HL7 UK |andrewhinchley@cpl-consulting.co.uk |
|Jewell, Gaby |Cerner |gjewell@ |
|Koncar, Miroslav |Ericsson Nikola Tesla |miroslav.koncar@ |
|Marshall, Glen |Siemens |glen.f.marshall@ |
|Schadow, Gunther |Regenstrief |gunther@aurora.rg.iupui.edu |
|Stuart, Sandy |Kaiser Permanente |sandra.stuart@ |
|Willmott, Pat |Sierra Systems |patwillmott@ |
Agenda
|# |Key |Description |Presenter |Action Needed |Time |
|1 | |Call to Order | | | |
|2 | |Agenda approval – this session | | | |
|3 | |San Antonio Minutes Review | | |5 ( 1- 3) |
|4 | |Agenda approval – summary for the week | | |5 |
|5 | |Announcements | | |5 |
|6 | |Co-chair election | |Dependent on the arrival of |5 |
| | | | |elections officer | |
|7 | |Mission Statement Review | | | |
|8 | |Decision Making Practices Highlights | | |5 (7 -8) |
|9 | |Data Types Issues | | |45 |
|10 | |Status of v3 Infrastructure Management, R1 | | |5 |
|11 | |Report on v2 and v3 ballot status | | |5 |
|12 | |V3 proposals - Overview | | |5 |
|13 | |Decision on New Application Domain | | |5 |
|14 | |Adjournment | | | |
Vote
|SEQ |Key |Motion |Moved/second |Y-N-A |Comment |
|1 |1 |Create Application Management domain for |Henderson / Marshall |9:0:0 | |
| | |V3 | | | |
Action Items
|# |Description |Who |History/Update |Status |
|1. |Phone Grahame for archive of data types reconciliation |Mike Henderson |20040927: New action item. | |
| |notes spreadsheets. | | | |
|2. |Check for vocabulary gaps in V3 Infrastructure Management. |Andrew Hinchley |20040927: New action item. | |
I. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order by the chair, René Spronk, at 1:57 PM EDT. Mike Henderson was the scribe. Quorum attained.
II. Agenda approval – this session
Approved upon a motion by Joann Larson.
III. San Antonio Minutes Review
Minutes as corrected were approved upon a motion by Joann Larson; second by Mike Henderson.
IV. Agenda approval – summary for the week
Alexis Grassie of HL7 Canada asked for consideration of proposal 407, which was posted late to the HL7 website due to technical difficulties with posting. It is understood that it would have to be included in V2.7 rather than V2.6, as it would not be merely a technical correction to V2.6. CQ TC would not be able to consider this motion before Friday, if at all; and no one from HL7 Canada will be present then. At René’s suggestion, this item will be taken up in teleconference.
The agenda for the week was approved upon a motion by Joann Larson; second by Mike Henderson.
V. Announcements
Co-chair Grahame Grieve will not be present this working group meeting.
Co-Chair elections: Joann is nominated for re-election to a regular 2-year term. There are no other nominees.
January Co-chair elections: Mike’s and Grahame’s seats will come vacant. Volunteers and nominees are welcome.
Vocab facilitator: Sandy Stuart has volunteered and was ratified by CQ. CQ and Vocab co-chairs will need to concur. This consensus will also be required between MnM and CQ for modeling facilitator. CQ is presently represented by René but he is not interested in the job permanently. It was hoped that Grahame would take that position.
VI. Co-chair election
Joann Larson was reelected.
VII. Mission Statement Review
René presented the mission statement now on our site page, as well as the one that was drafted in committee by Grahame at Friday of last WGM.
VIII. Decision Making Practices Highlights
René mentioned a couple of the DMP highlights.
IX. Data Types Issues
The Data Types ballots have been reconciled, but the actual editing has not been complete, Grahame having become unavailable.
Data Types issues
|# |Description |History |Status |
| |20040921: Review action items from |20040921: Email from G. Shadow: review of action items from |Open |
| |previous ballot reconciliations. |previous ballot reconciliations. Some may imply further | |
| | |changes. | |
| | |20040927: Gunther thinks Grahame has a spreadsheet. We may | |
| | |need to phone him to find it. Mike Henderson took this action | |
| | |item. | |
| |20040921: We should recruit another|20040921: Email from G. Shadow: We should recruit another |Closed |
| |editor for the v3 Data Types |editor, the person needs to be able to use CVS and to edit the | |
| |Standard. |XML sources of the specification directly. | |
| | |20040927: These responsibilities may be able to be split. | |
| | |Some of it might fall within the purview of XML SIG, but they | |
| | |have been difficult to reach lately. It might also be well | |
| | |grouped with MnM, but they do not want to add data types to | |
| | |their responsibilities. Pat Willmott of Sigma Systems | |
| | |volunteered to work with Gunther Schadow on at least | |
| | |already-known issues. | |
| |20040921: SLITS:Add a way to |20040921: Email from G. Shadow: SLITS: add a way to |20040927: |
| |represent NULL values in the |represent NULL values in the sequence. |Proposal required.|
| |sequence. |We wanted to add something about using the symbol “\NA” in the | |
| | |SLIST datatype to mean “no value”. This may actually be just| |
| | |an XML ITS question. | |
| |20040921: PIVL add a property |20040921: Email from G. Shadow: PIVL add a property called |20040927: |
| |called frequency. |frequency. This property will co-exist with period and will |Proposal required.|
| | |have type RTO | |
| | |It will be made clear in the narrative that frequency is | |
| | |semantically equivalent to period, but is available as an | |
| | |alternative representation. In the XML ITS, only one of the | |
| | |components frequency and period can be valued in any instance. | |
| |20040921: EIVL: Deprecate many |20040921: Email from G. Shadow: EIVL: Deprecate many of the|20040927: |
| |of the current event codes that are|current event codes that are of the form Ax, Px, Ix (ante-x, |Proposal required.|
| |of the form Ax, Px, Ix (ante-x, |post-x, inter-x), such as ACV, PCV, ICV. Instead put in codes| |
| |post-x, inter-x), such as ACV, PCV,|for simply C, CM, CD, CV, etc. to indicate the event. Then | |
| |ICV. |the offset interval would be interpreted as follows: negative| |
| | |offsets are measured from the start of the event (e.g., 30 min| |
| | |before breakfast) and positive offsets are measured from the | |
| | |end of the event (e.g., 2 hours after meals.) The problem with | |
| | |the present definition is that the offset direction (whether | |
| | |it is before or after) is indicated by the sign AS WELL AS the | |
| | |event code. | |
| |20040921: EIVL add event codes |20040921: Email from G. Shadow: EIVL add the following |20040927: |
| | |event codes (with the offset semantics as specified in previous|Proposal required.|
| | |change) | |
| | |COIT Sexual intercourse | |
| | |DIAP Diaper change | |
| | |DEFEC Defecation | |
| |20040921: ANY: add originalText |20040921: Email from G. Shadow: ANY: add originalText property |20040927: |
| |property to (most) any data types. |to (most) any data types, so that they would be just inherited |Proposal required.|
| | |to CD or PQR, and available for all data types. The XML ITS | |
| | |does not need to allow for originalText for each and | |
| | |everything, but most RIM attributes end up having a place to | |
| | |put original text. | |
| |20040921: GTS literal form: add |20040921: Email from G. Shadow: GTS literal form: add another |20040927: |
| |another specialization of SXCM |specialization of SXCM in the XML ITS for GTS with literal |Proposal required.|
| |in the XML ITS for GTS with literal|forms. It would actually look like a CE: | |
| |forms. | | |
| | | | |
| | |Which would be the all the seasons between memorial day and | |
| | |labor day. CodeSystem would be an optional attribute to | |
| | |override the default standard GTS codes for local codes. | |
| |20040921: PPD: Revamp PPD to |20040921: Email from G. Shadow: PPD: we have two interests |20040927: |
| |address two interests in the PPD |in the PPD data type extension. One group of people (Paul |Proposal required.|
| |data type extension. |Schluter, GE, from LABPOCT SIG and IEEE/MIB group) wants more | |
| | |distribution types and more parameters. | |
| | |Another group, represented by many, many casual users, need a | |
| | |simple confidence-interval like form. Those are people who now | |
| | |prefer to use IVL rather than PPD because PPD seems alien to| |
| | |them. | |
| | |Proposal is to revamp PPD (which had been left on status | |
| | |informative for the ballot) and accomplish both of these above | |
| | |goals. Review and extend the distributions and parameterization| |
| | |model, and at the same time add a confidence interval form and | |
| | |potentially a percentile form. | |
| | |The goal is to make PPD/confidence interval and IVL compatible | |
| | |types with the same XML rendition. That way we can gently stir | |
| | |people to using PPD for ranges with "pick one" semantics and | |
| | |away from IVL which has "all of those" semantics. | |
X. Status of v3 Infrastructure Management, R1
All negative ballot responses have been withdrawn. (Master File/Registry domain has gone back to committee.) Karen Van Hentenryck will be submitting paperwork to ANSI. A planning discussion will be held during the CQ TC meeting Wednesday Q3.
XI. Report on v2 and v3 ballot status
Joann provided a summary of ballot status. Only Chapter 14 has passed.
XII. V3 proposals - Overview
René provided a list of proposals. See attached zip file of proposals as they existed prior to this working group meeting. They will be included for each meeting in which they are actually discussed and, where appropriate, revised proposals will also be included reflecting any agreed-upon changes. Andrew asked about time frame. The plan is not to skip another ballot cycle, if possible, although there are some rather far-reaching proposals on the table that may require another cycle’s work. A decision will be made by Friday.
XIII. Decision on New Application Domain
HL7 Ping message (V3) needs a home. Glen suggests a domain called Administrative Messages. After discussion, Mike moved to create a new domain called Application Management. See Vote 1.
XIV. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 3:04 p.m. EDT upon a motion by Joann Larson.
Quarter 4, Monday, September 27, 2004
Topic: Joint CQ/Conformance session; v2.6 ballot resolution
Attendees
|Name |Affiliation |E-mail |
|Henderson, Mike |Eastern Informatics |mike@ |
|Larson, Joann |Kaiser Permanente |joann.larson@ |
|Puyenbroek, Jenni |McKesson Provider Technologies |Jennifer.puyenbroek@ |
|Grassie, Alexis |HL7 Canada |agrassie@cihi.ca |
|Kemeklis, Darius |VA |DARIUS.KEMEKLIS@MED. |
|Rontey, Pete |VA |peter.rontey@med. |
|Stuart, Sandy |Kaiser Permanente |sandra.stuart@ |
|van Poppel, Bas |isoft |bas.vanpoppel@isoft.nl |
Agenda
|# |Key |Description |Presenter |Action Needed |Time |
|1 | |Call to Order | | | |
|2 | |Agenda Approval | | | |
|3 | |Announcements | | | |
|4 | |Evaluate need for Joint Session in Orlando | | | |
|5 | |Action Items | | | |
|6 | |Ch 2B Ballot Response - Editorial Items | |Block vote | |
|7 | |Ch 2B Ballot Response -Negatives and Related Items | | | |
|8 | |Ch 2B Ballot Response - Affirmative Comments | | | |
|9 | |Adjournment | | | |
Action Items
|# |Description |Who |History/Update |Status |
| |20040503: Establish chapter 2B |J Larson | |Done |
I. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order by the chair Joann Larson at 3:40 PM EDT. Jennifer Puyenbroek was the scribe. Quorum attained.
XV. Agenda approval – this session
Approved upon a motion by Jennifer Puyenbroek; agenda accepted without objection.
XVI. Announcements
None.
XVII. Evaluate need for Joint Session in Orlando
This joint session should continue for the future unless the need ceases.
XVIII. Action Items
See above for completed action items.
XIX. Ch 2B Ballot Response - Editorial Items
Jenni presented the Conformance ballot resolutions.
Vote
|SEQ |Key |Motion |Moved/second |Y-N-A |Comment |
|1 |3,4,5,6,7|Accept all editorial changes |Puyenbroek/Stuart |5-0-0 | |
XX. Ch 2B Ballot Response -Negatives and Related Items
Vote
|SEQ |Key |Motion |Moved/second |Y-N-A |Comment |
|2 |30,31,34,|Accept to Conformance SIG disposition |Puyenbroek/Henderson |6-0-0 | |
| |35, 49, | | | | |
| |110 | | | | |
|3 |45 |2B to have its own outstanding issues list|Henderson/Rontey |6-0-0 | |
|4 |8,9 |Synchronise 2.B.8 message structure and |Puyenbroek/van Poppel |6-0-0 | |
| | |segment attribute table with v2.6 | | | |
|5 |10 |Accept to Conformance SIG disposition |Puyenbroek/Stuart |6-0-0 | |
|6 |999 |the footnote discovered item | | | |
|7 |2 |Accept to Conformance SIG disposition to |Puyenbroek/Stuart |6-0-0 | |
| | |change “0 to many” to “1 and only one” | | | |
See the updated ballot response database entries as a result of this session.
XXI. Ch 2B Ballot Response - Affirmative Comments
Combined in previous section.
XXII. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 4:13pm EDT upon a motion by Mike Henderson and a second by Jennifer Puyenbroek.
Quarter 1, Tuesday, September 28, 2004
Topic: Joint Meeting with PM, PA and CQ. Registry patterns Project and miscellaneous items.
Attendees
|Name |Affiliation |E-mail |
|Larson, Joann |Kaiser Permanente |joann.larson@ |
|Spronk, René |HL7 Netherlands |Rene.Spronk@Ringholm.nl |
|Brown, Louise |HL7 Canada |louise.brown@tntglobal.ca |
|Ferraro, Jean |Mckesson |jean.ferraro@ |
|Franck, Richard |IBM |Richard_Franck@us. |
|Grant, Robert |HL7 Canada |robert.grant@.bc.ca |
|Greet, Jeanne |Siemens |Jeanne.Greet@ |
|Hinchley, Andrew |HL7 UK |andrewhinchley@cpl-consulting.co.uk |
|Hoang, Sandy |Oracle |sandy.hoang@ |
|Jewell, Gaby |Cerner |gjewell@ |
|Kemeklis, Darius |VA |DARIUS.KEMEKLIS@MED. |
|Knapp, Paul |Continovation Services |PKNAPP@ |
|Liu, Steven |NCI |Liusi@mail. |
|Mabatid, Heidi |DoD MHS |heidi.mabatid@tma.osd.mil |
|McKenzie, Lloyd |HL7 Canada |lloyd@ |
|Ohlmann, Richard |McKesson |richard.ohlmann@ |
|Pech, Brian |Kaiser Permanente |Brian.Pech@ |
|Pratt, Doug |Siemens |Douglas.Pratt@ |
|Quinnelly, Mike |Oracle |mike.quinelly@ |
|Rosploch, June |Kaiser Permanente |June.Rosploch@ |
|Salvail, Leon |HL7 Canada / BC Ministry of Health |salvail.kon@ibc.ca |
|Sato, Rhonda |Kaiser Permanente |Rhonda.Sato@ |
|Stepanik, Diana |DoD MHS |diana.stepanik@osd.mil |
|Willmott, Pat |Sierra Systems |patwillmott@ |
|Yost, Ilene |Siemens |ilene.Yost@ |
|Zimmerman, Robin |Kaiser Permanente |Robin.J.Zimmerman@ |
Agenda
|# |Key |Description |Presenter |Action Needed |Time |
|1 | |Call to Order | | | |
|2 | |Agenda Approval | | | |
|3 | |Announcements | | | |
|4 | |Evaluate the Need for a Joint Meeting in Orlando | | | |
|5 | |Action Items | | | |
|6 | |Registry Patterns Project | | | |
|7 | |Prop 912 (MFMI) New Master File D-MIM | | | |
|8 | |Adjournment | | | |
I. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order by the chair Joann Larson at 09:05 PM EDT. Rene Spronk was the scribe for all agenda items except item 7, Leon Salvail was the scribe for item 7. Quorum attained.
