Quarter 3, Monday, September 8, 2003 - Health Level · Web viewQuarter 3, Monday, September 27, 2004 Topic: Meeting Overview, Co-chair Election; v3 Ballot Overview, v2 Ballot Overview,

Control/Query Working Group Meeting AgendaSeptember 27 – October 1, 2004

Atlanta, Georgia

General Editor: Jennifer Puyenbroek

Quarter 3, Monday, September 27, 2004Topic: Meeting Overview, Co-chair Election; v3 Ballot Overview, v2 Ballot Overview, v3 Proposals

Attendees

Name Affiliation E-mail

Henderson, Mike Eastern Informatics [email protected]

Larson, Joann Kaiser Permanente [email protected]

Spronk, René HL7 Netherlands [email protected]

Grassie, Alexis HL7 Canada [email protected]

Hinchley, Andrew HL7 [email protected]

Jewell, Gaby Cerner [email protected]

Koncar, Miroslav Ericsson Nikola Tesla [email protected]

Marshall, Glen Siemens [email protected]

Schadow, Gunther Regenstrief [email protected]

Stuart, Sandy Kaiser Permanente [email protected]

Willmott, Pat Sierra Systems [email protected]

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 elections officer

5

7 Mission Statement Review

8 Decision Making Practices Highlights 5 (7 -8)

9 Data Types Issues 45

Page 1 of 88


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 V3

Henderson / Marshall

9:0:0

Action Items

# Description Who History/Update Status

1. Phone Grahame for archive of data types reconciliation notes spreadsheets.

Mike Henderson

20040927: New action item.

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

Page 2 of 88

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

Page 3 of 88

# Description History Status

20040921: Review action items from previous ballot reconciliations.

20040921: Email from G. Shadow: review of action items from 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.

Open

20040921: We should recruit another editor for the v3 Data Types Standard.

20040921: Email from G. Shadow: We should recruit another editor, the person needs to be able to use CVS and to edit the 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.

Closed

20040921: SLITS<T>:Add a way to represent NULL values in the sequence.

20040921: Email from G. Shadow: SLITS<T>: add a way to represent NULL values in the sequence.

We wanted to add something about using the symbol “\NA” in the SLIST<T> datatype to mean “no value”. This may actually be just an XML ITS question.

20040927: Proposal required.

20040921: PIVL<TS> add a property called frequency.

20040921: Email from G. Shadow: PIVL<TS> add a property called frequency. This property will co-exist with period and will have type RTO<INT, PQ of time>

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.


Page 4 of 88


20040921: EIVL<TS>: Deprecate many of the current event codes that are of the form Ax, Px, Ix (ante-x, post-x, inter-x), such as ACV, PCV, ICV.

20040921: Email from G. Shadow: EIVL<TS>: Deprecate many of the current event codes that are of the form Ax, Px, Ix (ante-x, post-x, inter-x), such as ACV, PCV, ICV. Instead put in codes for simply C, CM, CD, CV, etc. to indicate the event. Then 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<TS> add event codes

20040921: Email from G. Shadow: EIVL<TS> add the following event codes (with the offset semantics as specified in previous change)

COIT Sexual intercourse

DIAP Diaper change

DEFEC Defecation


20040921: ANY: add originalText property to (most) any data types.

20040921: Email from G. Shadow: ANY: add originalText property to (most) any data types, so that they would be just inherited 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 another specialization of SXCM<TS> in the XML ITS for GTS with literal forms.

20040921: Email from G. Shadow: GTS literal form: add another specialization of SXCM<TS> in the XML ITS for GTS with literal forms. It would actually look like a CE:

<effectiveTime code="JHUSMEM"/>

<effectiveTime code="JHUSLBR" operator="P"/>

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.


Page 5 of 88


20040921: PPD<T>: Revamp PPD to address two interests in the PPD data type extension.

20040921: Email from G. Shadow: PPD<T>: we have two interests in the PPD data type extension. One group of people (Paul 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<T> 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.

Page 6 of 88

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.

Page 7 of 88

Quarter 4, Monday, September 27, 2004Topic: Joint CQ/Conformance session; v2.6 ballot resolution

Attendees


Henderson, Mike Eastern Informatics [email protected], Joann Kaiser Permanente [email protected]

Puyenbroek, JenniMcKesson Provider Technologies

[email protected]

Grassie, Alexis HL7 Canada [email protected], Darius VA [email protected], Pete VA [email protected], Sandy Kaiser Permanente [email protected] Poppel, Bas isoft [email protected]

Agenda


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


20040503: Establish chapter 2B

J Larson Done

I. Call to Order

Page 8 of 88

The meeting was called to order by the chair Joann Larson at 3:40 PM EDT. Jennifer Puyenbroek was the scribe. Quorum attained.


Approved upon a motion by Jennifer Puyenbroek; agenda accepted without objection.

III. Announcements

None.

IV. Evaluate need for Joint Session in Orlando

This joint session should continue for the future unless the need ceases.

V. Action Items

See above for completed action items.

VI. Ch 2B Ballot Response - Editorial Items

Jenni presented the Conformance ballot resolutions.

Vote


1 3,4,5,6,7

Accept all editorial changes Puyenbroek/Stuart

5-0-0

VII. Ch 2B Ballot Response -Negatives and Related Items

Vote


2 30,31,34, 35, 49, 110

Accept to Conformance SIG disposition

Puyenbroek/Henderson

6-0-0

3 45 2B to have its own outstanding issues list

Henderson/Rontey

6-0-0

4 8,9 Synchronise 2.B.8 message Puyenbroek/van 6-0-0

Page 9 of 88


structure and segment attribute table with v2.6

Poppel

5 10 Accept to Conformance SIG disposition

Puyenbroek/Stuart

6-0-0

6 999<needs updated>

Accept to Conformance SIG disposition to the footnote discovered item

Puyenbroek/Grasse

6-0-0

7 2 Accept to Conformance SIG disposition to change “0 to many” to “1 and only one”

Puyenbroek/Stuart

6-0-0

See the updated ballot response database entries as a result of this session.

