Difference between revisions of "FTSD-ConCall-20110308"

From HL7 TSC
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 147: Line 147:
 
##Gunther: the fork exists - people will have to deal with two its's.
 
##Gunther: the fork exists - people will have to deal with two its's.
 
##Paul: I see the end of one thing, and the start of another:
 
##Paul: I see the end of one thing, and the start of another:
−
#Elise:SDL is a standard. FDA has implemented.  As new partners come on, we add new functionality.  Using the old specification is no change.  Adding a component for devices - providers want to add on new functionality without retooling.
+
##Elise:SDL is a standard. FDA has implemented.  As new partners come on, we add new functionality.  Using the old specification is no change.  Adding a component for devices - providers want to add on new functionality without retooling.
 
##Woody: From the HL7 this should be limited to use cases like you state, but not for all new specifications.  HL7's perspective is using datatypes-r2 using itsr2 is the direction.
 
##Woody: From the HL7 this should be limited to use cases like you state, but not for all new specifications.  HL7's perspective is using datatypes-r2 using itsr2 is the direction.
 
##Gunther Schadow:The issue from the FDA perspective is that there is a whole array of products being used by FDA.  They would like to re-use the XML.
 
##Gunther Schadow:The issue from the FDA perspective is that there is a whole array of products being used by FDA.  They would like to re-use the XML.
−
##Woody: If all new medications have to use this ITS it will destroy the ability to build interoerable standards.  Long term, pharmacey needs to be in data-types R2.
+
##Woody: If all new medications have to use this ITS it will destroy the ability to build interoperable standards.  Long term, pharmacy needs to be in data-types R2.
 
##Gunther: CDA has the same issue.
 
##Gunther: CDA has the same issue.
−
##Paul: V2 people have the same issue.  Should we require v2 coralaries for all v3 material.
+
##Paul: V2 people have the same issue.  Should we require v2 corolaries for all v3 material.
 
##Gunther: That is what is being done.
 
##Gunther: That is what is being done.
 
##Paul: You should not buy an ipad2 now because the ipad3 will come out next fall?  If we are going to take a position that the world must not change, then there is no point for V3.I see no problems with the items from MnM being used as guidelines.  They do not allow two forks that never return.
 
##Paul: You should not buy an ipad2 now because the ipad3 will come out next fall?  If we are going to take a position that the world must not change, then there is no point for V3.I see no problems with the items from MnM being used as guidelines.  They do not allow two forks that never return.
Line 168: Line 168:
 
##Dale: We are talking about things like what happens in SQL/86/89/2002/2008/.  We have an its parallel to 89, and the world is using 02 or 08.  You can either go back to 89, or use a non-standard.
 
##Dale: We are talking about things like what happens in SQL/86/89/2002/2008/.  We have an its parallel to 89, and the world is using 02 or 08.  You can either go back to 89, or use a non-standard.
 
##Paul: The questions raised by MnM are valid and reasonable, and are not limiting.  I am not sure that those points - is this a question for FTSD, TSC or ArB?
 
##Paul: The questions raised by MnM are valid and reasonable, and are not limiting.  I am not sure that those points - is this a question for FTSD, TSC or ArB?
−
##Woody: would like the language specified in the scope statement.  We can carry forward.  ##Gunther: I did not create the fork.
+
##Woody: would like the language specified in the scope statement.  We can carry forward.   
 +
##Gunther: I did not create the fork.
 
##Woody:I understand that the transitions are desired instead of a fork.
 
##Woody:I understand that the transitions are desired instead of a fork.
 
##Paul: I live in the implementation world. This hits me, so i dont like the idea of creating two competing standards.
 
##Paul: I live in the implementation world. This hits me, so i dont like the idea of creating two competing standards.
 
##Beverly:I realize we are at time.  Can we have the people who care about these have their discussions offline.
 
##Beverly:I realize we are at time.  Can we have the people who care about these have their discussions offline.
 
##Paul: These documents need to go through the steering division.
 
##Paul: These documents need to go through the steering division.
−
##Woody: The steering division brings WG's together.
+
##Woody: The steering division brings WG's together.  This is the first opportunity to do so.
 
##Beverly: We have a known challenge, and need to take to the TSC.
 
##Beverly: We have a known challenge, and need to take to the TSC.
 
##Woody: I suggest we forward to TSC along with comments/concerns of MnM.
 
##Woody: I suggest we forward to TSC along with comments/concerns of MnM.
 
##Gunther: It will be taken to TSC and resolved there.
 
##Gunther: It will be taken to TSC and resolved there.
−
##Motion carries unanimously.
 
  
 
#'''Ebxml R2 PSS'''  
 
#'''Ebxml R2 PSS'''  

Latest revision as of 20:52, 11 March 2011

Fndn&Tech Steering Divn - Conference Call (date above)

Meeting Information

Conference Call is scheduled for 0.5 hour,
Tuesday 12:00 PM to be repeated every other week
Please consult http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock for your local times
HL7 Conference Call Service
Phone Number: +1 770-657-9270 (Passcode: 943627)
Online Meeting Service - GoToMeeting
https://www2.gotomeeting.com/join/385800034 (GoToMeeting ID: 385-800-034)


Steering Division Members:

  • Application Integration & Design (AID)
  • Implementable Technology Specifications (ITS)
  • Conformance & Guidance for Implementation/Testing(CGIT)
  • Infrastructure & Messaging (InM)
  • Modeling & Methodology (MnM)
  • Security
  • Service Oriented Architecture (SOA)
  • Templates
  • Vocabulary