XXIII. Agenda approval – this session
Approved without objection.
XXIV. Announcements
CQ announcement: agenda change for Q4 today, this will now be about one of the transport proposals, specifically the security part of the webservices. This agenda change was also announced in general session and on board.
XXV. Evaluate need for Joint Session in Orlando
Deferred until the end of the meeting. At the end of the meeting it was decided that a joint meeting in Orlando would be useful.
Action Items
|# |Description |Who |History/Update |Status |
|ATL-TUE-Q1-1 |Arrange for joint PA/PM/CQ registry project |CQ co-chairs | | |
| |meeting in Orlando, CQ hosting | | | |
XXVI. Action Items
Jean: context, project initiated last meeting. to find communalities between 3 committees. however project not functioning, no project leader, nor scribe. Not found during summer. Gregg and Jean initiated sponsored PA PM and later CQ. Last conf call Sharon Moore offered (Canada registry project, Infoway) volunteer project leadership.
Calls to be held 13:00 EST. Leon volunteers to scribe.
|# |Deliverables and Action Items |Assignee |Due |Status |Comments |
|0 |Project Organization and Mgmt | | | | |
| |Appoint Project Leader | | |Open |9/8/04 |
| | | | | |Sharon Moore announced that the Canada HL7 |
| | | | | |Board did authorize a Registries project is |
| | | | | |currently in the process of setting up a |
| | | | | |team which will use the work done in BC as a|
| | | | | |baseline. She indicated it sounded |
| | | | | |appropriate for this team to take on |
| | | | | |leadership of this project and will check |
| | | | | |for confirmation. She will be at the |
| | | | | |Atlanta WGM with hopefully other team |
| | | | | |members. |
| | | | | |040928 |
| | | | | |Louise volunteers to do interim project |
| | | | | |leadership until Infoway have assigned a |
| | | | | |resource |
| |Appoint Scribe | | |Closed |9/8/04 |
| | | | | |Jan Peterson offered to scribe, although she|
| | | | | |will not be at the Atlanta WGM. A scribe |
| | | | | |will need to come forward for that meeting. |
| | | | | |040930 |
| | | | | |Leon Salvail (Canadian Ministry of health |
| | | | | |Services, registry project) volunteers |
| |Notify co-chairs of |Scott R. | |Closed |9/8/04 |
| |participating committees about | | | |Scott R. did believe he sent out a message |
| |current project plans (june | | | |to co-chairs, but upon checking did not find|
| |2/04) | | | |anything that conclusively says the email |
| | | | | |was sent. He will resend with a note that |
| | | | | |this topic is scheduled for Tuesday Qtr1 and|
| | | | | |they should contact co-Chairs if interested.|
| | | | | |Jean asked if Scott could include a call for|
| | | | | |Registry Use Cases. It will stressed that |
| | | | | |having a requirement for V3 is not needed. |
| | | | | |V2 use cases are appropriate and will be |
| | | | | |appreciated. He will do that today. |
|1. |Agreement of Terms and | | | | |
| |Definitions | | | | |
|1.2 | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
|2. |Agreement on Starter List of | | | | |
| |Registries | | | | |
|2.2 | Assemble Storyboards and Use|June R |6/9/04 | |9/8/04 Nothing to do |
| |Cases into one document | | | |It was brought up that Heidi may have |
| | | | | |provided a Use Case in an earlier email on |
| | | | | |8/25 regarding the NRC. He email states: |
| | | | | |The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (or a |
| | | | | |State agency of the NRC) has regulatory |
| | | | | |authority over the possession and use of |
| | | | | |byproduct, source, or special nuclear |
| | | | | |material in medicine. NRC oversees medical |
| | | | | |uses of nuclear material through licensing, |
| | | | | |inspection, and enforcement programs. |
| | | | | |NRC would be the registry, registering many |
| | | | | |custodians-those responsible for the nuclear|
| | | | | |material in their own medical treatment |
| | | | | |facility, research institution, or |
| | | | | |diagnostic facility. |
| | | | | | |
|3. |Agreement on a business model | | | | |
| |and validate for Registry Types| | | | |
|3.2 |Collate use case / business |June R. | | |9/8/04 - Nothing to do |
| |model submissions | | | |Greg – Does have some Identity Services |
| | | | | |project use cases he will forward on to June|
| | | | | | |
|4. |Is there a Pattern, Deviations | | | | |
| |from the Standard Model, | | | | |
| |Changes to Model Required | | | | |
| | | | | | |
|5. |Evaluation of MFMI | | | | |
| |Infrastructure and Dynamic | | | | |
| |model that exists | | | | |
| | | | | | |
|6. |Recommendations for HL7 | | | | |
| |Publishing | | | | |
| | | | | | |
|7. |Resolve question as to whether | | | | |
| |Registry Pattern to be balloted| | | | |
| |as Normative | | | | |
| | | | | | |
|8. |Organize Project meeting at | | | | |
| |Atlanta WGM, (Sept 26-30) | | | | |
| |Update Sharon on work |Jean S. | |Closed |9/8/04 |
| | | | | |Jean will send a message to Sharon Moore |
| | | | | |thanking her for her participation and |
| | | | | |potential offer for leadership of this |
| | | | | |project. |
XXVII. Registry Patterns Project
Bob Grant: there are no action items.
Joann: CQ decision making practices apply to this discussion. Quick overview: 1 co-chair + 3 members for quorum. No single organisation can have a majority. Proxy votes allowed, 1 max per person.
Deliverables:
1. agreement upon terms definitions
2. agreement on starter list of registries
3. description of business model
4. identification of patterns, descriptions thereof
Discussion of the deliverables.
terms/definitions, a draft is available. Bob Grant presents the current draft. Starter list of definitions scraped from various documents. To complete we need agreement on these, lots of inconsistencies exist. Example: registry. Bob: sorting the terminology may be wrong before analyzing the businesscase. Needs update with the CQ MFMI 912 proposal.
agreement of starter list of registries, scope description. Didn’t this discussion take place in San Antonio ? The project charter document contains a description.
description of the businessmodel. A generic businessmodel was modeled for canadian registry project. Potential starter. Generic specification created by a Canadian University. Other storyboard input. Infoway has about 12 storyboard. Povider registry related. What businessmodel do these support ?
Charlie McKay: is this patterns business unique to this project or are they of a more general nature ? Gregg: PM found that a lot of questions were about using a suite of messages within the context of a businessmodel. Charlie don’t want to do this as a one off, if there is a mechanism to take care of this according to the HDF than we have to do so.
identification of patterns + description thereof: postponed, depends on businessmodels
Action Items
|# |Description |Who |History/Update |Status |
|ATL-TUE-Q1-2 |Add terms from 912 to terms def document |Robert Grant | | |
|ATL-TUE-Q1-3 |Clean up the list of terms definitions after |Robert Grant | | |
| |businessmodels have been described | | | |
|ATL-TUE-Q1-4 |Upload current draft docs to new project specific |Jean Spohn | | |
| |docs page | | | |
|ATL-TUE-Q1-5 |Ask Mike to create a new registry project webpage |Gregg Seppala | | |
| |for uploading | | | |
|ATL-TUE-Q1-6 |Research minutes of San Antonio to see if scope |PA co-chairs | | |
| |discussion of registry project was done | | | |
|ATL-TUE-Q1-7 |Look at HDF and see what is requirement for |Robert Grant | | |
| |businessmodel description. | | | |
|ATL-TUE-Q1-8 |Created draft generic businessmodel based on UVIC |Louise Brown | | |
| |paper, using HDF required format | | | |
XXVIII. Prop 912 (MFMI) New Master File D-MIM
Rene Spronk presents a draft version of the new master file/registry wrapper.
Rene: MFMI wrapper was continuously getting negatives so back to committee
Discussion of the REG classcode; new description thereof:
Reviewed the definition of REG class. And with one minor change (payload to subject). With that we have agreement and perhaps now able to harmonize.
Many: The definition lists examples of registries. Discussion of examples being all things, and need perhaps some Acts. Some more examples are added. Registry of what has happened (Acts in EVN mood) not yet in example list. Are we talking about types of Acts or instances of Acts? Perhaps registry of prescriptions. Is this a registry or an operational data store? Add registry of prescriptions, drug protocol definitions.
Lloyd McKenzie: Boundary of registry versus reality. That is the purpose of registries. Registry class is drawing a boundary as activating a registration versus activating a prescription.
Charlie McKay: What are the negative examples? Definition is not clear that registering the prescription should not be done.
Others: More discussion on what out of scope.
Rene: Agrees with LM re the boundary. Registration of a subset of information, not the entire thing.
Pat Wilmott: Abstract definition enough to be useful but not too abstract because then its all messages. Operational data versus reference data was one example. Examples are recording of information for unknown time and purpose and perhaps that "static" nature and use is the delimitation line.
Lloyd McKenzie: Within definition we can include usage notes. Start a new paragraph. "Class is intended for use where the subject is reasonably static and where there is interest in tracking changes to the registration above and beyond the changes to the registered subject."
Charlie McKay: Talk about reference in usage notes.
All: Happy to word smithing to be done later.
MFMI static model:
Robert Grant: Subject role class changed from Assigned versus Role. Open question reimplementation (i.e., a specialization).
Charlie McKay: MnM has a proposal next quarter.
Rene: Issue with use of Custodian in model. Maintenance of registration or payload? Same party is fine ... but if different not represented.
Lloyd McKenzie: Author of registration request rather than Custodian (not registration issue). Just custodian of registration not registration request. Registration request is not person putting data in registry. No need for custodian of initial order?
Rene: talking in circles ... Lloyd thinks author not need second custodian. Author is hospital that wanted the registration, registry custodian of data? Third is original owner versus who asked to be added to registry.
The discussion needs to be continued later.
XXIX. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 10:32 EDT upon a motion by Gaby and a second by Charlie McKay.
Quarter 2, Tuesday, September 28, 2004
Topic: Shared Messages Ballot Reconciliation and Proposals
Attendees
|Name |Affiliation |E-mail |
|Puyenbroek, Jenni |McKesson Provider Technologies |Jennifer.puyenbroek@ |
|Spronk, René |HL7 Netherlands |Rene.Spronk@Ringholm.nl |
|Aitchison, Penny |NHSIA, Uk |penny.aitchison@nhsia.nhs.uk |
|Biron, Paul |Kaiser Permanente |paul.v.vbiron@ |
|Kemeklis, Darius |VA |DARIUS.KEMEKLIS@MED. |
|Koncar, Miroslav |Ericsson Nikola Tesla |miroslav.koncar@ |
|Pratt, Doug |Siemens |Douglas.Pratt@ |
|Tucker, Mark |Regenstrief |mtucker@ |
Agenda
|# |Key |Description |Presenter |Action Needed |Time |
|1 | |Call to Order | | | |
|2 | |Agenda Approval | | | |
|3 | |Announcements | | | |
|4 | |Action Items | | | |
|5 | |Shared Messages Ballot Reconciliation | | | |
|7 |904 |Prop 904 Extend R-MIM, comparison with the IHE XDS | | | |
| | |profile | | | |
|6 |908 |Prop 909 Add Application Acks to Act Reference topic| | | |
|8 | |Adjournment | | | |
I. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order by the chair Rene Spronk at 11:30 AM EDT. Jennifer Puyenbroek was the scribe. Quorum attained.
XXX. Agenda approval – this session
Approved upon a motion by Jennifer Puyenbroek; approved without objection.
XXXI. Announcements
None.
XXXII. Action Items
None.
XXXIII. Shared Messages Ballot Reconciliation
Ballot response #1 section 2.4.2. This is in reference to the query control act wrapper and that class is a stub that will be replaced by an actual message type in a message instance.
Ballot response #2-4 Act Reference topic: Block vote to accept 2-4 persuasive without modification.
Action Items
|# |Description |Who |History/Update |Status |
|1 |Verify that the above changes are not |J. Puyenbroek |20040928 Tues-Q2 assigned |Open |
| |substantive | | | |
Vote1
|SEQ |Key |Motion |Moved/second |Y-N-A |Comment |
|1 |1 |Motion: mark as not related but with |Puyenbroek/Koncar |6-0-0 | |
| | |explanation that This is in reference to | | | |
| | |the query control act wrapper and that | | | |
| | |class is a stub that will be replaced by | | | |
| | |an actual message type in a message | | | |
| | |instance | | | |
|2 |2, 3, 4 |Accept items 2-4 persuasive without |Puyenbroek/Koncar |6-0-0 | |
| | |modification. | | | |
XXXIV. Prop 904 Extend R-MIM, comparison with the IHE XDS profile
Changed order of agenda. We discussed 909 first.
Rene presented the proposal (briefly giving gavel to Jenni). This is based on or inspired by the IHE XDS profile. Refer to the attached proposal for details. The current Shared Message has an ‘object’ reference. The document approach of the XDS is more granular than the HL7 object reference.
Rene reviewed the current Act Reference topic and the proposed changes. There are two associations. One that an Act replaces a previous Act (in this case a document). The other is that it fulfills another Act. The CDA header act supports associates of type Append (APND) and Transform (XFRM). This proposal does not represent those concepts.
Paul Biron said that the note in section 3.1.1 is not correct in regards to the APND and XFRM. Rene added “APND annotation at object level” to the bullet list in 3.1.1 and removed it’s inclusion in the note. The revised proposal is attached.
This proposal has the concept of registering a group of documents as a category versus the individual object level. He added the class CATEGORY to the model.
The clinical can create “folders” that contain pointers to categories and/or document objects.
The inFullfillmentOf association is already in the Shared Message DMIM. Added the OtherAct and it’s associations (replacementOf and component). Change to model required: We need to change act relationship (from OtherAct to Act) component to componentOf and change the direction of the arrow.
Mark Tucker asked if this was about dereferencable OIDs. Paul Biron mentioned this was like WAIS (wide area information system). Sort of a “google of google”. References to references. In the Netherlands, there will be regional and national levels.
Paul asked how does the receiver know, based solely on the OID returned by the registry query results, what to ask Amsterdam for the right information. This is a low-level question. Rene said this is outside of HL7, such as UDDI.
Mark asked if the OID returned points me to the Amsterdam object? The master file / registry will point to the message.
Paul asked about the storyboards. Rene brought up the existing ballot section. This proposal does not change the storyboard.
Proposal statement #904.1 (as amended): Add the replacementOf, componentOf and infullFillmentOf associations to the COMT Act Reference Topic R-MIM as described in proposal 904. The replacementOf and componentOf associations also have to be added to the Shared Messages D-MIM.
Action Items
|# |Description |Who |History/Update |Status |
|2 |Change to model in proposal required: |R. Spronk |20040928 CQ Tue-Q2: assigned |A |
| |We need to change act relationship | | | |
| |(between OtherAct to Act) component to | | | |
| |componentOf and change the direction of| | | |
| |the arrow. | | | |
Vote
|SEQ |Key |Motion |Moved/second |Y-N-A |Comment |
|1 |904.1 |Accept proposal statement 904.1 as amended|Puyenbroek/Koncar |6-0-1 | |
XXXV. Prop 909 Add Application Acks to Act Reference topic
Jenni asked if it was a true statement that we cannot add receiver responsibilities to a new release of an interaction. Rene presented the proposal (briefly giving gavel to Jenni).
Vote
|SEQ |Key |Motion |Moved/second |Y-N-A |Comment |
| | |Accept proposal 909 as submitted (attached|Puyenbroek/Aitchison |6-0-0 | |
| | |to minutes) | | | |
XXXVI. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 12:25 pm EDT upon a motion by Jennifer Puyenbroek and a second by Koncar.