VIII. Ch 2B Ballot Response - Affirmative Comments

Combined in previous section.

IX. Adjournment

The meeting was adjourned at 4:13pm EDT upon a motion by Mike Henderson and a second by Jennifer Puyenbroek.

Page 10 of 88

Quarter 1, Tuesday, September 28, 2004Topic: Joint Meeting with PM, PA and CQ. Registry patterns Project and miscellaneous items.

Attendees




Brown, Louise HL7 Canada [email protected]

Ferraro, Jean Mckesson [email protected]

Franck, Richard IBM [email protected]

Grant, Robert HL7 Canada [email protected]

Greet, Jeanne Siemens [email protected]

Hinchley, Andrew HL7 UK [email protected]

Hoang, Sandy Oracle [email protected]


Kemeklis, Darius VA [email protected]

Knapp, Paul Continovation Services [email protected]

Liu, Steven NCI [email protected]

Mabatid, Heidi DoD MHS [email protected]

McKenzie, Lloyd HL7 Canada [email protected]

Ohlmann, Richard McKesson [email protected]

Pech, Brian Kaiser Permanente [email protected]

Pratt, Doug Siemens [email protected]

Quinnelly, Mike Oracle [email protected]

Rosploch, June Kaiser Permanente [email protected]

Salvail, LeonHL7 Canada / BC Ministry of Health [email protected]

Sato, Rhonda Kaiser Permanente [email protected]

Stepanik, Diana DoD MHS [email protected]


Yost, Ilene Siemens [email protected]

Zimmerman, Robin Kaiser Permanente [email protected]

Page 11 of 88

Agenda


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.


Approved without objection.

III. 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.


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


ATL-TUE-Q1-1 Arrange for joint PA/PM/CQ registry project meeting in Orlando, CQ hosting

CQ co-chairs

V. Action Items

Page 12 of 88

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

Project Charter Closed

Appoint Project Leader

Open 9/8/04Sharon 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.040928Louise volunteers to do interim project leadership until Infoway have assigned a resource

Appoint Scribe Closed 9/8/04Jan Peterson offered to scribe, although she will not be at the Atlanta WGM. A scribe will need to come forward for that meeting.040930Leon Salvail (Canadian Ministry of health Services, registry project) volunteers

Notify co-chairs of Scott R. Closed 9/8/04

Page 13 of 88

participating committees about current project plans (june 2/04)

Scott R. did believe he sent out a message to co-chairs, but upon checking did not find 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

1.1

Draft terms and definitions using existing white papers, etc.

Bob G 6/2/04 9/8/04Jean will check with Bob to see if he made progress.040928Bob has created a draft list, has been sent to list

1.2

2. Agreement on Starter List of Registries

2.1

Request samples of Registry storyboards and Use Cases

Jean S 5/26/04 9/8/04Jean put out a call for storyboards with no responseScott is sending another plea with his notification above.040928Call has gone out, not a lot of feedback. we can use some new stuff that’s now in PM materials

2.2

Assemble Storyboards and Use Cases into one document

June R 6/9/04 9/8/04 Nothing to doIt was brought up that Heidi may have provided a Use Case in an earlier email on 8/25 regarding

Page 14 of 88

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

3.1

Identify the Patient Administration content that may be affected by the project recommendations

Gregg S Closed 9/8/04Produced and sent a paper which identified which artefacts in the current ballot are affected and noting issues around the registry wrapper

3.2

Collate use case / business model submissions

June R. 9/8/04 - Nothing to doGreg – 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

9/8/04Not enough information in at this point to answer this.

5. Evaluation of MFMI Infrastructure and Dynamic model that exists

Page 15 of 88

9/8/04Joanne thought Rene asked this be included in the Atlanta joint meeting. He may have a specific change proposal. Jean suggested putting Renee as the contact person.Joanne went to the CQ doc page. On 8/25 Renee submitted MFMI draft proposal to CQ, M&M and some individuals, but not an actual submission.He asked for a new description of reg class code to be accepted next ballot, a new msid DMIM and new walk thru before Atlanta. Joanne will send a copy to Jean for PM040928Draft is available, discussed within CQ

6. Recommendations for HL7 Publishing

9/8/04 Dependent on above

7. Resolve question as to whether Registry Pattern to be balloted as Normative

9/8/04 Dependent on above

8. Organize Project meeting at Atlanta WGM, (Sept 26-30)

Enquire about meeting space and time for Registry Patterns Project meeting(s) at Atlanta WGM.

Scott R. Closed 9/8/04The meeting will be held on Tuesday Qtr1. It will be joint with PA, PM, and CQ. The room will be in whichever group has the largest space. Scott is going to send a note to Peggy about the

Page 16 of 88

room and will ask if there can be conference call set up there.

Update Sharon on work

Jean S. Closed 9/8/04Jean will send a message to Sharon Moore thanking her for her participation and potential offer for leadership of this project.

VI. 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 ?

Page 17 of 88

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


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 businessmodels have been described

Robert Grant

ATL-TUE-Q1-4 Upload current draft docs to new project specific docs page

Jean Spohn

ATL-TUE-Q1-5 Ask Mike to create a new registry project webpage for uploading

Gregg Seppala

ATL-TUE-Q1-6 Research minutes of San Antonio to see if scope discussion of registry project was done

PA co-chairs

ATL-TUE-Q1-7 Look at HDF and see what is requirement for businessmodel description.

Robert Grant

ATL-TUE-Q1-8 Created draft generic businessmodel based on UVIC paper, using HDF required format

Louise Brown

VII. 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.

Page 18 of 88

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?

Page 19 of 88

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.

VIII. Adjournment

The meeting was adjourned at 10:32 EDT upon a motion by Gaby and a second by Charlie McKay.