Attendees

P. Committee
Implementable Technology Specifications (ITS)
X Paul Knapp
X Dale Nelson
. Andy Stechishin
Implementation/Conformance
. Wendy Huang
. Frank Oemig
. Melva Peters
. Rober Snelick
Infrastructure and Messaging
. Patrick Loyd
X Tony Julian
. Dave Shaver
X Sandy Stuart
Modeling & Methodology (MnM)
X Woody Beeler
. Jean Duteau
. Lloyd McKenzie
. Ravi Tatarajan
. Ioan Singureanu
RIM-Based Application Architecture (RIMBAA)
. Peter Hendler MD
. Amnon Shabo PhD
. Rene Spronk
Security
. Bernd Blobel PhD
X John Moehrke
Service Oriented Architecture (SOA)
. Don Jorgenson
. Ken Rubin
. Ann Wrightson
. Galen Mulrooney
Templates
. Mark Shafarman
. Douglas Baird
Vocabulary
. James Case
. Heather Grain
. Russell Hamm
. William Ted Klein
X Beverly Knight
. Rob Hausam
Guests
X Lynn Laakso
X Gunther Shadow
X Theresa Brunone
X Randy Levin
X Keith Thomas
X Peggy Lesizer
X Lee Stevens
. .=Absent

Agenda

  1. (05 min) Roll Call
  2. (05 min) Approve Previous Minutes & Accept Agenda
  3. (15 min) Min Feb 22
  4. (15 min) ITS R2B PSS
  5. (15 min) Ebxml R2 PSS
  6. (5 min) Info Model Properties PSS
  7. (5 min) MLLP Refresh PSS

Agenda items

Action Item List

Minutes

  1. Approve Previous Minutes & Accept Agenda
  2. Min Feb 22 Approved (Tony/Sandy) with no objections.
  3. ITS R2B PSS
    1. Paul Knapp - Project scope is to provide its specifications that are wire-backwards-compatible to ITS Structures R1.1.
    2. Tony Assumed Chair: Woody/Mnm raised questions - refered to MnM_Minutes_CC_20110302.
    3. Woody: What happens if i send a full-featured R@ to a RR1 parser?
    4. Paul: It will blow up.
    5. Gunther: It may have unknown behaviour.
    6. Paul: It will look the same. If not, it would not be backward-compatible.
    7. Woody: We dont have a v3 rule to ignores things you dont recognize. It should be used for backward-compatibility, not for new implementations, and not a true fork.
    8. Gunther: the fork exists - people will have to deal with two its's.
    9. Paul: I see the end of one thing, and the start of another:
    10. Elise:SDL is a standard. FDA has implemented. As new partners come on, we add new functionality. Using the old specification is no change. Adding a component for devices - providers want to add on new functionality without retooling.
    11. Woody: From the HL7 this should be limited to use cases like you state, but not for all new specifications. HL7's perspective is using datatypes-r2 using itsr2 is the direction.
    12. Gunther Schadow:The issue from the FDA perspective is that there is a whole array of products being used by FDA. They would like to re-use the XML.
    13. Woody: If all new medications have to use this ITS it will destroy the ability to build interoperable standards. Long term, pharmacy needs to be in data-types R2.
    14. Gunther: CDA has the same issue.
    15. Paul: V2 people have the same issue. Should we require v2 corolaries for all v3 material.
    16. Gunther: That is what is being done.
    17. Paul: You should not buy an ipad2 now because the ipad3 will come out next fall? If we are going to take a position that the world must not change, then there is no point for V3.I see no problems with the items from MnM being used as guidelines. They do not allow two forks that never return.
    18. Gunther: What is the practical issue?
    19. Woody: The new content will use new features using ITSR2.
    20. Gunther: That is a sidestep. HL7 does not specify the schema.
    21. Woody: You said you will not allow nullifying a collection.
    22. Gunther: Yes we can.
    23. Woody: Will it be possible to transform any itsr2 instance back without loss of information.
    24. Paul: Correct - becuase of the statement that this will implement as much as it can, or people want to use.
    25. Woody: You are misleading - you cannot make a round-trip transformation - it is not a no-brainer.
    26. Gunther: Putting in these transforms is a real problem. I adopted this conservatism from my clients.
    27. Woody: I dont want you to make an assertation that it does not matter how HL7 goes forward.
    28. Paul: This has implications on othere realms.
    29. Dale: We are talking about things like what happens in SQL/86/89/2002/2008/. We have an its parallel to 89, and the world is using 02 or 08. You can either go back to 89, or use a non-standard.
    30. Paul: The questions raised by MnM are valid and reasonable, and are not limiting. I am not sure that those points - is this a question for FTSD, TSC or ArB?
    31. Woody: would like the language specified in the scope statement. We can carry forward.
    32. Gunther: I did not create the fork.
    33. Woody:I understand that the transitions are desired instead of a fork.
    34. Paul: I live in the implementation world. This hits me, so i dont like the idea of creating two competing standards.
    35. Beverly:I realize we are at time. Can we have the people who care about these have their discussions offline.
    36. Paul: These documents need to go through the steering division.
    37. Woody: The steering division brings WG's together. This is the first opportunity to do so.
    38. Beverly: We have a known challenge, and need to take to the TSC.
    39. Woody: I suggest we forward to TSC along with comments/concerns of MnM.
    40. Gunther: It will be taken to TSC and resolved there.
  1. Ebxml R2 PSS
    1. Motion to approve. Changes include update examples, and going from DSTU to normative.Paul/Tony unanimous.
  2. Info Model Properties PSS
    1. Defered until MnM reviews it.
  3. MLLP Refresh PSS
    1. Motion to approve reafirmation:Paul/Tony unanimous.

Adjourned at 1:08pm Eastern Back to Meetings

Retrieved from "https://tscwiki.hl7.org/w/index.php?title=FTSD-ConCall-20110308&oldid=7763"