Quarter 3, Tuesday, September 28, 2004
Topic: v2.6 Ballot Reconciliation
Attendees
|Name |Affiliation |E-mail |
|Henderson, Mike |Eastern Informatics |mike@ |
|Larson, Joann |Kaiser Permanente |joann.larson@ |
|Biron, Paul |Kaiser Permanente |paul.v.vbiron@ |
|Grassie, Alexis |HL7 Canada |agrassie@cihi.ca |
|Veil, Klaus |HL7 Australia |klaus@.au |
Agenda
|# |Key |Description |Presenter |Action Needed |Time |
|1 | |Call to Order | | | |
|2 | |Agenda Approval | | | |
|3 | |Announcements | | | |
|4 | |Action Items | | | |
|5 | |Ballot Reconciliation - ch 14 | | | |
|6 | |Ch 5 Ballot Reconciliation | | | |
|7 | |Ch 8 Ballot Reconciliation - | | | |
|11 | |Adjournment | | | |
I. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order by the chair Mike Henderson at 2:11 PM EDT. Joann Larson was the scribe. Quorum attained.
XXXVII. Agenda approval – this session
Approved without objection.
XXXVIII. Announcements
None
XXXIX. Action Items
Action Items
|# |Description |Who |History/Update |Status |
|1Q4-01 |20030908: Refer table for Protection |Joann Larson |20040105: CQ Telcon: Joann L reported that this has |closed |
| |Code to Vocab for consideration | |not yet been done | |
| | | |20040505: Joint CQ/Vocab: Vocab feels that this table| |
| | | |is not a Vocab issue. General guidelines for | |
| | | |determining what table issues to bring to Vocab were.| |
| | | |They are interested in clarifying rules as necessary | |
| | | |regarding the addition of new values. They are also | |
| | | |interested in pre and post coordination of table | |
| | | |values. | |
|1Q4-04 |20030908: Check with Vocab chairs to | |Roll forward to Vocab meeting |closed |
| |see if they want to look at changes to| |20040505: Joint CQ/Vocab: Changes to both Table 0201 | |
| |table 0201 | |- Telecommunication Use Code and HL7 Table 0202 - | |
| | | |Telecommunication Equipment Type were reviewed. These| |
| | | |tables meet the new criteria for Vocab review in that| |
| | | |they involve pre and/or post coordination. | |
|2Q2-01 |20030909: Confirm example for Sending |Joann Larson |Need review of the example (take up Q4) |closed |
| |Network Address that references IPV4 | |20040607: CQ Telcon: Examples were reviewed as part | |
| | | |of the final disposition of the proposal. Examples | |
| | | |are believed to be correct. | |
|3Q1-01 |20030910: Model the 7 query types |Jenni Puyenbroek |20040105: Larson: According to the minutes, this was |Open |
| |defined in chapter 5 in Messaging | |completed. Was it assigned and completed on the same | |
| |Workbench. | |day? Is this a copy and paste error? (take up Q4) | |
|5Q1-01 |20030912: take length discrepancies |Joann Larson | |Open |
| |for certain item numbers to ARB. Our | | | |
| |feeling is that it is legitimate to | | | |
| |have different lengths. | | | |
|5Q2-01 |20030912: Determine format for | | |Open |
| |metadata tables | | | |
XL. Ballot Reconciliation - 14
Action Items
|# |Description |Who |History/Update |Status |
| |20040928: Follow-up with Beat Heggli on| |20040928: Beat agrees to remove his negative. | |
| |his unsubstantiated negative | | | |
Vote
|SEQ |Key |Motion |Moved/second |Y-N-A |Comment |
| | |Persuasive- Apply editorial correction to |Larson / Veil |3-0-0 |Update organization name|
| | |Introduction | | |for Puyenbroek |
XLI. Ballot Reconciliation - CH 5
Vote
|SEQ |Key |Motion |Moved/second |Y-N-A |Comment |
| |501 |Accept editorial correction. |Larson/Veil |3-0-0 | |
| |518 |Accept editorial correction. |Larson/Veil |3-0-0 | |
| |505 |Accept editor's recommendation to |Larson/Veil |3-0-0 |20040926: Editor MLH: Recommend: |
| | |strike Note. | | |Persuasive with Mod. Strike Note |
| | | | | |altogether. |
| |522 |Accept editor's recommendation |Larson / Grassie |3-0-0 |20040926: Editor MLH: Recommend: |
| | | | | |Noted. |
| |503 |Accept editor's recommendation |Larson / Grassie |3-0-0 |20040926: Editor MLH: |
| | | | | |Recommendation: Not Persuasive. |
| |506 |Accept editor's recommendation |Larson / Grassie |3-0-0 |20040926: Editor MLH: Recommend: |
| | | | | |Insert Note to balloters containing|
| | | | | |the proposed wording: "This section|
| | | | | |is being withdrawn in v2.6 in |
| | | | | |accordance with section 2.8.4 |
| | | | | |Removing Messages and Message |
| | | | | |Constituents." . Strike remainder |
| | | | | |of narrative. |
| |510 |20040926: Accept. Note To Balloters |Larson / Grassie |3-0-0 |20040926: Editor MLH: Recommend: |
| | |should be inserted at the beginning of | | |Accept. Note To Balloters should be|
| | |5.10.5. | | |inserted. |
| |515 |20040928: CQ WGM. Accept editor's |Larson / Grassie |3-0-0 |20040926: Editor MLH: Recommend: |
| | |recommendation | | |Accept. This should be consistent. |
| |509 |20040928: CQ WGM. Accept editor's |Larson / Grassie |3-0-0 |20040926: Editor MLH: Recommend: |
| | |recommendation | | |Insert Note to balloters containing|
| | | | | |the proposed wording: “This section|
| | | | | |is being withdrawn in v2.6 in |
| | | | | |accordance with section 2.8.4 |
| | | | | |Removing Messages and Message |
| | | | | |Constituents.” . Strike remainder |
| | | | | |of narrative. |
| |502 |20040928: CQ WGM. Insert optional EVN. |Larson / Grassie |3-0-0 |20040926: Editor MLH: Recommend: |
| | |This was an oversight; committee intent| | |Insert optional EVN. This was an |
| | |was to insert segment. May have to be | | |oversight; committee intent was to |
| | |approved by John Quinn to go directly | | |insert segment. May have to be |
| | |to membership rather than committee #2.| | |approved by John Quinn. |
| |511 |20040928: CQ WGM.Persuasive and insert |Larson / Grassie |3-0-0 |20040926: Editor MLH: Recommend: |
| | |standard language | | |Acept. Deprecate and insert |
| | | | | |language consistent with 5.10.2 and|
| | | | | |5.10.3. |
| |512 |20040928: CQ WGM. Persuasive and insert|Larson / Grassie |3-0-0 |20040926: Editor MLH: Recommend: |
| | |std language | | |Acept. Deprecate and insert |
| | | | | |language consistent with 5.10.2 and|
| | | | | |5.10.3. |
| |520 |20040928: CQ WGM: This segment is being|Larson / Biron |3-0-0 |20040926: Editor MLH: Recommend: |
| | |deprecated. No further changes will be | | |Assume reference is to QRD-10. This|
| | |applied. Not persuasive. | | |segment is being deprecated. No |
| | | | | |further changes will vbe applied. |
| | | | | |Not persuasive. |
| |513 |20040928: CQ WGM. Persuasive and insert|Larson / Grassie |3-0-0 |20040926: Editor MLH: Recommend: |
| | |std language | | |Acept. Deprecate and insert |
| | | | | |language consistent with 5.10.2 and|
| | | | | |5.10.3. |
| |514 |20040928: CQ WGM. Persuasive and insert|Larson / Grassie |3-0-0 |20040926: Editor MLH: Recommend: |
| | |std language | | |Acept. Deprecate and insert |
| | | | | |language consistent with 5.10.2 and|
| | | | | |5.10.3. |
| |516 |20040928: CQ WGM. Pesuasive with Mod.. |Larson / Grassie |3-0-0 |20040926: Editor MLH: Recommend: |
| | |This section addresses QRI. Table 393 | | |Pesuasive with Mod.. This section |
| | |is ready in Attribute table for QRI-3. | | |addresses QRI. Table 393 is ready |
| | |However, should fix the incomplete | | |in Attribute table for QRI-3. |
| | |example in the narrative. | | |However, should fix the incomplete |
| | | | | |example in the narrative. |
| |517 |20040928: CQ WGM. Not persuasive. This |Larson / Grassie |3-0-0 |20040926: Editor MLH: Recommend: |
| | |section addressesRCP. Table 394 is | | |Not persuasive. This section |
| | |already in Attribute table for RCP-3. | | |addressesRCP. Table 394 is already |
| | | | | |in Attribute table for RCP-3. |
| |507 |20040928: CQ WGM. accept propsed |Larson /Grassie |3-0-0 | |
| | |wording. | | | |
| |519 |20040928: CQ WGM. Not persuausive. |Grassie / Larson |3-0-0 |20040926: Editor MLH: Recommend: |
| | |Table is there | | |Under investigation. This segment |
| | | | | |is being deprecated. |
Joann Larson took the gavel.
Vote
|SEQ |Key |Motion |Moved/second |Y-N-A |Comment |
| |521 |20040928: CQ Atlanta:: Not persuasive. |Henderson / Biron |3-0-0 |20040926: Editor MLH: Recommend: |
| | |Needs proposal for v 2.7. | | |Needs discussion. Would not be a |
| | | | | |trivial change. |
| |508 |20040928: CQ WGM. Accept editor's |Henderson / Grassie |3-0-0 |20040926: Editor MLH: Recommend: |
| | |recommendation | | |Apply same wording as for 5.10.2. |
| | | | | |“This section is retained for |
| | | | | |backward compatibility as of v2.4 |
| | | | | |See section 5.4 for current |
| | | | | |query/response pairs.” |
| |504 |Pending; No vote taken | | |20040926: Editor MLH: Recommend: |
| | | | | |Needs discussion. Dependent on |
| | | | | |chapter 2 reconciliation. |
See the updated ballot response database entries as a result of this session.
XLII. Ballot Reconciliation - CH 8
Vote
|SEQ |Key |Motion |Moved/second |Y-N-A |Comment |
| |826 |Persuasive editorial |Larson /Grassie |3-0-0 | |
| |814 |Persuasive editorial |Larson /Grassie |3-0-0 | |
| |813 |Persuasive editorial |Larson /Grassie |3-0-0 | |
| |812 |Persuasive editorial |Larson /Grassie |3-0-0 | |
| |811 |Persuasive editorial |Larson /Grassie |3-0-0 | |
| |809 |Persuasive - Refer to John Quinn to |Grassie / Larson |3-0-0 | |
| | |determine if this can advance to | | | |
| | |membership ballot. | | | |
See the updated ballot response database entries as a result of this session.
XLIII. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 3:04 EDT upon a motion by Paul Biron and a second by Allie Grassie.
Quarter 4, Tuesday, September 28, 2004
Topic: CQ/Security and Accountability Joint Meeting
Attendees
|Name |Affiliation |E-mail |
|Henderson, Mike |Eastern Informatics |mike@ |
|Larson, Joann |Kaiser Permanente |joann.larson@ |
|Puyenbroek, Jenni |McKesson Provider Technologies |Jennifer.puyenbroek@ |
|Aitchison, Penny |NHSIA, Uk |penny.aitchison@nhsia.nhs.uk |
|Biron, Paul |Kaiser Permanente |paul.v.vbiron@ |
|Chan, Ernest |Kaiser Permanente |ernest.k.chan@ |
|Coyne, Ed |VHA |ed.coyne@med. |
|Franck, Richard |IBM |Richard_Franck@us. |
|Hinchley, Andrew |HL7 UK |andrewhinchley@cpl-consulting.co.uk |
|Honey, Alan |Kaiser Permanente |alan.p.honey@ |
|Jewell, Gaby |Cerner |gjewell@ |
|Kawamoto, Kensaka |Duke University |kawam001@mc.duke.edu |
|Kemeklis, Darius |VA |DARIUS.KEMEKLIS@MED. |
|Koncar, Miroslav |Ericsson Nikola Tesla |miroslav.koncar@ |
|Marshall, Glen |Siemens |glen.f.marshall@ |
|Morwood, Mark |Sentillion |markm@ |
|Pech, Brian |Kaiser Permanente |Brian.Pech@ |
|Regio, Mauro |Micosoft |MAURORE@ |
|Ruebel, Mah |Cerner |mruebel@ |
|Ruggeri, Roberto |Microsoft |rruggeri@ |
|Willmott, Pat |Sierra Systems |patwillmott@ |
Agenda
|# |Key |Description |Presenter |Action Needed |Time |
|1 | |Call to Order | | | |
|2 | |Agenda Approval | | | |
|3 | |Announcements | | | |
|4 | |Evaluate need for Joint Session in Orlando | | | |
|5 | |Action Items | | | |
|6 | |Ch 2 Ballot Response - User Authentication |Glen Marshall | | |
| | |Credential (UAC) | | | |
|7 | |Role-Based Access Control status |Dawn Rota | | |
|8 | |Web Services Security Profile |Roberto Ruggeri | | |
|9 | |Integrating the Health Care Enterprise (IHE) Report |Glen Marshall | | |
|10 | |Common Audit Message document: |Glen Marshall | | |
| | |IETF and IHE actions | | | |
|11 | |ISO/TC 215 activity report, proposals for HL7 |Bernd Blobel | | |
| | |coordination | | | |
|12 | |Other S&A Activity | | | |
|13 | |Adjournment | | | |
I. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order by the chair, Joann Larson, at 3:35 PM EDT. Mike Henderson was the scribe. Quorum attained.
XLIV. Agenda approval – this session
Approved without objection.
XLV. Announcements
There will be a “Birds of a Feather” (BOF) session tomorrow evening at 7:00 p.m. in the Open Space Room for Service Specification Architecture.
XLVI. Evaluate need for Joint Session in Orlando
A joint session will be held Q4 Tuesday at the Orlando WGM.
XLVII. Action Items
None.
XLVIII. Ballot Reconciliation - User Authentication Credential (UAC)
Vote
|SEQ |Key |Motion |Moved/second |Y-N-A |Comment |
|82 (Ch2) |1 |Considered; yes, this is supported |Marshall / Henderson |13:0:7 | |
|27, 53, 26, |2 |Accept editorial changes |Marshall / Puyenbroek |19:0:1 | |
|25, 24, 22, | | | | | |
|87, 23 | | | | | |
|86 |3 |Considered; no, not an echo |Marshall / Puyenbroek |15:0:5 | |
|21 |4 |Persuasive with mod: Remove “such as” |Marshall / Puyenbroek |20:0:0 | |
| | |phrase from ¶1 and add reference to table| | | |
| | |in ¶2. | | | |
|20 |5 |Persuasive with mod: Remove "such as" |Marshall / Puyenbroek |20:0:0 | |
| | |phrase from 1 and add reference to table | | | |
| | |in 2. | | | |
|83 |6 |Persuasive: Add the SFT, ERR, and UAC to|Puyenbroek / Marshall |18:0:2 | |
| | |Figures 2.6 and 2.7 | | | |
|54 |7 |Persuasive w/mod: CQ editor will |Puyenbroek / Franck |19:0:1 | |
| | |reconcile item numbers for UAC-1 and | | | |
| | |UAC-2 with HQ. | | | |
|117 |9 |Persuasive w/mod: change data type to |Marshall / Ruggeri |19:0:1 | |
| | |CWE, keep table type as HL7. | | | |
|116, 118, 55 |9 |Persuasive w/mod: CQ editor will |Marshall / Puyenbroek |20:0:0 | |
| | |reconcile item numbers for UAC-1 and | | | |
| | |UAC-2 with HQ. | | | |
Key 1: Retaining the UAC in acknowledgments and query responses only makes sense if the responder is considered to be a user requiring authentication. Glen can provide no relevant use case, but left the UAC optional in the example abstract message syntax in case some relevant use case should exist. Is it an echo of the original? Mike can’t see a case for it. Jenni sees the possibility of a need for an authenticated responder. Glen doesn’t see this needing a Kerberos ticket, but there could be a need for a SAML assertion. Paul Biron can see an edge case for query responses and Glen can see one for certain kinds of devices.