Page 20 of 88

Quarter 2, Tuesday, September 28, 2004Topic: Shared Messages Ballot Reconciliation and Proposals

Attendees


Puyenbroek, JenniMcKesson Provider Technologies [email protected]


Aitchison, Penny NHSIA, Uk [email protected]

Biron, Paul Kaiser Permanente [email protected]




Tucker, Mark Regenstrief [email protected]

Agenda


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.


Approved upon a motion by Jennifer Puyenbroek; approved without objection.

Page 21 of 88

III. Announcements

None.

IV. Action Items

None.

V. 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


1 Verify that the above changes are not substantive

J. Puyenbroek 20040928 Tues-Q2 assigned Open

Vote1


1 1 Motion: mark as not related but with 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

Puyenbroek/Koncar

6-0-0

2 2, 3, 4

Accept items 2-4 persuasive without modification.

Puyenbroek/Koncar

6-0-0

VI. 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

Page 22 of 88

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

Page 23 of 88

and componentOf associations also have to be added to the Shared Messages D-MIM.

Action Items


2 Change to model in proposal required: We need to change act relationship (between OtherAct to Act) component to componentOf and change the direction of the arrow.

R. Spronk 20040928 CQ Tue-Q2: assigned A

Vote


1 904.1 Accept proposal statement 904.1 as amended

Puyenbroek/Koncar

6-0-1

VII. 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


Accept proposal 909 as submitted (attached to minutes)

Puyenbroek/Aitchison

6-0-0

VIII. Adjournment

The meeting was adjourned at 12:25 pm EDT upon a motion by Jennifer Puyenbroek and a second by Koncar.

Page 24 of 88

Quarter 3, Tuesday, September 28, 2004Topic: v2.6 Ballot Reconciliation

Attendees






Veil, Klaus HL7 Australia [email protected]

Agenda


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.



III. Announcements

None

IV. Action Items

Page 25 of 88

Action Items

# Description Who History/Update Status1Q4-01 20030908: Refer table for

Protection Code to Vocab for consideration

Joann Larson 20040105: CQ Telcon: Joann L reported that this has not yet been done20040505: 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.

closed

1Q4-04 20030908: Check with Vocab chairs to see if they want to look at changes to table 0201

Roll forward to Vocab meeting20040505: Joint CQ/Vocab: Changes to both 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.

closed

2Q2-01 20030909: Confirm example for Sending Network Address that references IPV4

Joann Larson Need review of the example (take up Q4)20040607: CQ Telcon: Examples were reviewed as part of the final disposition of the proposal. Examples are believed to be correct.

closed

3Q1-01 20030910: Model the 7 query types defined in chapter 5 in Messaging Workbench.

Jenni Puyenbroek

20040105: Larson: According to the minutes, this was completed. Was it assigned and completed on the same day? Is this a copy and paste error? (take up Q4)

Open

5Q1-01 20030912: take length discrepancies for certain item numbers to ARB. Our feeling is that it is legitimate to have different lengths.

Joann Larson Open

5Q2-01 20030912: Determine format for metadata tables

Open

V. Ballot Reconciliation - 14

Action Items


20040928: Follow-up with Beat Heggli on his unsubstantiated negative

20040928: Beat agrees to remove his negative.

Page 26 of 88

Vote


Persuasive- Apply editorial correction to Introduction

Larson / Veil 3-0-0 Update organization name for Puyenbroek

VI. Ballot Reconciliation - CH 5

Vote


501 Accept editorial correction. Larson/Veil 3-0-0

518 Accept editorial correction. Larson/Veil 3-0-0

505 Accept editor's recommendation to strike Note.

Larson/Veil 3-0-0 20040926: Editor MLH: Recommend: Persuasive with Mod. Strike Note altogether.

522 Accept editor's recommendation

Larson / Grassie 3-0-0 20040926: Editor MLH: Recommend: Noted.


Larson / Grassie 3-0-0 20040926: Editor MLH: Recommendation: Not Persuasive.


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 should be inserted at the beginning of 5.10.5.

Larson / Grassie 3-0-0 20040926: Editor MLH: Recommend: Accept. Note To Balloters should be inserted.

515 20040928: CQ WGM. Accept editor's recommendation

Larson / Grassie 3-0-0 20040926: Editor MLH: Recommend: Accept. This should be consistent.

Page 27 of 88



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.

502 20040928: CQ WGM. Insert optional EVN. This was an oversight; committee intent was to insert segment. May have to be approved by John Quinn to go directly to membership rather than committee #2.

Larson / Grassie 3-0-0 20040926: Editor MLH: Recommend: Insert optional EVN. This was an oversight; committee intent was to insert segment. May have to be approved by John Quinn.

511 20040928: CQ WGM.Persuasive and insert standard language

Larson / Grassie 3-0-0 20040926: Editor MLH: Recommend: Acept. Deprecate and insert language consistent with 5.10.2 and 5.10.3.

512 20040928: CQ WGM. Persuasive and insert std language


520 20040928: CQ WGM: This segment is being deprecated. No further changes will be applied. Not persuasive.

Larson / Biron 3-0-0 20040926: Editor MLH: Recommend: Assume reference is to QRD-10. This segment is being deprecated. No further changes will vbe applied. Not persuasive.





Page 28 of 88


516 20040928: CQ WGM. Pesuasive with Mod.. This section addresses QRI. Table 393 is ready in Attribute table for QRI-3. However, should fix the incomplete example in the narrative.

Larson / Grassie 3-0-0 20040926: Editor MLH: Recommend: Pesuasive with Mod.. This section addresses QRI. Table 393 is ready in Attribute table for QRI-3. However, should fix the incomplete example in the narrative.

517 20040928: CQ WGM. Not persuasive. This section addressesRCP. Table 394 is already in Attribute table for RCP-3.

Larson / Grassie 3-0-0 20040926: Editor MLH: Recommend: Not persuasive. This section addressesRCP. Table 394 is already in Attribute table for RCP-3.

507 20040928: CQ WGM. accept propsed wording.

Larson /Grassie 3-0-0

519 20040928: CQ WGM. Not persuausive. Table is there

Grassie / Larson 3-0-0 20040926: Editor MLH: Recommend: Under investigation. This segment is being deprecated.

