20130821 TSC Content Review Team Call

Content Review core Team Agenda/Minutes Location: 770-657-9270 x985371# https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/912759773		Date: 2013-08-21 Time: 9 am Eastern Time
Facilitator	Austin Kreisler/Lorraine Constable	Note taker(s)	Lynn

Attendees

Keith Boone Lorraine Constable Jean Duteau Paul Knapp Austin Kreisler Lloyd McKenzie Dale Nelson John Quinn

regrets Ken Rubin

no quorum definition

Agenda

Agenda Review consolidated recommendations

Minutes

Convene at 9 AM

• Lorraine's consolidated document reviewed.
• Austin's review comments identified, and concern is what they need to do in the immediate term to take it to ballot, versus longer term to take it to UV Realm/normative
• Keith notes recommendation 3 and the Templates recommendations are immediate, and the remainders are beyond the short term.
• Dale notes that he has reviewed the recommendations but has not distilled his own. He agrees with Keith's recommendations, Paul's document, etc. He agrees that recommendations 3 and 9 are immediate and #3 needs to be more strongly worded. Tying into the V2.x IG which used the ISO 21090 DT which was not found to be too complex, is an important point.
• Keith reports that in conversation with KenK they wish to publish the schema but not sure which is the normative component: the schema, schematron, or text version. Lloyd's concern on the schema is the all-or-nothing approach. Schematron can be done on a per-constraint basis, for example. Schema allows you to do a mapping to your database, notes Keith. Neither should be the normative artifact, but Lloyd specifically does not want them to publish a minimized schema other than the ISO 21090. Paul notes that in development of DSS rules they need a schema which expresses the elements of interest. Lloyd notes they are developing a framework against which rules can be defined in which there should be no schema definition. Keith and Lloyd agree that the schema is an implementation artifact. Keith goes on to say that a resource such as a tool linked to GForge or included in an informative appendix could be included if its status as informative is made explicit.
• Summarizing the question, if CDS insists a schema is needed, where would it be included?
• They can reject submissions to their DSS if it doesn't have the data they require, rather than prohibiting null flavors. They do want to provide an implementation resource.
• Keith summarizes that if this is a gray area to the review team then perhaps this should be left to ballot review.
• Implementation artifacts (schema, etc) are not part of the specification (e.g. should not be in the normative section)
• If they use ISO material, there is no additional material that extends it, and no alternative representations of material already in ISO e.g. frequency. This is to be fixed before ballot.
• Edits to 3 discussed. Keith will send his description of a 'proper subset'.
• Recommendation 7 should include their discussion on templates constraints and methodology should be input to the HL7 Templates DSTU project. This content should not be submitted to ballot, but the spreadsheet and some of the Word document explanation could be an informative document. Their templates material should be published as part of the Templates ITS format. Keith will also send recommendation of the specific document recommendations.
• Recommendation 9, Keith will also send some text.
• Document 0 was balloted as DSTU and slated to publish. Recommendation discussed.
• Continued review and discussion.

Meeting Outcomes

Actions Keith will send his description of a 'proper subset', recommendation 9, and specific document recommendations on templates.

Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items 20130822_TSC_Content_Review_Team_Call Austin will be out next Thursday as well as the first couple of weeks of September.

© 2013 Health Level Seven® International. All rights reserved