See the updated ballot response database entries as a result of this session.
XLIX. Role-Based Access Control status
As of last May RBAC became a SIGSecure work item. RBAC is now a project within the SIG. SIGSecure will be requesting promotion to TC status as the scope of work is well outside the scope of CQ TC. Dawn Rota of VA has joined SIGSecure and been elected co-chair.
L. Web Services Security Profile
Roberto Ruggeri presented the web services security profile document (attached). The objective is to take the WS security profile document to ballot in the next ballot cycle (starting in December) for reconciliation at the January 2005 WGM. Glen pointed out that we cited a work like this in the existing WS-I DSTU. Paul Biron believes we would have [should have?] included this document, had it been ready, in the existing WS-I DSTU. Roberto would like us to be able to revise the WS-I DSTU on an annual basis; he will consult with HL7 HQ as to how that may be accomplished.
There is concern that the WS security profile will not be implementable in enterprises that have multiple hops through firewalls. Roberto asserts that end-to-end security must be sought at the message level (rather than the transport level) when firewalls are involved. Mauro suggests that we propose https (for example) as an end-to-end protocol, and that the WS security profile be targeted to enterprises requiring security inside the firewall. Paul Biron observes that the existence of the profile doesn’t mean it has to be used; in which case, asks Mike Davis, what’s the point of building the profile? Because, responds Paul, other enterprises might have use for it. The two use cases Roberto points out are totally within the firewall, or business to business (outside the firewall).
We ran out of time and will take up Roberto’s document Q1 tomorrow.
Roberto’s proposal falls into the purview of SIGSecure, but SIGSecure is not accepting new work items outside of RBAC unless labor resources are identified.
Action Items
|# |Description |Who |History / Update |Status |
|1 |Determine how best to produce periodic [e.g., annual] revisions to |Roberto Ruggeri |20040928: Assigned. |Open |
| |the WS-I DSTU | | | |
LI. Integrating the Health Care Enterprise (IHE) Report
LII. Common Audit Message document - IETF and IHE actions
LIII. ISO/TC 215 activity report, proposals for HL7 coordination
.
LIV. Other S&A Activity
LV. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at EDT upon a motion by Jenni Puyenbroek and a second by Gaby Jewell.
Quarter 1, Wednesday, September 29, 2004
Topic: Miscellaneous Issues and Transport Specifications
Attendees
|Name |Affiliation |E-mail |
|Larson, Joann |Kaiser Permanente |joann.larson@ |
|Puyenbroek, Jenni |McKesson Provider Technologies |Jennifer.puyenbroek@ |
|Aitchison, Penny |NHSIA, Uk |penny.aitchison@nhsia.nhs.uk |
|Biron, Paul |Kaiser Permanente |paul.v.vbiron@ |
|Hinchley, Andrew |HL7 UK |andrewhinchley@cpl-consulting.co.uk |
|Jewell, Gaby |Cerner |gjewell@ |
|Kemeklis, Darius |VA |DARIUS.KEMEKLIS@MED. |
|Knapp, Paul |Continovation Services |PKNAPP@ |
|Lincoln, Michael |VA |michael.lincoln@med. |
|Pech, Brian |Kaiser Permanente |Brian.Pech@ |
|Pratt, Doug |Siemens |Douglas.Pratt@ |
|Ruggeri, Roberto |Microsoft |rruggeri@ |
|Ryal, Tod |Cerner |tryal@ |
|Tucker, Mark |Regenstrief |mtucker@ |
|vanCampen, Michael |Gordon Point Informatics Ltd |Michael.vanCampen@ |
|Willmott, Pat |Sierra Systems |patwillmott@ |
Agenda
|# |Key |Description |Presenter |Action Needed |Time |
|1 | |Call to Order | | |9:35 |
|2 | |Agenda Approval | | |9:37 |
|3 | |Announcements | | |9:40 |
|4 | |Action Items | | |9:45 |
|5 | |Transmission wrapper field - resubmission indicator |Michael vanCampen | | |
|6 | |Transport Overview Status |Paul Knapp | | |
|7 | |WS-Enhancements: Security Profile - continued |Roberto Ruggeri | | |
|8 | |WS-Enhancements: Reliable messaging |Roberto Ruggeri | | |
|9 | |WS-Enhancements: Addressing |Roberto Ruggeri | | |
|10 | |Adjournment | | | |
I. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order by the chair Joanne Larson at 9:35 AM EDT. Doug Pratt was the scribe. Quorum attained.
LVI. Agenda approval – this session
Approved without objection.
LVII. Announcements
.Roberto Ruggeri will vote proxy for Allen Honey.
LVIII. Action Items
Roberto has to talk to Karen Van about DSTU status of web services profile. Can include security profile, reliable messaging, and addressing – what is Karen’s take on jointly publishing this under web services?
Action Items
|# |Description |Who |History/Update |Status |
|1 |Need to change agenda to include |CQ Co-Chair |10:35 new item. |Open |
| |continued discussion in Q2 of Web | | | |
| |Services. | | | |
LIX. Transmission wrapper field - resubmission indicator
.Michael van Campen requests to withdraw this agenda item.
LX. Transport Overview Status
Paul Knapp – HL7 agnostic to transport being used. Document is supposed to give an entry point for people to gain an understanding of options. Currently a list of transports with statuses, want to expand it to provide table of features, or list of requirements, to provide more guidance. A discussion of the requirements document is to take place today at Q4. Maybe Overview and Requirements documents can be combined; will discuss at Q4.
LXI. WS-Enhancements: Security Profile - continued
Roberto briefly reviewed presentation from yesterday. Document extends web services specification. Discussed security model, which is not specific to web services.
Jenni objected to use of word “should” throughout the document, wants clarification that this means user should do this unless not possible for some reason.
Paul K had general comment that concepts can be applied across all transports, not just web services, and therefore should stand outside of web services document. Also noted that some of the language is wrong, says that secure HL7 messages must adhere to this standard (should say only secure HL7 message under Web Services). Other examples of this as well – group feels this needs to be fixed.
Andrew noted that there is another general piece of work on abstract messaging, does not want to see this document become more general. Wants to note interdependency between 3 documents. Messaging adapter is a set of functions out of a layer, not an API specification. This needs to be noted and emphasized in the document.
Pat – questioned lab scenario used in the document. Didn’t think it was referenced, but it is. Found security and reliable messaging difficult to follow, wanted more diagrams.
Mark Tucker – Favors keeping document structure, not morphing this suite of documents into general document. Rather, hunt for principles in this document to move up to general abstract document.
Darius – Noted no reference to schema in HL7-WSA006. Schemas are from HL7. Can put reference to section of HL7 ballot where this is talked about.
Ran out of time, most everyone could come back tomorrow Q2.
LXII. WS-Enhancements: Reliable messaging
Reviewed this document briefly. All reliable messaging metadata is in the header, none in body.
LXIII. WS-Enhancements: Addressing
Reviewed this document briefly. It covers end-to-end addressing, not intermediary addressing or translations. Discuss message exchange patterns, all of which can be handled under this specification. Emphasized that this extends web services, does not contradict or replace.
LXIV. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 10:36 EDT upon a motion by Jenni and a second by Mark Tucker.
Quarter 2, Wednesday, September 29, 2004
Topic: v2.6 Ballot Reconciliation
Attendees
|Name |Affiliation |E-mail |
|Larson, Joann |Kaiser Permanente |joann.larson@ |
|Puyenbroek, Jenni |McKesson Provider Technologies |Jennifer.puyenbroek@ |
|Spronk, René |HL7 Netherlands |Rene.Spronk@Ringholm.nl |
|Lincoln, Michael |VA |michael.lincoln@med. |
|Pratt, Doug |Siemens |Douglas.Pratt@ |
|Stephens, Mathew |Ramsey Systems Ltd. |m_stephens_xml@ |
|Willmott, Pat |Sierra Systems |patwillmott@ |
Agenda
|# |Key |Description |Presenter |Action Needed |Time |
|1 | |Call to Order | | | |
|2 | |Agenda Approval | |Continuation of 2Q2 agenda if | |
| | | | |needed | |
|3 | |Announcements | | | |
|4 | |Action Items | | | |
|5 | |Ballot Reconciliation - ch08 | | | |
|6 | |Ballot Reconciliation - ch02 | | | |
|7 | |Adjournment | | | |
I. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order by the chair Joann Larson at 1104 AM EDT. Jennifer Puyenbroek was the scribe. Quorum attained.
LXV. Agenda approval – this session
Approved upon a motion by Jennifer Puyenbroek; second by Pat Willmott.
LXVI. Announcements
We made a decision last quarter that we will give at least part of Thu-Q2 to Transports. Rene will get this change posted to the ‘board’. Today’s Q3 will begin at 1:30 (joint with Vocab; CQ hosting).
LXVII. Action Items
None.
LXVIII. Ballot Reconciliation - ch08
Joann presented a block vote for 831 and 832 – editorial changes but not typos. Edit had recommended to accept this as persuasive. The group could not find the differences in their Word version. Word will render differently due to their settings. Pulled 831 out by itself.
Block vote: 832, 833, 829, 830, 834. Jenni expressed a concern that we should be sensitive to changing segment field names between versions. Rene reminded us to be sure to see if the fields are used in other places, that they will be followed-up on.
Block vote for 803, 804, 805, 808, 802: These were balloted on chapter 8 but the IIM was moved to chapter 17. This was a negative ballot response but will have to be ‘transferred’ to chapter 17.
Group of ballot responses: 816, 815, 825, 824, 820, 819, 821, 822, 823. we discussed 816 first by itself. It sets the tone for the other ballot responses in the group. Then discussed 815 by itself. 825 relates to adding deprecate material in a new message. There is a bunch of these queries in messages (old and new). The problem is for the new messages. The new ones should point to the new queries. The old ones can say it is retained for backward compatibility. Jenni suggested that we do the ‘referral’ to chapter 5. If there needs to be a chapter 8 query response, that needs to be separate proposal for that. Some in the group felt there needed to be normative query responses to chapter 8. Another option is to create a ‘template’. Some think that we cannot ‘revamp’ during this ballot cycle. Jenni had made a motion to “Mark as persuasive with mod to remove the MFR M17 message structure from 8.1.3.1 and replace with language to refer the reader to chapter 5, conformance based query.” Based on this discussion, she withdrew her motion. We discussed going ahead and allow addition of backward compatibility.
Ballot response 801. The chair entertained a motion to agree that 393 should be defer to Vocab. Joann mentioned that this table is a user-defined table. We looked at this but need to stop. We cannot find the balloters issue. In this case, the table is a user-defined table to represent a ‘choice of’ coding systems.
Ballot response 810. It was decided (yesterday) that all messages would contain the optional UAC segment.
Ballot response 806. O/O still wanted the table in the narrative. Refer to O/O.
Ballot response 807. This is a P/A issue. We should refer to PA. They should have picked up the ballot response for their work. Just in case they didn’t, we’ll do a referral.
We have 4 more items for chapter 8 that might be tough.
Vote
|SEQ |Key |Motion |Moved/second |Y-N-A |Comment |
|1 |831 |Mark as not persuasive due to 1) not being|Pratt/Willmot |4-0-0 | |
| | |able to reproduce and 2) Word may render | | | |
| | |differently based on configuration | | | |
|2 |832, 833,|Mark as persuasive (editorial) to be |Puyenbroek/Spronk |4-0-1 | |
| |829, 830,|changed by the editor, following | | | |
| |834 |publishing guidelines. If any issues | | | |
| | |arise, the editor will bring those issues | | | |
| | |back to the committee. | | | |
|3 |803, 804,|Refer to S&L |Pratt/Puyenbroek |4-0-0 | |
| |805, 808,| | | | |
| |802 | | | | |
|4 |816 |Find persuasive with mod based on the |Spronk/ Willmot |4-0-0 | |
| | |editor’s recommendation. | | | |
|5 |815 |Find persuasive with mod based on the |Puyenbroek/Willmot |4-0-0 | |
| | |editor’s recommendation. | | | |
|6 |825, 824,|Add new language that was approved 816 and|Puyenbroek/Pratt |3-0-0 | |
| |820, 819,|add an outstanding issue to the list for | | | |
| |821, 822,|creating chapter 8 query responses. | | | |
| |823 | | | | |
|7 |801 |Pending; Defer to vocab |Pratt/ Willmot |3-0-0 | |
|8 |810 |Find persuasive to add the optional UAC |Puyenbroek/Willmot |3-0-0 | |
| | |segment to all messages, including | | | |
| | |acknowledgement and query responses. | | | |
|9 |806 |Refer to O/O |Puyenbroek/Willmot |3-0-0 | |
|10 |807 |Refer to PA |Willmot/Pratt |3-0-0 | |
See the updated ballot response database entries as a result of this session.
LXIX. Ballot Reconciliation - ch 02
Ran out of time.
LXX. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 12:34 pm EDT upon a motion by Jennifer Puyenbroek and a second by Doug Pratt.
Quarter 3, Wednesday, September 29, 2004
Topic: Joint CQ/Vocab meeting on v2 and v3 issues
Attendees
|Name |Affiliation |E-mail |
|Henderson, Mike |Eastern Informatics |mike@ |
|Larson, Joann |Kaiser Permanente |joann.larson@ |
|Spronk, René |HL7 Netherlands |Rene.Spronk@Ringholm.nl |
|Abner, Sheila |Northrop/CC/NCID |sabner@ |
|Baird, Doug |Guidant |douglas.baird@ |
|Barker, Bob |Siemens |bobby.barker@ |
|Batra, Vivindr |IBM |batra@us. |
|Chute, Chris |Mayo |chute@ |
|Couderc, Carmela |Siemens |Carmela.Couderc@ |
|Dobbs, David |SAIC/CDC |David.O.Dobbs@ |
|Firl, John |McKesson Information Solutions |john.firl@ |
|Gallagher, Len |National Institute of Standards and |Lgallagher@ |
| |Technology (NIST) | |
|Giordan, Matthew |NCI |giordanm@mail. |
|Goga, Nicolae |Technical University of Eindhoven |n.goga@.tue.nl |
|Groves, David |SAIC/CDC |David.E.Groves@ |
|Huff, Stan |IHC |coshuff@ |
|James, Julie |HL7 UK / Blue Wave |julie.james@bluewaveinformatics.co.uk |
|Koncar, Miroslav |Ericsson Nikola Tesla |miroslav.koncar@ |
|Lesh, Kathy |The Kevric Company |klesh@ |
|Lincoln, Michael |VA |michael.lincoln@med. |
|Liu, Steven |NCI |Liusi@mail. |
|Marotz, David |Accenture |david.r.marotz@ |
|Oemig, Frank |HL7 Germany |Frank@Oemig.de |
|Oniki, Tom |Oracle |tom.oniki@ |
|Pollock, Dan |CDC |dpollock@ |
|Pratt, Doug |Siemens |Douglas.Pratt@ |
|Reid, Lowell |McKesson |lowell.reid@ |
|Reynolds, Melvin |AMS Consulting |MelvinRe@AMS-Consulting.co.uk |
|Ryske, Ellen |College of American Pathologists |eryske@ |
| |(CAP) | |
|Schadow, Gunther |Regenstrief |gunther@aurora.rg.iupui.edu |
|Smith, Elizabeth |FDA |smithe@cder. |
|Solbrig, Harold |Mayo Clinic |solbrig@ |
|Solomon, Harry |GE |harry.solomon@med. |
|Wenkai, Li |CDC |WHL3@ |
Agenda
|# |Key |Description |Presenter |Action Needed |Time |
|1 | |Call to Order at 1230 | | | |
|2 | |Agenda Approval | | | |
|3 | |Announcements | | | |
|4 | |Evaluate need for Joint session in Orlando | | | |
|5 | |Vocab Facilitator for CQ | | | |
|6 | |Use of UCUM in the PQ data type | | | |
|7 | |Action Items for v2.6 | | | |
|8 | |V2 Vocab Stewardship of sections of chapter 2 | | | |
|9 | |V2 Ballot Reconciliation | | | |
|10 | |Action Items for v3 | | | |
|11 | |V3 DisplayName and DisplayText / Description | | | |
| | |Identifier | | | |
|12 | |V3 CTS data type usage | | | |
|13 | |V3 Usage problems with CD data type | | | |
|14 | |Adjournment | | | |
I. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order by the chair Joann Larsen at 12:35 PM EDT. Rene Spronk was the scribe. Quorum attained.