Joann Larson took the gavel.

Vote


521 20040928: CQ Atlanta:: Not persuasive. Needs proposal for v 2.7.

Henderson / Biron

3-0-0 20040926: Editor MLH: Recommend: Needs discussion. Would not be a trivial change.


Henderson / Grassie

3-0-0 20040926: Editor MLH: Recommend: 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.

Page 29 of 88


VII. Ballot Reconciliation - CH 8

Vote


826 Persuasive editorial Larson /Grassie 3-0-0





809 Persuasive - Refer to John Quinn to determine if this can advance to membership ballot.

Grassie / Larson

3-0-0


VIII. Adjournment

The meeting was adjourned at 3:04 EDT upon a motion by Paul Biron and a second by Allie Grassie.

Page 30 of 88

Quarter 4, Tuesday, September 28, 2004Topic: CQ/Security and Accountability Joint Meeting

Attendees







Chan, Ernest Kaiser Permanente [email protected]

Coyne, Ed VHA [email protected]

Franck, Richard IBM [email protected]


Honey, Alan Kaiser Permanente [email protected]


Kawamoto, Kensaka Duke University [email protected]



Marshall, Glen Siemens [email protected]

Morwood, Mark Sentillion [email protected]


Regio, Mauro Micosoft [email protected]

Ruebel, Mah Cerner [email protected]

Ruggeri, Roberto Microsoft [email protected]


Agenda


1 Call to Order

2 Agenda Approval

3 Announcements

4 Evaluate need for Joint Session in Orlando

5 Action Items

Page 31 of 88


6 Ch 2 Ballot Response - User Authentication Credential (UAC)

Glen Marshall

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:IETF and IHE actions

Glen Marshall

11 ISO/TC 215 activity report, proposals for HL7 coordination

Bernd Blobel

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.



III. 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.


A joint session will be held Q4 Tuesday at the Orlando WGM.

V. Action Items

None.

VI. Ballot Reconciliation - User Authentication Credential (UAC)

Page 32 of 88

Vote


82 (Ch2) 1 Considered; yes, this is supported

Marshall / Henderson

13:0:7

27, 53, 26, 25, 24, 22, 87, 23

2 Accept editorial changes Marshall / Puyenbroek

19:0:1

86 3 Considered; no, not an echo Marshall / Puyenbroek

15:0:5

21 4 Persuasive with mod: Remove “such as” phrase from ¶1 and add reference to table in ¶2.

Marshall / Puyenbroek

20:0:0

20 5 Persuasive with mod: Remove "such as" phrase from 1 and add reference to table in 2.


20:0:0

83 6 Persuasive: Add the SFT, ERR, and UAC to Figures 2.6 and 2.7

Puyenbroek / Marshall

18:0:2

54 7 Persuasive w/mod: CQ editor will reconcile item numbers for UAC-1 and UAC-2 with HQ.

Puyenbroek / Franck

19:0:1

117 9 Persuasive w/mod: change data type to CWE, keep table type as HL7.

Marshall / Ruggeri

19:0:1

116, 118, 55

9 Persuasive w/mod: CQ editor will reconcile item numbers for UAC-1 and UAC-2 with HQ.


20:0:0

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.


Page 33 of 88

VII. 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.

VIII. 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 the WS-I DSTU

Roberto Ruggeri

20040928: Assigned.

Open

Page 34 of 88

IX. Integrating the Health Care Enterprise (IHE) Report

X. Common Audit Message document - IETF and IHE actions

XI. ISO/TC 215 activity report, proposals for HL7 coordination

.

XII. Other S&A Activity

XIII. Adjournment

The meeting was adjourned at <time> EDT upon a motion by Jenni Puyenbroek and a second by Gaby Jewell.

Page 35 of 88

Quarter 1, Wednesday, September 29, 2004Topic: Miscellaneous Issues and Transport Specifications

Attendees










Lincoln, Michael VA [email protected]




Ryal, Tod Cerner [email protected]


vanCampen, MichaelGordon Point Informatics Ltd

[email protected]


Agenda


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

Page 36 of 88


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.



III. Announcements

.Roberto Ruggeri will vote proxy for Allen Honey.

IV. 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


1 Need to change agenda to include continued discussion in Q2 of Web Services.

CQ Co-Chair 10:35 new item. Open

V. Transmission wrapper field - resubmission indicator

.Michael van Campen requests to withdraw this agenda item.

VI. 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

Page 37 of 88

today at Q4. Maybe Overview and Requirements documents can be combined; will discuss at Q4.

VII. 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.

VIII. WS-Enhancements: Reliable messaging

Reviewed this document briefly. All reliable messaging metadata is in the header, none in body.

IX. WS-Enhancements: Addressing

Page 38 of 88

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.

X. Adjournment

The meeting was adjourned at 10:36 EDT upon a motion by Jenni and a second by Mark Tucker.

Page 39 of 88

Quarter 2, Wednesday, September 29, 2004Topic: v2.6 Ballot Reconciliation

Attendees







Stephens, Mathew Ramsey Systems Ltd. [email protected]


Agenda


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.


Approved upon a motion by Jennifer Puyenbroek; second by Pat Willmott.

III. 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).

Page 40 of 88

IV. Action Items

None.

V. 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.

Page 41 of 88

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


1 831 Mark as not persuasive due to 1) not being able to reproduce and 2) Word may render differently based on configuration

Pratt/Willmot 4-0-0

2 832, 833, 829, 830, 834

Mark as persuasive (editorial) to be changed by the editor, following publishing guidelines. If any issues arise, the editor will bring those issues back to the committee.

Puyenbroek/Spronk

4-0-1

3 803, 804, 805, 808, 802

Refer to S&L Pratt/Puyenbroek

4-0-0

4 816 Find persuasive with mod based on the editor’s recommendation.

Spronk/ Willmot 4-0-0

5 815 Find persuasive with mod based on the editor’s recommendation.

