Difference between revisions of "FTSD-ConCall-20100629"
WoodyBeeler (talk | contribs) (→Agenda) |
WoodyBeeler (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 30: | Line 30: | ||
#''(08 min)'' '''Project Scope re Binding Syntax - Vocabulary''' | #''(08 min)'' '''Project Scope re Binding Syntax - Vocabulary''' | ||
==='''Project HD/Micro-ITS - Leads to Documents for Review=== | ==='''Project HD/Micro-ITS - Leads to Documents for Review=== | ||
| − | ==== | + | ====Discussion==== |
| − | + | Currently, two documents have been issued in the last week from this project which are now under review by ITS. Preliminary review suggests to the ITS co-chairs that this material contains static model, dynamic model and transport components. | |
| − | + | From the documents: "The hData Record Format (HRF) describes an XML representation of the information in an electronic health record (EHR). ... This specification defines a network transport API for accessing components of an HRF and sending messages to an EHR system." | |
| − | + | While some of these components may be the sole purview of ITS, the co-chairs feel that many appear to fall within the domains of other FT committees or even domain specific committees such as EHR, and therefore the co-chairs are seeking guidance from FT as to how to proceed. | |
| − | + | The documents contain a RESTful transport, and the hData Record Format, no Micro-ITS is currently provided. | |
| − | + | 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 (a ZIP file and manifest) and a zipped set of "hData records" which are snippets of CDA documents, HL7 Messages, Micro-ITS, SOA or other HL7 content models. | |
| + | |||
| + | The hData component model (the packaging of harvested HL7 snippets)is outlined, but no specific mappings or the mechanisms for or responsibility for the mappings are detailed. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Mitre is strongly interested in getting this voted in the next cycle. ITS seeks guidance as to requirements and mechanisms for engaging appropriate stakeholders. | ||
| + | |||
| + | It clearly walks into spaces for ARB, Structured Documents, EHR, MnM, InM, etc. and only 30 days to ballot deadlines. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ITS, as facilitators of this project, should engage at a minimum: M&M, INM, ARB, RIMBAA, SD & EHR with respect to the Static model (HDR); the dynamic model (REST API) transport (REST) and SAIF implications. | ||
====Dilemma and FTSD Motion==== | ====Dilemma and FTSD Motion==== | ||
| − | Observed that this requires buy-in and consideration by an additional raft of HL7 Work Groups who need to see this and yet are currently unaware of it. | + | Observed that this requires buy-in and consideration by an additional raft of HL7 Work Groups who need to see this and yet are currently unaware of it. It does not seem reasonable to try to do this in time for the September Ballot. Move the action that this be circulated, socialized and discussed in detail at the October WGM, with ITS facilitating this action. |
Beeler/Nelson 6-0-0 | Beeler/Nelson 6-0-0 | ||
Revision as of 18:46, 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
Discussion
Currently, two documents have been issued in the last week from this project which are now under review by ITS. Preliminary review suggests to the ITS co-chairs that this material contains static model, dynamic model and transport components.
From the documents: "The hData Record Format (HRF) describes an XML representation of the information in an electronic health record (EHR). ... This specification defines a network transport API for accessing components of an HRF and sending messages to an EHR system."
While some of these components may be the sole purview of ITS, the co-chairs feel that many appear to fall within the domains of other FT committees or even domain specific committees such as EHR, and therefore the co-chairs are seeking guidance from FT as to how to proceed.
The documents contain a RESTful transport, and the hData Record Format, no Micro-ITS is currently provided.
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 (a ZIP file and manifest) and a zipped set of "hData records" which are snippets of CDA documents, HL7 Messages, Micro-ITS, SOA or other HL7 content models.
The hData component model (the packaging of harvested HL7 snippets)is outlined, but no specific mappings or the mechanisms for or responsibility for the mappings are detailed.
Mitre is strongly interested in getting this voted in the next cycle. ITS seeks guidance as to requirements and mechanisms for engaging appropriate stakeholders.
It clearly walks into spaces for ARB, Structured Documents, EHR, MnM, InM, etc. and only 30 days to ballot deadlines.
ITS, as facilitators of this project, should engage at a minimum: M&M, INM, ARB, RIMBAA, SD & EHR with respect to the Static model (HDR); the dynamic model (REST API) transport (REST) and SAIF implications.
Dilemma and FTSD Motion
Observed that this requires buy-in and consideration by an additional raft of HL7 Work Groups who need to see this and yet are currently unaware of it. It does not seem reasonable to try to do this in time for the September Ballot. Move the action that this be circulated, socialized and discussed in detail at the October WGM, with ITS facilitating this action.
Beeler/Nelson 6-0-0