LXXI. Agenda approval – this session
Approved upon a motion by Stan Huff; second by Rene Spronk.
LXXII. Announcements
None.
LXXIII. Evaluate need for Joint Session in Orlando
Stan: we need at least 1 Quarter joint session. If there will be a new version of abstract data types, then we may need additional time. Foundation document to be completed. Gunther has some proposals for the next release, hope to have material ready for vote on the December cycle.
Let’s plan on 2 quarters. Wednesday Q3, Q4.
LXXIV. Vocab Facilitator for CQ
CQ hasn’t had a vocabulary facilitator for a while now. There may be a CQ volunteer. Sandy Stewart has indicated interest. Rene Spronk moves that Sandy Stuart be the CQ vocab facilitator. Stan Huff moves to accept Sandy (seconded by Chris Chute). Unanimous 5-0-0.
Vote
|SEQ |Key |Motion |Moved/second |Y-N-A |Comment |
| | |Rene moves that Sandy be the CQ vocab |Stan Huff/Chris Chute |5-0-0 | |
| | |facilitator. Stan moves to accept Sandy | | | |
LXXV. Use of UCUM in the PQ data type
John Firl/Bob Barker (LAPOCT-IEEE). Issues with OBX segment units designations. UCUM is one of the vocabs that’s used. V2 and v3 issue. There’s 2 representations for units of measure Basic issue: have to accept multiple repreations for units. How much longer do we have to support 2 representations.
can we enforce one vocab ?
case sensitivity issue. UCAM has uppercase codes, but these are not normative. This is a print issue, not a messaging issue. The print name is definitely not the one to be sent in a message. Stan: use case sensitive one.
Stan: UCUM is not in common use. Send UCUM in inter-enterprise messages (with local code as translation). Use local code in internal messages.
re motion: does this means that current required units should not be used anymore ? How does one check validity of UCUM codes ? Vocab plans to create a lookup table from usual unit expressions to UCUM representations.
Vote
|SEQ |Key |Motion |Moved/second |Y-N-A |Comment |
| | |The UCUM case sensitive code be the code |Stan Huff/ Bob Barker |23-0-10 | |
| | |that is the required code for units of | | | |
| | |measure in v2 and v3 | | | |
LXXVI. Action Items for v2
Action Items
|# |Description |Who |History/Update |Status |
| |20040505: See section 2.A.89.4. The |Grahame Grieve |20040929: no update, still open. |Open |
| |narrative needs to be updated to | | | |
| |reflect decisions made with proposal | | | |
| |335 | | | |
LXXVII. V2.6 - Vocab stewardship of portions of chapter 2
SEQ 2 motion: in v2 one can’t update a table between cycles. All values would be legal in this table, exiting entries cant be deleted, only added to.
Vote
|SEQ |Key |Motion |Moved/second |Y-N-A |Comment |
| | |Add language to section 2.16.4 as follows:|Stan Huff / Chris Chute |16-0-7 | |
| | |“Vocab is the steward for HL7 Table 0396 -| | | |
| | |Coding System.” | | | |
| | |Add language to section 2.5.3.6 - Table | | | |
| | |Description as follows: “Vocab is the | | | |
| | |steward for Table Descriptions.” | | | |
| | |Add language to section 2.A.8 and 2A.13 as| | | |
| | |follows: “Vocab is the steward for the CNE| | | |
| | |and CWE datatypes.” | | | |
| | |The ID data type in section 2.A.35 and the| | | |
| | |IS in section 2.A.36 | | | |
| | |That Vocab have the stewardship over Coded| | | |
| | |and code-like dataypes. | | | |
| | |Table 396 is a metadescription table, |Ted Klein / Frank Oemig |21-0-0 | |
| | |which doesn’t fit in one of the 4 table | | | |
| | |types, it may be updated more frequently | | | |
| | |than any of the other HL7 tables. Vocab | | | |
| | |and TC will draft a procedure to formally | | | |
| | |agree any updates to the table. | | | |
| | |All changes to sections for which Vocab is|Stan Huff/ Frank Oemig |20-0-1 | |
| | |the steward, must be submitted to the v2 | | | |
| | |change proposal database. | | | |
Action Items
|# |Description |Who |History/Update |Status |
|ATL-WED-Q3-1 |20040929 Approach ARB to make changes to the substantice|Stan Huff | | |
| |change document. The table 396 is a special use-case. | | | |
|ATL-WED-Q3-2 |20040929 Draft procedure for agreeing updates to 396. |Stan Huff | | |
| |Will bring draft to CQ. | | | |
LXXVIII. Ballot Reconciliation v2.6
Doug Pratt motioned prior to discussion/motioning of item 80 to have discussion (17-0-0). In CNE, is the code mandatory ? Do CNE have to come from a non-extensible list of codes ? User defined, HL7 defined, externally defined, combination of external code sets (‘user-selectable’, not extensible).
Should we allow user defined tables for use with CNE ?
Stan Huff: CNE = coded, HL7 or external.
Mike Henderson: The E in CNE is “Exceptions”, not Extensions. Concerns with regard to interoperability related to use of User defined Table.
Harry Solomon: CNE with user def table doesn’t make sense, can’t extend it. It already consists of locally defined codes.
Frank Oemig: what was the primary intent of CNE. The fact that code is mandatory, or that the referenced code set be closed/limited.
Doug Pratt: we need more datatypes. Coded-not coded / from a closed set or not.
The item went unresolved and will be taken up Q1 tomorrow. CQ will join Vocab after 30 minutes in Q1.
Vote
|SEQ |Key |Motion |Moved/second |Y-N-A |Comment |
| |78 |Persuasive. |Stan Huff / Cecil Lynch |19-0-1 | |
| | |Add code SCT to table 0396. Description= | | | |
| | |SNOMED Clinical Terms, Comment/Source= | | | |
| | |SNOMED International, 325 Waukegan Rd, | | | |
| | |Northfield, IL, 60093, 800-323-4040, | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | |..and to correct the contact address. | | | |
| | |NOTE: Subsequent to the vote Ellen | | | |
| | |provided the correct contact details: | | | |
| | |I325 Waukegan Rd, Northfield, IL, 60093, | | | |
| | |+1 800-323-4040, | | | |
| | |mailto:snomed@ | | | |
| | | | | | |
| |119 |Same as 78 | | | |
| |120 |Same as 78 | | | |
| |79 |Persuasive. Add Code=ITIS, to table 0396. |Stan Huff / Cecil Lynch |16-0-2 | |
| | |Description= Integrated Taxonomic | | | |
| | |Information System, Comment/Source= | | | |
| | |itis.. | | | |
See the updated ballot response database entries as a result of this session.
LXXIX. Action Items v3
(the status of these action items was not discussed during this quarter due to a lack of time).
Action Items
|# |Description |Who |History/Update |Status |
|3Q3-03 |20030430: The coding rationale in the |Grahame Grieve |20040105: CQ Telcon: Grahame believes this item is |unclear |
| |CD data type needs to be put into the | |not stated correctly. Refer back to joint mtg for | |
| |rest of the appropriate data types, | |clarification | |
| |such as CE, CV and CS. | |20040505: Added to today’s agenda. | |
|3Q3-04 |20030430: The recommendation is to make|Grahame Grieve |20040105: CQ Telcon: Grahame reported that this item | |
| |the changes to the data type abstract | |is still outstanding - actively in progress over the | |
| |specification where examples similar to| |last several days. | |
| |this would be added. | | | |
|3Q4-09 |20040505: Stan to send the originalText|Stan Huff | | |
| |and displayname changes | | | |
|3Q4-10 |20040505: CTS document and Java SIG use| | | |
| |same package name org.hl7.types | | | |
|3Q4-11 |20040505: We will raise the use case | | | |
| |for the CD changes at harmonization, | | | |
| |and publish something in the draft at | | | |
| |the next publication cycle | | | |
LXXX. V3 DisplayName and DisplayText / Description Identifier
This agenda item wasn’t discussed this quarter due to a lack of time.
LXXXI. V3 CTS data type usage
This agenda item wasn’t discussed this quarter due to a lack of time.
LXXXII. V3 Usage problems with CD data type
This agenda item wasn’t discussed this quarter due to a lack of time.
LXXXIII. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 15:15 EDT upon a motion by Ted Klein and a second by Rene Spronk.
Quarter 4, Wednesday, September 29, 2004
Topic: v3 Transports
Attendees
|Name |Affiliation |E-mail |
|Henderson, Mike |Eastern Informatics |mike@ |
|Larson, Joann |Kaiser Permanente |joann.larson@ |
|Spronk, René |HL7 Netherlands |Rene.Spronk@Ringholm.nl |
|Aitchison, Penny |NHSIA, Uk |penny.aitchison@nhsia.nhs.uk |
|Biron, Paul |Kaiser Permanente |paul.v.vbiron@ |
|Hinchley, Andrew |HL7 UK |andrewhinchley@cpl-consulting.co.uk |
|Honey, Alan |Kaiser Permanente |alan.p.honey@ |
|Jewell, Gaby |Cerner |gjewell@ |
|Kemeklis, Darius |VA |DARIUS.KEMEKLIS@MED. |
|Knapp, Paul |Continovation Services |PKNAPP@ |
|Koncar, Miroslav |Ericsson Nikola Tesla |miroslav.koncar@ |
|Lincoln, Michael |VA |michael.lincoln@med. |
|Pratt, Doug |Siemens |Douglas.Pratt@ |
|Rubin, Ken |VA/EDS |Ken.Rubin@med. |
|Ryal, Tod |Cerner |tryal@ |
|Stuart, Sandy |Kaiser Permanente |sandra.stuart@ |
|Tucker, Mark |Regenstrief |mtucker@ |
Agenda
|# |Key |Description |Presenter |Action Needed |Time |
|1 | |Call to Order | | | |
|2 | |Agenda Approval | | | |
|3 | |Announcements | | | |
|4 | |Action Items | | | |
|5 |901 |Prop 901 Abstract Transport Specification including | | | |
| | |Integrated State Model for 901 | | | |
|6 |803 |Prop 803 Message Routing | | | |
|7 | |Router State Model | | | |
|8 | |Relay State Model | | | |
|9 |908 |Prop 908 (IM?) HL7 Ping [unless addressed elsewhere]| | | |
|14 | |Adjournment | | | |
I. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order by the chair, René Spronk, at 3:30 PM EDT. Mike Henderson was the scribe. Quorum attained.
LXXXIV. Agenda approval – this session
Approved without objection.
LXXXV. Announcements
BOF session dealing with Service Specifications at 7:00 p.m. in Atlanta 2.
Transport will be dealt with in CQ TQ tomorrow during Q2.
LXXXVI. Action Items
Action Items
|# |Description |Who |History/Update |Status |
| 4Q3- |20040506: Create a normative |Rene |20040506: The document will be based on an agreed set|Open |
| |“requirements for transport | |of use case, with the goal of creating a common | |
| |specifications” document. | |framework Rene will chair the task force and report | |
| | | |back next WGM This will require a new transport | |
| | | |overview. | |
|4Q3- |20040506: Add language regarding | |20040929: Proposal to resolve this issue has been |Closed |
| |ReplyTo to the transport intro and MCCI| |adopted. | |
|3Q2-01 |20040505: Evaluate need to include an |Paul Knapp |20040505: Mark Tucker identified a use case for an |Open |
| |end-to-end commit ack in the transport | |end-to-end commit ack. This needs to be discussed by | |
| |requirements documentation. | |the (future) transport taskforce for possible | |
| | | |inclusion in the transport requirements | |
| | | |documentation. | |
|3Q2-03 |20040929: Provide documentation of use|Mark Tucker | |Open |
| |case in 3Q2-01 above. | | | |
|02 |20040809: Transports Intro document to |Paul Knapp | |Open |
| |be updated | | | |
|1 |20040816: Submit comments and work on |Roberto R | 20040823: Roberto will create an update before |Closed |
| |nomenclature and return Transport | |Thursday 26th and send to rene as well as the | |
| |Requirements document to René | |Transports list. | |
|2 |20040816: submit a clarification of the|Paul K | |Closed |
| |routing section as follows: 1. replace | | | |
| |the term Relay with Gateway 2. Address | | | |
| |routing maps under the routing section | | | |
LXXXVII. Prop 901 Abstract Transport Specification including Integrated State Model for 806 and 901
Roberto Ruggeri presented an overview of the document.
Paul Knapp suggested adding an illustration of the bridge or router, and Roberto agreed.
Paul K asked about the scope of auditing. Roberto states that it is at the messaging level, not the application level. Paul believes there is no single party that can do end-to-end auditing at the message transport level (absent adding cargo to the message). Roberto agrees and is willing to consider that end-to-end auditing might be out of scope.
Sequencing – the sending application is responsible in V3 for generating the sequence number.
Motion 1 below was introduced and passed. Much discussion centered around whether a gateway or intermediary was an HL7 application role.
In an interaction A to B to C, may B change a message addressed from A to C? Roberto asserts that this is a common practice in V2. Suppose however that C changes to V3? Is such transformation acceptable? Mark Tucker suggests the documentation of this behavior.
Roberto cited MTOM (Message Transport Optimization Method) as a possible successor to MIME / DIME.
Darius is concerned that the wording of the document might be preventing acknowledgements at the transport level. Roberto states that this is not the case. Reliable messaging does not guarantee that just because the receiver gets the message, it will be processed by the destination. Thus an application level acknowledgement is required.
Nicu Goga asked that his 806 presentation be deferred to Q3 tomorrow.
Vote
|SEQ |Key |Motion |Moved / second |Y-N-A |Comment |
|1 | |Application level routing will be acknowledged but not |Ruggeri / Larson|14:0:3 | |
| | |discussed in the abstract transport specification | | | |
Action Items
|# |Description |Who |History / Update |Status |
|1 |040929: Discuss and document the transformation of messages by messaging |Mark Tucker | |New |
| |level middleware. | | | |
|2 |040929: Clarify concept of session in context of transport documents (as |Andrew Hinchley | |New |
| |opposed to session as defined by SIGSecure) | | | |
|3 |040929: Review document for conflicts or alignments with JMS. |Darius Kemeklis | |New |
|4 |040929: Suggest new wording to describe messaging adapter in main diagram |Andrew Hinchley | |New |
|5 |040929: Review definitions in document (including bridge and gateway and |Miroslav Koncar | |New |
| |HL7 application) and report back to committee | | | |
LXXXVIII. Prop 803 Message Routing
Joann Larson accepted the gavel so that René could present the proposal. Discussion has been deferred pending development of 901, but it is now understood to be out of the scope of 901.
Re proposal 2: Mark outlined a scenario where a message is routed to another besides the initial intended receiver. Gaby says in that case the message had better be rewritten; if someone mistakenly sends her a message she need not send it back, why should she be forced to forward it. The phrase “should forward” would be better than “has to make an attempt to forward”. Paul B infers that sniffing is OK, but processing is not. Gaby has a use case for augmenting the message. Mark asks if what we are clarifying is HL7’s position on lurking; René confers that it is, and that the position is that it is unacceptable for a non-intended receiver to process a message in any way whatever. Tomorrow a process for explicitly identifying lurkers will be discussed.