Puyenbroek/Willmot

4-0-0

6 825, 824, 820, 819, 821, 822, 823

Add new language that was approved 816 and add an outstanding issue to the list for creating chapter 8 query responses.

Puyenbroek/Pratt

3-0-0

7 801 Pending; Defer to vocab Pratt/ Willmot 3-0-0

8 810 Find persuasive to add the optional UAC segment to all messages, including acknowledgement and query responses.

Puyenbroek/Willmot

3-0-0

Page 42 of 88


9 806 Refer to O/O Puyenbroek/Willmot

3-0-0

10 807 Refer to PA Willmot/Pratt 3-0-0


VI. Ballot Reconciliation - ch 02

Ran out of time.

VII. Adjournment

The meeting was adjourned at 12:34 pm EDT upon a motion by Jennifer Puyenbroek and a second by Doug Pratt.

Page 43 of 88

Quarter 3, Wednesday, September 29, 2004Topic: Joint CQ/Vocab meeting on v2 and v3 issues

Attendees





Abner, Sheila Northrop/CC/NCID [email protected]

Baird, Doug Guidant [email protected]

Barker, Bob Siemens [email protected]

Batra, Vivindr IBM [email protected]

Chute, Chris Mayo [email protected]

Couderc, Carmela Siemens [email protected]

Dobbs, David SAIC/CDC [email protected]

Firl, JohnMcKesson Information Solutions [email protected]

Gallagher, Len

National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) [email protected]

Giordan, Matthew NCI [email protected]

Goga, NicolaeTechnical University of Eindhoven [email protected]

Groves, David SAIC/CDC [email protected]

Huff, Stan IHC [email protected]

James, Julie HL7 UK / Blue [email protected]


Lesh, Kathy The Kevric Company [email protected]


Liu, Steven NCI [email protected]

Marotz, David Accenture [email protected]

Oemig, Frank HL7 Germany [email protected]

Oniki, Tom Oracle [email protected]

Pollock, Dan CDC [email protected]


Page 44 of 88


Reid, Lowell McKesson [email protected]

Reynolds, Melvin AMS Consulting [email protected]

Ryske, EllenCollege of American Pathologists (CAP) [email protected]

Schadow, Gunther Regenstrief [email protected]

Smith, Elizabeth FDA [email protected]

Solbrig, Harold Mayo Clinic [email protected]

Solomon, Harry GE [email protected]

Wenkai, Li CDC [email protected]

Agenda


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.


Page 45 of 88

Approved upon a motion by Stan Huff; second by Rene Spronk.

III. Announcements

None.


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.

V. 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


Rene moves that Sandy be the CQ vocab facilitator. Stan moves to accept Sandy

Stan Huff/Chris Chute

5-0-0

VI. 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.

Page 46 of 88

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


The UCUM case sensitive code be the code that is the required code for units of measure in v2 and v3

Stan Huff/ Bob Barker

23-0-10

VII. Action Items for v2

Action Items


20040505: See section 2.A.89.4. The narrative needs to be updated to reflect decisions made with proposal 335

Grahame Grieve

20040929: no update, still open. Open

VIII. 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.

Page 47 of 88

Vote


Add language to section 2.16.4 as follows: “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.

Stan Huff / Chris Chute

16-0-7

Table 396 is a metadescription table, 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.

Ted Klein / Frank Oemig

21-0-0

All changes to sections for which Vocab is the steward, must be submitted to the v2 change proposal database.

Stan Huff/ Frank Oemig

20-0-1

Action Items


ATL-WED-Q3-1 20040929 Approach ARB to make changes to the substantice change document. The table 396 is a special use-case.

Stan Huff

ATL-WED-Q3-2 20040929 Draft procedure for agreeing updates to 396. Will bring draft to CQ.

Stan Huff

IX. Ballot Reconciliation v2.6

Page 48 of 88

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


78 Persuasive.

Add code SCT to table 0396. Description= SNOMED Clinical Terms, Comment/Source= SNOMED International, 325 Waukegan Rd, Northfield, IL, 60093, 800-323-4040, http://www.snomed.org

..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:[email protected] http://www.snomed.org

Stan Huff / Cecil Lynch

19-0-1

119 Same as 78

Page 49 of 88

http://www.snomed.org/

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.snomed.org/


120 Same as 78

79 Persuasive. Add Code=ITIS, to table 0396. Description= Integrated Taxonomic Information System, Comment/Source= www.itis.usda.gov.

Stan Huff / Cecil Lynch

16-0-2


X. 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 Status3Q3-03 20030430: The coding

rationale in the CD data type needs to be put into the rest of the appropriate data types, such as CE, CV and CS.

Grahame Grieve

20040105: CQ Telcon: Grahame believes this item is not stated correctly. Refer back to joint mtg for clarification

20040505: Added to today’s agenda.

unclear

3Q3-04 20030430: The recommendation is to make the changes to the data type abstract specification where examples similar to this would be added.

Grahame Grieve

20040105: CQ Telcon: Grahame reported that this item is still outstanding - actively in progress over the last several days.

3Q4-09 20040505: Stan to send the originalText and displayname changes

Stan Huff

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

XI. V3 DisplayName and DisplayText / Description Identifier

Page 50 of 88

This agenda item wasn’t discussed this quarter due to a lack of time.

XII. V3 CTS data type usage


XIII. V3 Usage problems with CD data type


XIV. Adjournment

The meeting was adjourned at 15:15 EDT upon a motion by Ted Klein and a second by Rene Spronk.

Page 51 of 88

Quarter 4, Wednesday, September 29, 2004Topic: v3 Transports

Attendees















Rubin, Ken VA/EDS [email protected]




Agenda


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

Page 52 of 88


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.



III. 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.

IV. Action Items

Action Items


4Q3- 20040506: Create a normative “requirements for transport specifications” document.

Rene 20040506: The document will be based on an agreed set of use case, with the goal of creating a common framework Rene will chair the task force and report back next WGM This will require a new transport overview.

