Difference between revisions of "FTSD-ConCall-20100629"
WoodyBeeler (talk | contribs) |
WoodyBeeler (talk | contribs) (→Agenda) |
||
| Line 33: | Line 33: | ||
No micro ITS in the documents instead: | No micro ITS in the documents instead: | ||
| − | A transport for REST (http | + | A transport for REST (http-based, like WSI Web Services) that is not about moving native HL7 content but rather about moving an "hData record" containing a hData record format (actually a ZIP file and manifest) and a zipped set of "hData record" which are snippets of CDA documents or other documents. |
| − | + | hData component model is expressed elsewhere and unclear. It is like starting with ITS and then defining the content rather than having a content standard and figuring how to transport it | |
There is no ITS inside this. Yet, Mitre is pushing VERY hard to get this voted in the next cycle. Approaching a project that is proceeding from an implementation without '''any consideration''' of the HL7 principles and foundation documents. | There is no ITS inside this. Yet, Mitre is pushing VERY hard to get this voted in the next cycle. Approaching a project that is proceeding from an implementation without '''any consideration''' of the HL7 principles and foundation documents. | ||
Running down the railroad track, but no HL7-asserted requirements nor any constraint on the contents. It clearly walks into spaces for EHR, MnM, InM, etc. and only 30 days to ballot deadlines. | Running down the railroad track, but no HL7-asserted requirements nor any constraint on the contents. It clearly walks into spaces for EHR, MnM, InM, etc. and only 30 days to ballot deadlines. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ====Dilemma==== | ||
| + | Requires buy-in and consideration by a raft of HL7 Work Groups who have never heard of or seen this. It does not seem reasonable to try to do this in time for the September Ballot. It should be circulated, socialized and discussed in detail at the October WGM. | ||
===[[FTSD Agenda item list|Agenda items]]=== | ===[[FTSD Agenda item list|Agenda items]]=== | ||
Revision as of 16:38, 29 June 2010
Foundation & Technology Steering Division - Conference Call June 29, 2010
Meeting Information
- Conference Call is scheduled for 0.5 hour
- 12:00 PM (consult http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock for 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)
Members:
- Implementable Technology Specifications (ITS)
- Implementation/Conformance
- Infrastructure & Messaging (InM)
- RIM-Based Application Architecture (RIMBAA)
- Modeling & Methodology (MnM)
- Security
- Service Oriented Architecture (SOA)
- Templates
- Vocabulary
Attendees
Agenda
- (05 min) Roll Call
- (05 min) Approve Minutes of June 1 & Accept Agenda
- (08 min) Project Scope re Neutral Mapping - ITS
- (08 min) Project Scope re SKMT Glossary - Vocabulary
- (08 min) Project Scope re Binding Syntax - Vocabulary
Project HD/Micro-ITS - Leads to Documents for Review
Issues
No micro ITS in the documents instead:
A transport for REST (http-based, like WSI Web Services) that is not about moving native HL7 content but rather about moving an "hData record" containing a hData record format (actually a ZIP file and manifest) and a zipped set of "hData record" which are snippets of CDA documents or other documents.
hData component model is expressed elsewhere and unclear. It is like starting with ITS and then defining the content rather than having a content standard and figuring how to transport it
There is no ITS inside this. Yet, Mitre is pushing VERY hard to get this voted in the next cycle. Approaching a project that is proceeding from an implementation without any consideration of the HL7 principles and foundation documents.
Running down the railroad track, but no HL7-asserted requirements nor any constraint on the contents. It clearly walks into spaces for EHR, MnM, InM, etc. and only 30 days to ballot deadlines.
Dilemma
Requires buy-in and consideration by a raft of HL7 Work Groups who have never heard of or seen this. It does not seem reasonable to try to do this in time for the September Ballot. It should be circulated, socialized and discussed in detail at the October WGM.