Miroslav points out that sometimes that there are broadcast use cases that involve augmentation. Paul B doesn’t understand how a message can be addressed to a lurker (sniffer). Mike asks if we are talking about cc:/bcc:? Miroslav says no, we are talking about to:, but there might be multiple machines between from: and to:. He feels that intermediate routers should change none of the message, even the wrappers.
Mark asks about the ADT system that is announcing admissions to the rest of the hospital. All receivers have various responsibilities. The ADT system doesn’t care who receives the message. This Mark perceives as a huge problem with application roles – that the contractual responsibilities in the receiver must be embedded in the interactionID. Darius asks – what if there are both V3 and V2 recipients? Must the sender generate 2 messages? Can’t the engine handle it?
René states that listening in for unintended purposes is not permitted by V3 – although this concept will be discussed tomorrow. Paul B disagrees: he thinks that because the lurker does not claim conformance to any application role, it is not bound by conformance constraints.
Andrew suggests we may need a new motion.
See the updated proposal (attached) based on this discussion.
Vote
|SEQ |Key |Motion |Moved / second |Y-N-A |Comment |
|1 | |Accept proposal 803.1 |Spronk / Aitcheson |13:0:0 | |
|2 | |Accept proposal 803.2 |Spronk / Tucker | | |
|2.1 | |Table proposal |Henderson | | |
Action Items
|# |Description |Who |History/Update |Status |
|1 |Create a “lurking” document |Mark Tucker | |New |
LXXXIX. Router State Model
XC. Relay State Model
XCI. Prop 908 HL7 Ping
XCII. Transport Overview Status
XCIII. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 5:00 p.m. EDT upon a motion by Paul Biron.
Quarter 1, Thursday, September 30, 2004
Topic: Host joint CQ/XML meeting
Attendees
|Name |Affiliation |E-mail |
|Larson, Joann |Kaiser Permanente |joann.larson@ |
|Puyenbroek, Jenni |McKesson Provider Technologies |Jennifer.puyenbroek@ |
|Aitchison, Penny |NHSIA, Uk |penny.aitchison@nhsia.nhs.uk |
|Dombek, Charles |WKHealth |cdombek@ |
|Heggli, Beat |HL7 Switzerland |beat.heggli@torex-health.ch |
|Hinchley, Andrew |HL7 UK |andrewhinchley@cpl-consulting.co.uk |
|Jewell, Gaby |Cerner |gjewell@ |
|Knapp, Paul |Continovation Services |PKNAPP@ |
|Marley, Tom |University of Salford |t.marley@salford.ac.uk |
|McCay, Charlie |HL7 UK, Ramsey Systems |Charlie@RamseySystems.co.uk |
|Pratt, Doug |Siemens |Douglas.Pratt@ |
|Ryal, Tod |Cerner |tryal@ |
|Smith, Karen |The Kevric Company |ksmith@ |
|Stephens, Mathew |Ramsey Systems Ltd. |m_stephens_xml@ |
|Stuart, Sandy |Kaiser Permanente |sandra.stuart@ |
|Tucker, Mark |Regenstrief |mtucker@ |
|Ziyad, Jo Ann |Food and Drug Administration |jziyada@fda. |
Agenda
|# |Key |Description |Presenter |Action Needed |Time |
|1 | |Call to Order | | | |
|2 | |Agenda Approval | | | |
|3 | |Announcements | | | |
|4 | |Evaluate Need for Joint Session in Orlando | | | |
|5 | |Action Items | | | |
|6 | |XML Implementation Guide Status | | | |
|7 | |XML ITS Structures status | | | |
|8 | |XML ITS Data Types status | | | |
|9 | |Adjournment | | | |
I. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order by the chair Joann Larson at 9:05 AM EDT. Jennifer Puyenbroek was the scribe. Quorum attained.
XCIV. Agenda approval – this session
Approved without objection.
XCV. Announcements
None.
XCVI. Evaluate need for Joint Session in Orlando
Yes. Need to shorten them, if possible.
Maybe a representative from XML will come to Mon-Q1 CQ meeting to, at a minimum, give a status. They need their time in their meeting time but also need to be able to bring issues to CQ.
XCVII. Action Items
Action Items
|# |Description |Who |History/Update |Status |
|2Q1-01 |20030114: We need to document |Grahame Grieve |20040105: CQ Telcon: Grahame reported that this is |Deferred |
| |difference between abstract | |still in progress | |
| |specification and XML ITS DataTypes. | |20040506: Still open – slated for release 2 | |
| |Andrew H will get list of differences | |20040930: CQ WGM: deferred and slated for R2 | |
| |from Paul. | | | |
|4Q1-01 |Action: Discover if there is further |Roberto/Charlie/Paul |20040506: To agenda |Closed |
| |issue with respect to caching of |Biron |20040930: CQ WGM: To close this item, XML should | |
| |schemas for different versions of | |write something on the list on what needs to be done.| |
| |interactions. | |Have added some things to the WSDL. The toolssmiths | |
| | | |know what they need to do. Action item: Document for| |
| | | |different flavors of schemas. | |
|4Q1-02 |Charlie will Consult with PA (Gregg |Charlie |20040506: Still open |Open |
| |Seppala) r.e. codes from V2 to see if | |20040930: CQ WGM: still open with guilt | |
| |there are use cases (#80 postal address| | | |
| |use) | | | |
|4Q1-03 |Potential Action: if there are use |Grahame G |20040506: Dependent on 4Q1-02 above |Open |
| |cases (#80 postal address use), then a | |20040930: CQ WGM: still open with guilt | |
| |harmonization proposal will be crafted | | | |
| |by GG. | | | |
|4Q1-04 |20040506: Fix the CR data type |Paul Knapp |20040506:CR is marked in the ITS as an extension of |Open |
| | | |CD, both in the schema and the type template. This is| |
| | | |in error, as it should be an extension of ANY. | |
| | | |Paul: This is a legacy of the past where CR did | |
| | | |extend CD | |
| | | |20040930: CQ WGM: Paul Knapp will do technical to the| |
| | | |ITS. This does not affect the data type abstract. | |
| | | |Not substantive. | |
|4Q1-05 |20040506: complete the definition of |Paul Knapp |20040506: CodingRationale was added to the Abstract |Open |
| |codingRationale. | |Data types at the request of the vocabulary | |
| | | |committee, but not completed in either the abstract | |
| | | |data types, or the ITS documents. The vocabulary | |
| | | |domain has been defined and populated by the | |
| | | |vocabulary committee. This must be handled as a | |
| | | |technical correction, with a choice of completing the| |
| | | |definition of codingRationale, or removing it | |
| | | |completely. | |
| | | |20040930: CQ WGM: still open. | |
|4Q1-06 |20040506: Determine if schemas are in |Paul Knapp |20040506: The committee was unable to come to |Closed |
| |or out of the specification | |consensus over these issues. Discussion was | |
| | | |terminated, to be continued on a teleconference that | |
| | | |will be announced on the xml and cq email lists | |
| | | |20040930: CQ WGM: still open. The determination has | |
| | | |been made. They know what they are going to do. | |
| | | |Will be in the appendix. Closed | |
|7 |20040524: Telcon: Create list of |Paul Knapp |20040607: CQ Telcon: Grahame G reported that the list|Open |
| |editorial changes for XML ITS Data Type| |of editorial corrections in progress. | |
| | | |20040930: CQ WGM: still open. The editorial changes | |
| | | |while doing 8 below. In progress. | |
|8 |20040524: CQ Telcon: Schema fragments |Paul Knapp and Paul |20040930: CQ WGM: In progress |Open |
| |to be removed from ITS document to the |Biron | | |
| |Appendix | | | |
|9 |20040524: CQ Telcon: Submit XML ITS |Paul Knapp |20040930: CQ WGM: Schedule needs to be revised. |Open |
| |Data Type document by July 2 to CQ TC | | | |
| |and XML SIG for e-mail straw vote | | | |
| |closing July 9 establishing the | | | |
| |committees' view that the changes made | | | |
| |are not substantive. | | | |
|10 |20040524: CQ Telcon: Submit changes to |Paul Knapp |20040930: CQ WGM: Still open. Dependent on the other|Open |
| |XML ITS Data Type document to ARB for | |items | |
| |binding confirmation if CQ believes | | | |
| |they are NOT substantive | | | |
|11 |20040524: CQ Telcon: Create list of |Charlie McCay |20040930: CQ WGM: In progress with guilt |Open |
| |editorial changes to the XML ITS | | | |
| |Structures document | | | |
XCVIII. XML Implementation Guide Status
Action Items
|# |Description |Who |History/Update |Status |
| |20040930: CQ WGM. Document schema | |20040930: CQ WGM. |Open |
| |caching for flavors of schema | | | |
XCIX. XML ITS Structures status
There is a work item going on by Kumar to review all negative ballot items. Also making sure we’ve done everything we’re supposed to do. They are going back to negative balloters whose resolutions were handled by the material being sent to the Implementation Guide to see if they still think that this standard is not usable without this Implementation Guide.
Karen has not produced paperwork for ANSI pending Kumar’s ballot reconciliation work.
Action Items
|# |Description |Who |History/Update |Status |
| |Review previous ballot responses |Kumar |20040930 WGM: In progress |Open |
| |Produce Implementation Guide | |20040930 WGM: not being worked on |Open |
| |Reviewing implications with previous |Kumar |20040930 WGM: In progress |Open |
| |ballot resolutions | | | |
| |Clarify ANSI status |Charlie McCay |20040930 WGM: CQ need to get the official status and |Open |
| | | |the ramification | |
C. XML ITS Data Types status
Our understanding is that we got premature ANSI approval. They are awaiting editorial completion.
Action Items
|# |Description |Who |History/Update |Status |
| |Clarify ANSI status |Charlie McCay |20040930 WGM: CQ need to get the official status and |Open |
| | | |the ramification | |
CI. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 9: AM EDT upon a motion by Jennifer Puyenbroek and a second by Sandy Stuart.
Quarter 2, Thursday, September 30, 2004
Topic: Transport Proposals
Attendees
|Name |Affiliation |E-mail |
|Larson, Joann |Kaiser Permanente |joann.larson@ |
|Puyenbroek, Jenni |McKesson Provider Technologies |Jennifer.puyenbroek@ |
|Spronk, René |HL7 Netherlands |Rene.Spronk@Ringholm.nl |
|Aitchison, Penny |NHSIA, Uk |penny.aitchison@nhsia.nhs.uk |
|Biron, Paul |Kaiser Permanente |paul.v.vbiron@ |
|Grassie, Alexis |HL7 Canada |agrassie@cihi.ca |
|Hinchley, Andrew |HL7 UK |andrewhinchley@cpl-consulting.co.uk |
|Honey, Alan |Kaiser Permanente |alan.p.honey@ |
|Jewell, Gaby |Cerner |gjewell@ |
|Kemeklis, Darius |VA |DARIUS.KEMEKLIS@MED. |
|Knapp, Paul |Continovation Services |PKNAPP@ |
|May, John |Misys Healthcare Systems |john.may@ |
|Pratt, Doug |Siemens |Douglas.Pratt@ |
|Raves, Bill |Misys Healthcare Systems |bill.raves@ |
|Ruggeri, Roberto |Microsoft |rruggeri@ |
|Ryal, Tod |Cerner |tryal@ |
|Stephens, Mathew |Ramsey Systems Ltd. |m_stephens_xml@ |
|Stuart, Sandy |Kaiser Permanente |sandra.stuart@ |
|Tucker, Mark |Regenstrief |mtucker@ |
Agenda
|# |Key |Description |Presenter |Action Needed |Time |
|1 | |Call to Order | | | |
|2 | |Agenda Approval | | | |
|3 | |Announcements | | | |
|4 | |Action Items | | | |
|5 | |WS-Enhancements: Security Profile - continued |Roberto Ruggeri | | |
|6 | |WS-Enhancements: Reliable messaging |Roberto Ruggeri | | |
|7 | |WS-Enhancements: Addressing |Roberto Ruggeri | | |
|8 |803 |Prop 803 Message Routing | | | |
|9 | |Transport Overview Status |Paul Knapp | | |
|10 | |Adjournment | | | |
I. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order by the chair Jenni Puyenbroek at 11 AM EDT. Joann Larson was the scribe. Quorum attained.
CII. Agenda approval – this session
Approved as a re-sequenced upon a motion by Rene Spronk; second by Roberto Ruggeri.
CIII. Announcements
No announcements were made.
CIV. Action Items
Action Items
|# |Description |Who |History/Update |Status |
| |20040928: Check with Karen Van about |Roberto Ruggeri |20040930: Roberto has talked to Karen Van. We can add|closed |
| |how to bring new Web Services proposals| |to an existing DSTU as often as we want. The 3 | |
| |forward given that the foundation | |proposals would be separately balloted as chapters. | |
| |document has DSTU status | | | |
| |20040930: Check with Karen Van if the 3|Roberto Ruggeri | | |
| |new chapters would extend the | | | |
| |expiration date of the current DSTU. | | | |
| |20040930: Check with Karen Van if the 3|Roberto Ruggeri | | |
| |new chapters would be tied together in | | | |
| |the ballot. Is it all or nothing? What | | | |
| |if 2 pass and 1 does not? | | | |
CV. WS-Enhancements: Security Profile
See Attachment HL7 Web Services Security Profile.
Roberto presented feedback from yesterday’s session as follows:
HL7 WSP Feedback
• Use of SHOULD in assertions: it should be clarified for the reader that SHOULD means "this is best practice" and implementers will have to respect that when implementing that functionality (Jennifer Puyenbroek)
• Use diagrams to clarify which parts of the message are encrypted/ciphered (Pat Willmott, Sierra Systems)
• Addressing: have a reference to MCCI in the section that talks about EPR (Paul Biron)
• General sections of the profiles: some of the sections will eventually make it to the overall transport document (Paul Knapp)
• It should be extremely clear that the concepts defined in the document are local to the document itself. As an example consider the term HL7 SECURE MESSAGE, it should be clear that that is not the entire universe of secure HL7 messages, but it is only limited to the WS Security Profile. Suggestion is to change the wording to HL7 WS SECURE MESSAGE or something like that. (Paul Biron)
• Make clearer statements about when a certain assertion applies e.g. encrypt when using a secure transport like HTTPS (Paul and Paul)
• List of agreements that happen out of band, is this complete or not? (Andrew)
o RM: specify types of preconditions to be met before the RM session can be established. The word "certain" seems to suggest that there is a defined list of preconditions (Andrew, Allie)
• MEPs in Addressing: nomenclature is from W3C, add a note about that and map the MEPs to v3 terminology (Jenny and Paul)
• In RM revise this statement (seems like the use of SENDER here is wrong, SOURCE seems more appropriate):
o In order to simplify the processing model and limit the number of possible combinations of addressing header elements, we recommend SENDERS to set the wsa:ReplyTo header element to their own Endpoint Reference (EPR)
o HL7-WSRM002) SENDERS SHOULD set the wsa:ReplyTo field of the message to their own End Point Reference (EPR).
The above note applied to all 3 Web Services proposals. The intent is that once it is understood what the issues are, they will be incorporated into the documents and brought back to a CQ Telcon.
The group next turned its attention to the sections that had been identified in the previous session as needing further discussion.
Section 1.4.4.6 Message Protection: Discussed whether or not encryption was necessary if line was secure. If don’t trust the environment, should encrypt the message. Confirmed that verb is “should”.
Do we need a document that defines the space and how to do things? Then we would be clear as to what is being talked about - recommend vs should vs may. You only have to follow this if you do not have a secure environment - says that somewhere else in the document. There is confusion as to when to use what model. Editorially the document is not clear as to what is intended. Might have security policy options listed at the beginning (Introduction).