Open

4Q3- 20040506: Add language regarding ReplyTo to the transport intro and MCCI

20040929: Proposal to resolve this issue has been adopted.

Closed

3Q2-01 20040505: Evaluate need to include an end-to-end commit ack in the transport requirements documentation.

Paul Knapp 20040505: Mark Tucker identified a use case for an end-to-end commit ack. This needs to be discussed by the (future) transport taskforce for possible inclusion in the transport requirements documentation.

Open

3Q2-03 20040929: Provide documentation of use case in 3Q2-01 above.

Mark Tucker Open

02 20040809: Transports Intro document to be updated

Paul Knapp Open

Page 53 of 88


1 20040816: Submit comments and work on nomenclature and return Transport Requirements document to René

Roberto R 20040823: Roberto will create an update before Thursday 26th and send to rene as well as the Transports list.

Closed

2 20040816: submit a clarification of the routing section as follows: 1. replace the term Relay with Gateway 2. Address routing maps under the routing section

Paul K Closed

V. 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.

Page 54 of 88

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 discussed in the abstract transport specification

Ruggeri / Larson

14:0:3

Action Items


Status

1 040929: Discuss and document the transformation of messages by messaging level middleware.

Mark Tucker

New

2 040929: Clarify concept of session in context of transport documents (as opposed to session as defined by SIGSecure)

Andrew Hinchley

New

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 HL7 application) and report back to committee

Miroslav Koncar

New

VI. 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.

Page 55 of 88

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


1 Create a “lurking” document Mark Tucker New

VII. Router State Model

VIII. Relay State Model

IX. Prop 908 HL7 Ping

X. Transport Overview Status

XI. Adjournment

Page 56 of 88

The meeting was adjourned at 5:00 p.m. EDT upon a motion by Paul Biron.

Page 57 of 88

Quarter 1, Thursday, September 30, 2004Topic: Host joint CQ/XML meeting

Attendees





Dombek, Charles WKHealth [email protected]

Heggli, Beat HL7 Switzerland [email protected]




Marley, Tom University of Salford [email protected]

McCay, Charlie HL7 UK, Ramsey Systems [email protected]



Smith, Karen The Kevric Company [email protected]




Ziyad, Jo AnnFood and Drug Administration [email protected]

Agenda


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

Page 58 of 88


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.



III. Announcements

None.


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.

V. Action Items

Action Items

# Description Who History/Update Status2Q1-01 20030114: We need to

document difference between abstract specification and XML ITS DataTypes. Andrew H will get list of differences from Paul.

Grahame Grieve

20040105: CQ Telcon: Grahame reported that this is still in progress20040506: Still open – slated for release 220040930: CQ WGM: deferred and slated for R2

Deferred

Page 59 of 88


4Q1-01 Action: Discover if there is further issue with respect to caching of schemas for different versions of interactions.

Roberto/Charlie/Paul Biron

20040506: To agenda

20040930: CQ WGM: To close this item, XML should write something on the list on what needs to be done. Have added some things to the WSDL. The toolssmiths know what they need to do. Action item: Document for different flavors of schemas.

Closed

4Q1-02 Charlie will Consult with PA (Gregg Seppala) r.e. codes from V2 to see if there are use cases (#80 postal address use)

Charlie 20040506: Still open

20040930: CQ WGM: still open with guilt

Open

4Q1-03 Potential Action: if there are use cases (#80 postal address use), then a harmonization proposal will be crafted by GG.

Grahame G 20040506: Dependent on 4Q1-02 above

20040930: CQ WGM: still open with guilt

Open

4Q1-04 20040506: Fix the CR data type

Paul Knapp 20040506:CR is marked in the ITS as an extension of 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 CD20040930: CQ WGM: Paul Knapp will do technical to the ITS. This does not affect the data type abstract. Not substantive.

Open

4Q1-05 20040506: complete the definition of codingRationale.

Paul Knapp 20040506: CodingRationale was added to the Abstract 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.

Open

Page 60 of 88


4Q1-06 20040506: Determine if schemas are in or out of the specification

Paul Knapp 20040506: The committee was unable to come to 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

Closed

7 20040524: Telcon: Create list of editorial changes for XML ITS Data Type

Paul Knapp 20040607: CQ Telcon: Grahame G reported that the list of editorial corrections in progress.

20040930: CQ WGM: still open. The editorial changes while doing 8 below. In progress.

Open

8 20040524: CQ Telcon: Schema fragments to be removed from ITS document to the Appendix

Paul Knapp and Paul Biron

20040930: CQ WGM: In progress Open

9 20040524: CQ Telcon: Submit XML ITS 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.

Paul Knapp 20040930: CQ WGM: Schedule needs to be revised.

Open

10 20040524: CQ Telcon: Submit changes to XML ITS Data Type document to ARB for binding confirmation if CQ believes they are NOT substantive

Paul Knapp 20040930: CQ WGM: Still open. Dependent on the other items

Open

11 20040524: CQ Telcon: Create list of editorial changes to the XML ITS Structures document

Charlie McCay 20040930: CQ WGM: In progress with guilt

Open

VI. XML Implementation Guide Status

Action Items


20040930: CQ WGM. Document schema caching for flavors of schema

20040930: CQ WGM. Open

Page 61 of 88

VII. 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


Review previous ballot responses

Kumar 20040930 WGM: In progress Open

Produce Implementation Guide

20040930 WGM: not being worked on Open

Reviewing implications with previous ballot resolutions

Kumar 20040930 WGM: In progress Open

Clarify ANSI status Charlie McCay 20040930 WGM: CQ need to get the official status and the ramification

Open

VIII. XML ITS Data Types status

Our understanding is that we got premature ANSI approval. They are awaiting editorial completion.

Action Items


Clarify ANSI status Charlie McCay 20040930 WGM: CQ need to get the official status and the ramification

Open

IX. Adjournment

The meeting was adjourned at 9: AM EDT upon a motion by Jennifer Puyenbroek and a second by Sandy Stuart.