Not clear what is “out of band”. Means not in the spec; needs to happen as site negotiated. Not practical to have a complete list.
Question: Are SSL and TLS the same exchange methodology? Analogy regarding unsealed vs sealed letter. Point here is that this is secure (sealed) regardless of how many hands it passes through.
Other than the clear difference that SSL is point to point, not end to end, are there other differences? SSL is tied to tokens to drive the session keys.
CVI. WS-Enhancements: Reliable messaging
See Attachment HL7 Reliable Messaging Web Services Profile.
The group addressed the sections that had been identified in the previous session as needing further discussion.
1.1 Preface: On hold. Not clear what the question is. Person with question did not appear to be in this session.
1.4.1 Workflow: On hold. Not clear what the question is. Person with question did not appear to be in this session.
1.4.2.1 Workflow: Regarding pre-conditions: not clear what pre-conditions might be. Document says they exist but there is no list.
New question arose about workflow. The following clarification was made:
1) Establish reliable sequence; 2) send message 3) send acknowledge - webservice does not have to be public. In reliable conversation, direction is one way.
Clarification requested as to where reliable messaging begins and where Commit Ack ends.
If reliable messaging is implemented, Ack comes from the distal end, not the intermediary. The intermediaries take no responsibility for the message itself. See RM spec.
Question arose regarding the Pre-conditions as stated in WSRM spec. There are 3. Need to reference where these can be found. There are 3 explicit and required; there may be more.
CVII. WS-Enhancements: Addressing
See Attachment HL7 Web Services Addressing Profile.
The group addressed the sections that had been identified in the previous session as needing further discussion.
Section 1.4.3.2 Endpoint References (EPR): On hold. Not clear what the question is. Person with question did not appear to be in this session.
Figure 3: This terminology is from SOAP. Need to say what the HL7 terminology is.
1.4.1: HL7 Scenario: On hold. Not clear what the question is. Person with question did not appear to be in this session.
1.3.1 WS-Addressing: Does the addressing scheme for WS apply more generally to all transport method? Yes. In WS is it the actual address or a token? Typically it is the actual address. Is it a de-referencible URI? Can you use a logical address? Yes, but need to have middleware to handle this.
Abstract document has to capture some of this. Most be clear if address is the end point address because it might be the end point address etc. Need to have the protocol to understand it. Should never put URN there. You can put a logical address there, but must have a resolver there. Example of logical address: Robert’s home.
Should this also work for v2? Meant for v3, but works in v2 if you convert v2 to XML. Would be good to have an Appendix for this. Don’t have the machinery in v2 to handle this well although Network address has been added in v2.6
Vote
|SEQ |Key |Motion |Moved/second |Y-N-A |Comment |
| | |Accept all 3 documents in principle with |Roberto Ruggeri / Darius |18-0-0 |18 |
| | |friendly amendment to bring back |Kemeklis | | |
| | |modifications for group review | | | |
CVIII. Prop 803 Message Routing
Tabled motion from previous session was brought back. See attached proposal. New motion:
Vote
|SEQ |Key |Motion |Moved/second |Y-N-A |Comment |
| | |Table until a future Telcon. |René Spronk / Alexis |18-0-0. | |
CIX. Transport Overview Status
Question: Will the requirements document appear as a part of the Overview Document?
Motion: Overview document is informative; Requirements document will be normative. Paul Knapp/ René Spronk.
Discussion: There is an Abstract refinements document in development. Motion was tabled.
CX. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 12:30 EDT upon a motion by Paul Biron and a second by Mark Tucker.
Quarter 3, Thursday, September 30, 2004
Topic: v3 IM Status; IM proposals; v3 planning
Attendees
|Name |Affiliation |E-mail |
|Puyenbroek, Jenni |McKesson Provider Technologies |Jennifer.puyenbroek@ |
|Spronk, René |HL7 Netherlands |Rene.Spronk@Ringholm.nl |
|Aitchison, Penny |NHSIA, Uk |penny.aitchison@nhsia.nhs.uk |
|Goga, Nicolae |Technical University of Eindhoven |n.goga@.tue.nl |
|Grant, Robert |HL7 Canada |robert.grant@.bc.ca |
|Hinchley, Andrew |HL7 UK |andrewhinchley@cpl-consulting.co.uk |
|Jewell, Gaby |Cerner |gjewell@ |
|Kemeklis, Darius |VA |DARIUS.KEMEKLIS@MED. |
|McCay, Charlie |HL7 UK, Ramsey Systems |Charlie@RamseySystems.co.uk |
|Pratt, Doug |Siemens |Douglas.Pratt@ |
|Ruggeri, Roberto |Microsoft |rruggeri@ |
|Ryal, Tod |Cerner |tryal@ |
|Tucker, Mark |Regenstrief |mtucker@ |
|Willmott, Pat |Sierra Systems |patwillmott@ |
Agenda
|# |Key |Description |Presenter |Action Needed |Time |
|1 | |Call to Order | | | |
|2 | |Agenda Approval | | | |
|3 | |Announcements | | | |
|4 | |Action Items | | | |
|5 | |IM Status | | | |
|6 | |Attachment Issue | | | |
|7 |806.7 |Prop 806 (IM) Ack/Nak model, statement 806.7 | | | |
|8 |806.8 |Prop 806 (IM) Ack/Nak model, statement 806.8 | | | |
|9 |806.2 |Prop 806 (IM) Ack/Nak model, statement 806.2 | | | |
|10 |801 |Prop 801 (IM, QUQI) Response grouper, response error| | | |
| | |handling | | | |
|11 |908 |Prop 908 (IM?) HL7 Ping [unless previously | | | |
| | |addressed] | | | |
|12 | |Adjournment | | | |
I. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order by the chair Jennifer Puyenbroek at 13:46 PM EDT. Rene Spronk was the scribe. Quorum attained.
CXI. Agenda approval – this session
Agenda approved without objection, one change was made
CXII. Announcements
None.
CXIII. Action Items
Open action items:
Action Items
|# |Description |Who |History/Update |Status |
|2Q1-01 |20040504: Develop introductory language| |20040930 Think this was done. |Done |
| |for CI document | | | |
|2Q2-02 |20040504: Bring item 26 to MnM as a |Grahame Grieve |20040902: JKL: Item 26 pertains to AI, section 1.4. | |
| |“WART” this week. | |The outstanding question was: What is the difference | |
| | | |between Author and Performer | |
| | | |20040930: Not done. Unknown status. | |
|4Q3- |20040506: Add language regarding | |20040930: Moot because of an adopted proposal related|Done |
| |ReplyTo to the transport intro and MCCI| |to this | |
|01 |20040712: Craft proposal for ARB |Jennifer Puyenbroek |20040719: Pending the IM split decision. Jenni has |Done |
| |regarding renaming RegistrationProcess | |asked to be on the ARB agenda | |
| |to RegistrationControlAct | |20040802: Received informal approval | |
| | | |20040909: received formal approval. CQ may or may not| |
| | | |merge MFMI back into Infrastructure Mgt in the | |
| | | |future. | |
|02 |20040712: Joann to follow up with Scott|Joann Larson |20040719: Reported completed by JKL |Done |
| |on ballot response 50 | | | |
|03 |20040712: Jenni to add communication |Jenni Puyenbroek |20040719: On Hold |Done |
| |with Gunther into ballot response | |20040930: Done by Jenni. | |
| |database (ballot responses 1 and 2) | | | |
|04 |20040712: Rene to write up topic intros|Rene Spronk |20040719: Reported done |Done |
| |for local and remote polling (as well | | | |
| |as modifications for domain intro) | | | |
|05 |20040712: Jenni needs to get the |Jenni Puyenbroek |20040719: Editorial - reported completed |Done |
| |details and this will be during next | | | |
| |week's telecom | | | |
|06 |20040719: Need to follow-up on item 49 |Grahame |20040719: |Done |
| | | |20040930: part of ballot rec | |
| |20040719: Content needs to be developed|Jenni Puyenbroek |20040719: Jenni pointed out that the content is due |Done |
| |[for MCCI, MCAI and QUQI?] | |by the end of the month. How will we determine what | |
| | | |the content will be? | |
| | | |20040930: Done | |
| |20040719: Contact the TSC chair |Rene Spronk |20040802: Jenni thought this was resolved by Scott's |Done |
| |regarding the split of the | |involvement (along with item 50). Group decided to | |
| |Infrastructure management ballot and we| |deem this resolved. | |
| |are going normative with 3 of the 4 | | | |
| |parts. We will sit out the next ballot | | | |
| |cycle and then go to committee level | | | |
| |ballot with the MFMI in ballot cycle 9.| | | |
|01 |20040809: Need a mechanism for |Jenni Puyenbroek |20040930: need to collect outstanding action items | |
| |following up on our action items for R2| |from ballot database and historic minutes, where we | |
| |(by WGM) | |promised to do something in R2. | |
|2 |20040816: Submit RIM Harmonization |Lloyd McKenzie |20040930: Referedded to MnM, closed for CQ. |Done |
| |proposal on the options receiving | | | |
| |application have in reacting to | | | |
| |interactions | | | |
|ATL-THU-Q3-1 |20040930: contact PIC and develop a |CQ co-chairs. | | |
| |procedure tro track action items that | | | |
| |are referred to other comittees | | | |
CXIV. IM Status
IM goes normative, 3 out of 4 domains. MFMI has been taken out.
CXV. Attachment issue
Proposal presented by Charlie McKay.
Issues
|# |Description |History |
| |20040922: Need to resolve Attachments |20040922: Email from C. McCay: There is a perma-thread in HL7 and XML communities about |
| |handling |what to do with attachments, it is a perma-thread because it matters to implementers, and |
| | |there is no obviously good answer. |
| | |To address this within I suggest that the following set of guidelines be adopted |
| | |by CQ at the WGM and included in the transport protocols specification, and that a change |
| | |as discussed below be made to the RIM. If these guidelines are not accepted then they must|
| | |be replaced by others that provide enough clarity to implementors and message authors |
| | |By attachment I mean non-hl7 structured data, and there is a need for guidance to HL7 |
| | |modellers and implementation folk as to how this should be sent. This was discussed at a |
| | |recent HL7UK meeting and the following guidelines were proposed: |
| | |(1) Wherever possible URLs to the definitive reliable external representation should be |
| | |used |
| | |(2) Text and XML (including signatures and XHTML) should be set inline within an ED |
| | |attribute |
| | |(3) Binary data should always be sent in the HL7 transport wrapper (Message.attachmentText|
| | |[6]) rather than in a transport protocol specific mechanism (such as SwA, or some other |
| | |multi-part MIME option), or inline. |
| | |(4) Transport protocol specific Attachment mechanisms are not to be used. |
| | |Also one clear principle was agreed: |
| | |References from within the message payload to the attachment must be done in a way that is|
| | |not transport dependant -- the identifier that points to the attachment in the |
| | |ED.reference URI must be maintainable across all re-packaging of the attachments. Clearly|
| | |this will not happen if guideline (4) above is followed. |
| | |While guideline (3) may sometimes add indirection when it is not needed, this is a price |
| | |worth paying for knowing exactly where the data will b every time. This saves the |
| | |modeller and the implementor from having to consider both possibilities. |
| | |RIM change: |
| | |There is one problem with this set of proposals -- currently the message.attachmentText |
| | |attribute is of type SET -- and so there is no way to include an identifier for the |
| | |attachment, other than rely on document order of the attachmentText -- which would not |
| | |support attachment references being maintained when signed messages fragments are resent. |
| | |I therefore propose that attachementText be upgraded to a class, with two attributes -- id|
| | | and value |
| | |For those that have got this far -- there is some more detailed discussion below, and some|
| | |interesting references that support the somewhat surprising proposals above (I found them |
| | |a surprising outcome anyway). |
| | |All the best |
| | |Charlie |
| | |The MS paper dated June this year, [3] shows that base64 encoding is not as good as it can|
| | |get for size in all circumstances -- and also includes the statement "Also note that since|
| | |Microsoft is not planning on implementing SwA at this time, you would only want to use SwA|
| | |if knew you never wanted to interoperate with Microsoft platforms" -- base64 looks good at|
| | |the moment... |
| | |The following [1] from Martin Gudgin (Microsoft/W3C) seems to support the "inline base64" |
| | |approach, on the basis that it will be seamlessly supported by the W3C MTOM work [2] -- |
| | |MTOM seems to be mainly MS, with some Sun support, though there is a useful MS paper [3] |
| | |how the various options pan out. A quick look for other java/Sun views take got me to [4],|
| | |which references the WS-I specification [5]. I do not claim that this review of the |
| | |literature is exhaustive, and would welcome other input |
| | |All the best |
| | |Charlie |
| | |[1] |
| | |[2] |
| | |[3] |
| | |
| | |asp |
| | |[4] |
| | |[5] |
| | |[6] |
| | |
| | |mentText-att |
V3 has various techniques to deal with attachments. Some are ITS specific, some are v3 message internal. having many options is undesirable. Some of the options don’t meat all the requirements. HL7 UK came up with possible quidelines. Use external permanent references. This is a very relaibel mechanism.
HL7 UK recommendations (as shown in history box above) is presented.
Vote
|SEQ |Key |Motion |Moved/second |Y-N-A |Comment |
| | |CQ to propose a RIM harmonization to the |Charlie McKay / Gaby |12-0-1 | |
| | |effect that attachementText be upgraded to|Jewell | | |
| | |a class, with two attributes -- id | | | |
| | |and value | | | |
| | |To accept the following wording as the |Charlie McKay / Gaby |14-0-0 | |
| | |text of a document to be published in the |Jewell | | |
| | |next ballot: | | | |
| | |On the assumption that the RIM | | | |
| | |attachmentText harmonization is | | | |
| | |successful, to adopt the following rules: | | | |
| | |(1) Wherever possible URLs to the | | | |
| | |definitive reliable external | | | |
| | |representation should be used | | | |
| | |(2) Text and XML (including signatures and| | | |
| | |XHTML) should be set inline within an ED | | | |
| | |attribute | | | |
| | |(3) Binary data should always be sent in | | | |
| | |the HL7 transport wrapper | | | |
| | |(Message.attachmentText) rather than in a | | | |
| | |transport protocol specific mechanism | | | |
| | |(such as SwA, or some other multi-part | | | |
| | |MIME option), or inline. | | | |
| | |(4) Transport protocol specific Attachment| | | |
| | |mechanisms are not to be used. | | | |
Action Items
|# |Description |Who |History/Update |Status |
|ATL-THU-Q3-2 |20040930: harmonize new HL7 UK |Charlie McKay | | |
| |attachment rules with CDA TC | | | |
CXVI. Proposal 806.7
Rene presented proposal statement 806.7, one of the proposal stements in the 806 dynamic model discussion document. Andrew Hinchley indicated that he didn’t have a problem with the statement in itself, but he wondered if we should decide on this before agreeing on the overall (higher level) architecture. Rene indicated that we’re working at at kinds of aspects of the same issue, and that one has to fix some lements of it in order to make progress. An architectural context will likely be the result of the state model discussion.
Vote
|SEQ |Key |Motion |Moved/second |Y-N-A |Comment |
| | |To accept proposal statement 806.7 (as |Rene Spronk / Pat |9-1-4 | |
| | |amended, see 806 document) |Willmot | | |
CXVII. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 15:00 EDT upon a motion by Darius Kemeklis and a second by Andrew Hinchley.