Page 62 of 88

Quarter 2, Thursday, September 30, 2004Topic: Transport Proposals

Attendees













May, John Misys Healthcare Systems [email protected]


Raves, Bill Misys Healthcare Systems [email protected]






Agenda


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

Page 63 of 88


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.


Approved as a re-sequenced upon a motion by Rene Spronk; second by Roberto Ruggeri.

III. Announcements

No announcements were made.

IV. Action Items

Action Items


20040928: Check with Karen Van about how to bring new Web Services proposals forward given that the foundation document has DSTU status

Roberto Ruggeri

20040930: Roberto has talked to Karen Van. We can add to an existing DSTU as often as we want. The 3 proposals would be separately balloted as chapters.

closed

20040930: Check with Karen Van if the 3 new chapters would extend the expiration date of the current DSTU.

Roberto Ruggeri

20040930: Check with Karen Van if the 3 new chapters would be tied together in the ballot. Is it all or nothing? What if 2 pass and 1 does not?

Roberto Ruggeri

Page 64 of 88

V. 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 <wsrm:CreateSequence> 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.

Page 65 of 88

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.

VI. 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.

Page 66 of 88

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.

VII. 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

Page 67 of 88

Vote


Accept all 3 documents in principle with friendly amendment to bring back modifications for group review

Roberto Ruggeri / Darius Kemeklis

18-0-0 18

VIII. Prop 803 Message Routing

Tabled motion from previous session was brought back. See attached proposal. New motion:

Vote


Table until a future Telcon. René Spronk / Alexis

18-0-0.

IX. 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.

X. Adjournment

The meeting was adjourned at 12:30 EDT upon a motion by Paul Biron and a second by Mark Tucker.

Page 68 of 88

Quarter 3, Thursday, September 30, 2004Topic: v3 IM Status; IM proposals; v3 planning

Attendees






Grant, Robert HL7 Canada [email protected]




McCay, Charlie HL7 UK, Ramsey Systems [email protected]






Agenda


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



10 801 Prop 801 (IM, QUQI) Response grouper, response error handling

Page 69 of 88


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.


Agenda approved without objection, one change was made

III. Announcements

None.

IV. Action Items

Open action items:

Action Items


2Q1-01 20040504: Develop introductory language for CI document

20040930 Think this was done. Done

2Q2-02 20040504: Bring item 26 to MnM as a “WART” this week.

Grahame Grieve

20040902: JKL: Item 26 pertains to AI, section 1.4. The outstanding question was: What is the difference between Author and Performer

20040930: Not done. Unknown status.

4Q3- 20040506: Add language regarding ReplyTo to the transport intro and MCCI

20040930: Moot because of an adopted proposal related to this

Done

Page 70 of 88


01 20040712: Craft proposal for ARB regarding renaming RegistrationProcess to RegistrationControlAct

Jennifer Puyenbroek

20040719: Pending the IM split decision. Jenni has asked to be on the ARB agenda

20040802: Received informal approval

20040909: received formal approval. CQ may or may not merge MFMI back into Infrastructure Mgt in the future.

Done

02 20040712: Joann to follow up with Scott on ballot response 50

Joann Larson 20040719: Reported completed by JKL

Done

03 20040712: Jenni to add communication with Gunther into ballot response database (ballot responses 1 and 2)

Jenni Puyenbroek

20040719: On Hold

20040930: Done by Jenni.

Done

04 20040712: Rene to write up topic intros for local and remote polling (as well as modifications for domain intro)

Rene Spronk 20040719: Reported done Done

05 20040712: Jenni needs to get the details and this will be during next week's telecom

Jenni Puyenbroek

20040719: Editorial - reported completed

Done

06 20040719: Need to follow-up on item 49

Grahame 20040719:

20040930: part of ballot rec

Done

20040719: Content needs to be developed [for MCCI, MCAI and QUQI?]

Jenni Puyenbroek

20040719: Jenni pointed out that the content is due by the end of the month. How will we determine what the content will be?

20040930: Done

Done

20040719: Contact the TSC chair regarding the split of the Infrastructure management ballot and we 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.

Rene Spronk 20040802: Jenni thought this was resolved by Scott's involvement (along with item 50). Group decided to deem this resolved.

Done

01 20040809: Need a mechanism for following up on our action items for R2 (by WGM)

Jenni Puyenbroek

20040930: need to collect outstanding action items from ballot database and historic minutes, where we promised to do something in R2.

Page 71 of 88


2 20040816: Submit RIM Harmonization proposal on the options receiving application have in reacting to interactions

Lloyd McKenzie

20040930: Referedded to MnM, closed for CQ.

Done

ATL-THU-Q3-1

20040930: contact PIC and develop a procedure tro track action items that are referred to other comittees

CQ co-chairs.

V. IM Status

IM goes normative, 3 out of 4 domains. MFMI has been taken out.

VI. Attachment issue

Proposal presented by Charlie McKay.

Issues

# Description History

20040922: Need to resolve Attachments handling

20040922: Email from C. McCay: There is a perma-thread in HL7 and XML communities about 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 HL7.org 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.

Page 72 of 88


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<ED> -- 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 <II> and value <ED>

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] http://www.gotdotnet.com/team/mgudgin/default.aspx#nn2004-08-20T09:00:13Z

[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-soap12-mtom-20040608/

[3] http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/dnwebsrv/html/opaquedata.asp

Page 73 of 88


[4] https://jax-rpc.dev.java.net/whitepaper/1.1.2/attachments.html

[5] http://ws-i.org/Profiles/AttachmentsProfile-1.0-2004-06-11.html

[6] http://www.hl7.org/v3ballot/html/foundationdocuments/referencefiles/rim.htm#Message-attachmentText-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


CQ to propose a RIM harmonization to the effect that attachementText be upgraded to a class, with two attributes -- id <II> and value <ED>

Charlie McKay / Gaby Jewell

12-0-1

Page 74 of 88

http://www.hl7.org/v3ballot/html/foundationdocuments/referencefiles/rim.htm#Message-attachmentText-att

http://www.hl7.org/v3ballot/html/foundationdocuments/referencefiles/rim.htm#Message-attachmentText-att


To accept the following wording as the text of a document to be published in the 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.

Charlie McKay / Gaby Jewell

14-0-0

Action Items


ATL-THU-Q3-2

20040930: harmonize new HL7 UK attachment rules with CDA TC

Charlie McKay

VII. 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

Page 75 of 88

order to make progress. An architectural context will likely be the result of the state model discussion.

Vote


To accept proposal statement 806.7 (as amended, see 806 document)

Rene Spronk / Pat Willmot

9-1-4

VIII. Adjournment

The meeting was adjourned at 15:00 EDT upon a motion by Darius Kemeklis and a second by Andrew Hinchley.

Page 76 of 88

Quarter 4, Thursday, September 30, 2004Topic: Continuation of QR 3 agenda - v3 IM Status; IM proposals; v3 planning

Attendees














Agenda


1 Call to Order

2 Agenda Approval

3 Announcements

6 806.7 Dynamic model analysis Niculae Goga



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

Page 77 of 88

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.


Agenda approved without objection, some changes were made.

III. Announcements

None.

IV. Action Items

None.

V. 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


To split the current 806 state diagram as created by Nicu into 2 state diagrams, and to move discussion forward using these new state diagrams

Rene / Darius 10-0-0

Action Items


ATL-THU-Q4-01

20040930: Split current model and bring forward the result to CQ

Nicu, joint with Andrew, Darius, Miroslav, Rene

VI. Proposal statement 806.8

Page 78 of 88

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


To accept the gist of the definitional statement 806.8

Rene / Pat Willmot

9-0-1

VII. 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


To accept the gist of the proposal statement 806.2, as amended

Rene / Mark Tucker

10-0-0

Action Items


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.”

Page 79 of 88

VIII. Adjournment

The meeting was adjourned at 17:00 EDT upon a motion by Gaby Jewell and a second by Darius.

Page 80 of 88

Quarter 1, Friday, October 1, 2004Topic: Meeting evaluation; direction of CQ, v2.6 items

Attendees









Agenda


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.


Page 81 of 88

Approved as modified without objection.

III. 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

IV. Action Items

.

Action Items


5Q1-01

2004-05-07 Verify requirements for vocab facilitators

Jenni 2004-10-01: Sandy Stuart will be the facilitator, having been approved by the co-chairs.

Closed

5Q1-02

2004-05-07 Creation of an archive of all ballot resolutions, from current ballot cycle and for any previous ballot cycle where this is still feasible.

Grahame 2004-10-01: Duplicates items better specified elsewhere.

Closed

5Q1-03

2004-05-07 Create a proposal for the CQ mission statement

René 2004-10-01: After draft is created and approved, must be reviewed by ARB and presented for approval by TSC.

Open

5Q1-04

2004-05-07 Request PIC to create a process to ensure that those that bring forward v2 proposals should include a v3 mapping analysis

Jenni 2004-10-01: Not always possible (some elements are V2 artifacts) but the analysis needs to be done always.

Open

5Q2-05

2004-05-07 Seek clarification for the concept of “registration” (related to eligibility for voting) as mentioned in the PIC document (paragraph 7).

Mike 2004-10-01: Mike has not acted but has learned that a form for the purpose was available at the registration desk during this WGM.

Open

5Q2-06

2004-05-07 Submit process making practices of CQ to HL7

Mike 2004-10-01: Mike has done this and the DMP document has been posted.

Closed

2004-10-01: Find out the impact of Services Architecture on CQ (is a new TC/SIG/project needed?)

Joann 2004-10-01: Alan Honey and Ken Rubin are the points of contact on the Services Architecture side.

V. MnM Facilitator

Page 82 of 88

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.

VI. 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


2004-10-01: Ask Grahame if he can continue to act as ARB Representative.

Mike New

VII. 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.

Page 83 of 88

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.

Page 84 of 88

Action Items


Status

2004-10-01: Can a stick/CD be pre-loaded with TC materials for WGM session participants?

Mike

2004-10-01: Approach PIC about better time management for the general sessions (which started late every day during the Atlanta WGM).

Mike

2004-10-01: Research how requirements for committee membership and voting may be enforced.

René

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 WGM week.

Joann

2004-10-01: Add minutes compilation to planning process for WGMs. (Compile planning process document.)

Steering Committee

VIII. Agenda for Next WGM

The proposed agenda for the Orlando WGM is attached.

IX. 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


Y-N-A

Comment

Complete V2.6 resolution during teleconference as a priority, beginning 11 October

Puyenbroek / Jewell

6:0:0

Page 85 of 88

X. V2.6 Ballot Reconciliation

Some Chapter 8 decisions will need to be revisited with the stewards of the messages involved.

Vote


Y-N-A

Comment

817 Accept with mod: resynchronize Section 8.4.5 with content of Chapter 5

Spronk / Jewell

3:0:1

11, 1, 36, 81, 14, 40, 84, 114, 85, 42, 18, 88, 92, 28, 103

Accept proposed editorial changes to Chapters 2, 2A at discretion of editor

Spronk / Jewell

4:0:0

70, 73, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58

Accept proposed editorial changes pending verification with domain chapter editors

Spronk / Heggli

4:0:0

Action Items


Status

2004-10-01: Consult with other committees regarding Chapter 8 action items for possible revisit (e.g., MFRs).

Joann New

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

XI. 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


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 status?

Joann

Page 86 of 88

XII. 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.

XIII. 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, 2004Topic: Agenda for next WGM; ballot status

Attendees





Harding, Dick Queensland Health [email protected]




Note: The minutes are included in the Q1 session above. The attendees for

Page 87 of 88

this session are recorded here.

Page 88 of 88

Documents

Quarter 3, Monday, September 8, 2003 - Health Level · Web viewQuarter 3, Monday, September 27, 2004 Topic: Meeting Overview, Co-chair Election; v3 Ballot Overview, v2 Ballot Overview,