Quarter 4, Thursday, September 30, 2004
Topic: Continuation of QR 3 agenda - v3 IM Status; IM proposals; v3 planning
Attendees
|Name |Affiliation |E-mail |
|Puyenbroek, Jenni |McKesson Provider Technologies |Jennifer.puyenbroek@ |
|Spronk, René |HL7 Netherlands |Rene.Spronk@Ringholm.nl |
|Aitchison, Penny |NHSIA, Uk |penny.aitchison@nhsia.nhs.uk |
|Goga, Nicolae |Technical University of Eindhoven |n.goga@.tue.nl |
|Grassie, Alexis |HL7 Canada |agrassie@cihi.ca |
|Jewell, Gaby |Cerner |gjewell@ |
|Kemeklis, Darius |VA |DARIUS.KEMEKLIS@MED. |
|Pratt, Doug |Siemens |Douglas.Pratt@ |
|Ryal, Tod |Cerner |tryal@ |
|Stuart, Sandy |Kaiser Permanente |sandra.stuart@ |
|Tucker, Mark |Regenstrief |mtucker@ |
|Willmott, Pat |Sierra Systems |patwillmott@ |
Agenda
|# |Key |Description |Presenter |Action Needed |Time |
|1 | |Call to Order | | | |
|2 | |Agenda Approval | | | |
|3 | |Announcements | | | |
|6 |806.7 |Dynamic model analysis |Niculae Goga | | |
|7 |806.8 |Prop 806 (IM) Ack/Nak model, statement 806.8 | | | |
|8 |806.2 |Prop 806 (IM) Ack/Nak model, statement 806.2 | | | |
| | |Conversation ID |Gaby | | |
|9 |801 |Prop 801 (IM, QUQI) Response grouper, response error| | | |
| | |handling | | | |
|10 |908 |Prop 908 HL7 Ping | | | |
|11 |912 |Prop 912 MFMI Wrapper | | | |
|12 | |Adjournment | | | |
I. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order by the chair Jennifer Puyenbroek at 15:32 PM EDT. Rene Spronk was the scribe. Quorum attained.
CXVIII. Agenda approval – this session
Agenda approved without objection, some changes were made.
CXIX. Announcements
None.
CXX. Action Items
None.
CXXI. Dynamic Model Analyis
Nicu Goga presents the 806 diagram (attached). Nicu pointed out 2 areas where the 806 model will have to be checked. In a discussion prior to this session Miroslav Koncar and Rene Spronk concluded that the current diagram contains a mixture between a state diagram of the application (sender) and the state diagram of the adapter (source). These two layers should be separated.
Vote
|SEQ |Key |Motion |Moved/second |Y-N-A |Comment |
| | |To split the current 806 state diagram as |Rene / Darius |10-0-0 | |
| | |created by Nicu into 2 state diagrams, and| | | |
| | |to move discussion forward using these new| | | |
| | |state diagrams | | | |
Action Items
|# |Description |Who |History/Update |Status |
|ATL-THU-Q4-01|20040930: Split current model and bring|Nicu, joint with | | |
| |forward the result to CQ |Andrew, Darius, | | |
| | |Miroslav, Rene | | |
CXXII. Proposal statement 806.8
Rene presented the proposal statement 806.8. Discussion followed, centered around the requirement (or not) of a receiving application to send an accept NAK if certain criteria aren’t met. The proposal statement was updated to reflect the opinion of the attendees.
Vote
|SEQ |Key |Motion |Moved/second |Y-N-A |Comment |
| | |To accept the gist of the definitional |Rene / Pat Willmot |9-0-1 | |
| | |statement 806.8 | | | |
CXXIII. Proposal statement 806.2
Rene presented the proposal statement 806.2. Discussion followed. Some attendees felt that it should be up to a receiver to decide if it is lurking, not up to the sender. This would preserve the status quo in that lurking applications aren’t described as an application role at all. One section was stricken from the original proposal statement.
Vote
|SEQ |Key |Motion |Moved/second |Y-N-A |Comment |
| | |To accept the gist of the proposal |Rene / Mark Tucker |10-0-0 | |
| | |statement 806.2, as amended | | | |
Action Items
|# |Description |Who |History/Update |Status |
|ATL-THU-Q4-02|Add a description to the | | | |
| |router/gateway/middleware requirements | | | |
| |document (part of 901?) akin to “The | | | |
| |use of eavesdropping is constrained by | | | |
| |the following: Given a message with ID | | | |
| |X, a sending system shall always send | | | |
| |at least 1 copy of X in | | | |
| |non-eavesdropping mode. Or, in other | | | |
| |words, a sending system shall never | | | |
| |send a series of copies of message X | | | |
| |where all of them have been designated | | | |
| |for eavesdropping.” | | | |
CXXIV. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 17:00 EDT upon a motion by Gaby Jewell and a second by Darius.
Quarter 1, Friday, October 1, 2004
Topic: Meeting evaluation; direction of CQ, v2.6 items
Attendees
|Name |Affiliation |E-mail |
|Henderson, Mike |Eastern Informatics |mike@ |
|Larson, Joann |Kaiser Permanente |joann.larson@ |
|Puyenbroek, Jenni |McKesson Provider Technologies |Jennifer.puyenbroek@ |
|Spronk, René |HL7 Netherlands |Rene.Spronk@Ringholm.nl |
|Heggli, Beat |HL7 Switzerland |beat.heggli@torex-health.ch |
|Jewell, Gaby |Cerner |gjewell@ |
|Oemig, Frank |HL7 Germany |Frank@Oemig.de |
Agenda
|# |Key |Description |Presenter |Action Needed |Time |
|1 | |Call to Order at 0830 | | | |
|2 | |Agenda Approval | | | |
|3 | |Announcements | | | |
|4 | |Action Items | | | |
|6 | |MnM Facilitator | | | |
| | |ARB Representative | | | |
|7 | |Meeting Evaluation | | | |
|8 | |CQ Housekeeping Items | | | |
|9 | |Agenda for next WGM | | | |
| | |Proposal Status | | | |
|5 | |V2.6 Ballot Reconciliation | | | |
|10 | |Ballot Status | | | |
|11 | |Adjournment | | | |
I. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order by the chair, Joann Larson, at 8:40 AM EDT. Mike Henderson was the scribe. Quorum attained.
CXXV. Agenda approval – this session
Approved as modified without objection.
CXXVI. Announcements
Outcome of BOF on Services Architecture that was held on Wednesday night is unknown. There may be a new Transport project, SIG, or TC. VA, KP, and HL7 Finland want to move forward on Services Architecture, but we need to find out the impact on CQ
CXXVII. Action Items
.
Action Items
|# |Description |Who |History/Update |Status |
|5Q1-01 |2004-05-07 Verify requirements for vocab |Jenni |2004-10-01: Sandy Stuart will be the |Closed |
| |facilitators | |facilitator, having been approved by the | |
| | | |co-chairs. | |
|5Q1-02 |2004-05-07 Creation of an archive of all |Grahame |2004-10-01: Duplicates items better |Closed |
| |ballot resolutions, from current ballot cycle | |specified elsewhere. | |
| |and for any previous ballot cycle where this | | | |
| |is still feasible. | | | |
|5Q1-03 |2004-05-07 Create a proposal for the CQ |René |2004-10-01: After draft is created and |Open |
| |mission statement | |approved, must be reviewed by ARB and | |
| | | |presented for approval by TSC. | |
|5Q1-04 |2004-05-07 Request PIC to create a process to |Jenni |2004-10-01: Not always possible (some |Open |
| |ensure that those that bring forward v2 | |elements are V2 artifacts) but the analysis | |
| |proposals should include a v3 mapping analysis| |needs to be done always. | |
|5Q2-05 |2004-05-07 Seek clarification for the concept |Mike |2004-10-01: Mike has not acted but has |Open |
| |of “registration” (related to eligibility for | |learned that a form for the purpose was | |
| |voting) as mentioned in the PIC document | |available at the registration desk during | |
| |(paragraph 7). | |this WGM. | |
|5Q2-06 |2004-05-07 Submit process making practices of |Mike |2004-10-01: Mike has done this and the DMP |Closed |
| |CQ to HL7 | |document has been posted. | |
| |2004-10-01: Find out the impact of Services |Joann |2004-10-01: Alan Honey and Ken Rubin are the| |
| |Architecture on CQ (is a new TC/SIG/project | |points of contact on the Services | |
| |needed?) | |Architecture side. | |
CXXVIII. MnM Facilitator
René will remain acting facilitator. CQ still needs a permanent co-chair/facilitator with an active modeling background. Lack of modeling background hampers our communication with XML SIG.
Two co-chair positions are opening in January. We may ask candidates to inform us of their modeling qualifications for voters to evaluate.
CXXIX. ARB Representative
Grahame had been approached in May during the San Antonio WGM. He has the background, but we don’t know if he can continue to do the work. Mike can be backup or lead representative. They meet at 3:00 p.m. ET every other Thursday.
Action Items
|# |Description |Who |History/Update |Status |
| |2004-10-01: Ask Grahame if he can |Mike | |New |
| |continue to act as ARB Representative. | | | |
CXXX. Meeting Evaluation
|Likes (Worked Well) |
|Chairs and scribes were preassigned. People knew where they were expected to be. |
|Ballot tallies – we had counts ahead of reconciliation time of negative majors and minors and affirmative. |
|Some ballot item groupings had been done for block votes. |
|Minutes templates were available before sessions. |
|Decision Making Processes document improved our session operations. |
|Prepared motions helped the scribe. |
|DMP allows formal TC work to occur between WGMs. |
|Time-boxing improves discussion when done wisely and when honored. |
|Note is taken of expiration of session time (sessions don’t run interminably). |
|Out-of-order discussions and revisits have been greatly reduced. |
|Dislikes (Need Improvement) |
|DMP needs to consider allowing for presentation time before proposal motions. |
|DMP needs to allow for open discussion (time-boxed). Mike to research parliamentary practice of Committee of the Whole.|
|Prepared motions didn’t inform committee participants of the larger context in which they were made. |
|DMP doesn’t specify what can’t be done formally in teleconference (e.g., WGM minutes approval). |
|Need to reinstate policy of taking matters offline if they can’t be brought to closure in 15 minutes. |
|Impossible to present a proposal and to scribe at the same time. Almost impossible to present a proposal and to chair |
|at the same time. Difficult to scribe and to discuss at the same time. |
|Sessions need to start (and end) on time, i.e., as soon as quorum is reached at or after starting time. |
|Ballot recommendations were not completed ahead of time (Mike wasn’t available to work with Joann). |
|Meetings are interrupted to explain history and context to late arrivals. This isn’t permitted in some other |
|committees. |
|Requirements for committee membership and voting aren’t well-understood or enforced. |
|Co-chairs need to convene periodically during the week. |
|Brief detail (not full documents) for the week’s TC agenda at the WGM would be useful. |
|Include agenda item table in the published paper agenda for WGM week. |
|No formal process for compiling WGM minutes. |
Action Items
|# |Description |Who |History / Update |Status |
| |2004-10-01: Can a stick/CD be pre-loaded with TC materials for WGM session|Mike | | |
| |participants? | | | |
| |2004-10-01: Approach PIC about better time management for the general |Mike | | |
| |sessions (which started late every day during the Atlanta WGM). | | | |
| |2004-10-01: Research how requirements for committee membership and voting |René | | |
| |may be enforced. | | | |
| |2004-10-01: Schedule times for co-chair meetings during the week. |Steering Committee | | |
| |2004-10-01: Include agenda item table in the published paper agenda for |Joann | | |
| |WGM week. | | | |
| |2004-10-01: Add minutes compilation to planning process for WGMs. |Steering Committee | | |
| |(Compile planning process document.) | | | |
CXXXI. Agenda for Next WGM
The proposed agenda for the Orlando WGM is attached.
CXXXII. CQ Housekeeping Items
A regular weekly teleconference is scheduled for 4:00 p.m. ET Monday 4 October. As is customary for the week immediately following a WGM, that session will be cancelled and Jenni will notify the committee.
CQ teleconferences are now at 4:00 p.m. ET Mondays. To accommodate European participants, a time of 11:00 a.m. ET Mondays has been proposed. No change will be instituted now, but that time will be suggested on the next regular teleconference.
Minutes compilation will be done by Jenni this time. Scribes will e-mail their minutes packets to Jenni.
Vote
|SEQ |Key |Motion |Moved / second |Y-N-A |Comment |
| | |Complete V2.6 resolution during teleconference as a |Puyenbroek / Jewell |6:0:0 | |
| | |priority, beginning 11 October | | | |
CXXXIII. V2.6 Ballot Reconciliation
Some Chapter 8 decisions will need to be revisited with the stewards of the messages involved.
Vote
|SEQ |Key |Motion |Moved / second |Y-N-A |Comment |
|817 | |Accept with mod: resynchronize Section |Spronk / Jewell|3:0:1 | |
| | |8.4.5 with content of Chapter 5 | | | |
|11, 1, 36, 81, 14, 40, | |Accept proposed editorial changes to |Spronk / Jewell|4:0:0 | |
|84, 114, 85, 42, 18, 88, | |Chapters 2, 2A at discretion of editor | | | |
|92, 28, 103 | | | | | |
|70, 73, 69, 68, 67, 66, | |Accept proposed editorial changes pending |Spronk / Heggli|4:0:0 | |
|65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, | |verification with domain chapter editors | | | |
|59, 58 | | | | | |
Action Items
|# |Description |Who |History / Update |Status |
| |2004-10-01: Consult with other committees regarding Chapter 8 action items for |Joann | |New |
| |possible revisit (e.g., MFRs). | | | |
| |2004-10-01: Review Section 8.4.5 in V2.6 ballot document and suggest revisions |Mike | |New |
See the updated ballot response database entries for chapter 2 and chapter 8 as a result of this session
CXXXIV. Ballot Status
For Version 2.5 Chapters 2 and 5 have ARB items. The Chapter 5 item should be a technical correction. Chapter 8 does not have ARB items but has 19 negative items to be withdrawn.
Action Items
|# |Description |Who |History / Update |Status |
| |2004-10-01: Secure withdrawal of negatives from Shared Messages ballot |René | |New |
| |2004-10-01: How independently can the V2 chapters move forward to normative |Joann | | |
| |status? | | | |
CXXXV. Proposal Status
Some V3 proposals e.g. for Infrastructure Management were accepted explicitly for R2. Proposals 802 (multiple vocabulary proposals, about which the Vocabulary Facilitator needs to be briefed) and Proposal 912 (master files wrapper) need to be taken to harmonization. Proposal 601 (batch wrapper) was accepted 1½ years ago but needs to be folded into R2.
Proposals 909 and 904 for Shared Messages have been accepted.
Three transport proposals have been accepted in principle – Web Services Security Profile, Web Services Addressing, Web Services Routing. They still need to be refined and accepted in teleconference.
Abstract Transport specification is a working document.
MCCI – Proposals 906 and 907 are close.
Proposal 908 HL7 ping proposal has been considered. Need Application Mgmt domain in Chapter 3.
CXXXVI. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 11:30 EDT upon a motion by René Spronk and a second by Gaby Jewell.
Quarter 2, Friday, October 1, 2004
Topic: Agenda for next WGM; ballot status
Attendees
|Name |Affiliation |E-mail |
|Henderson, Mike |Eastern Informatics |mike@ |
|Larson, Joann |Kaiser Permanente |joann.larson@ |
|Spronk, René |HL7 Netherlands |Rene.Spronk@Ringholm.nl |
|Harding, Dick |Queensland Health |dick_harding@health..au |
|Heggli, Beat |HL7 Switzerland |beat.heggli@torex-health.ch |
|Jewell, Gaby |Cerner |gjewell@ |
|Oemig, Frank |HL7 Germany |Frank@Oemig.de |
Note: The minutes are included in the Q1 session above. The attendees for this session are recorded here.
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.
Related searches
- 8.3 the process of photosynthesis
- photosynthesis 8.3 biology answers
- 8.3 photosynthesis answer key
- jaguar 3.8 engine for sale
- 8 3 the process of photosynthesis
- 3 8 time signature example
- photosynthesis 8 3 biology answers
- jaguar 3 8 engine for sale
- 8 3 photosynthesis answer key
- 8 3 the process of photosynthesis key
- 8 second quarter mile speed
- 941 quarter 3 2020