Difference between revisions of "2012-10-16 V3 Datatypes Task Force"

From HL7 TSC
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 58: Line 58:
Next agenda - talk about framing the community. Needs to be pushed out to Ron, Charlie and Austin
Next meeting [[2012-10-23 V3 Datatypes Task Force]]
Next meeting [[2012-10-23 V3 Datatypes Task Force]] - Hugh may not make the call.
Adjourned 2:13 PM EDT

Latest revision as of 18:45, 16 October 2012

Scope and mandate of this group: Need a recommendation for the V3 Modeling to the TSC at the end of this month.

Occurs every Tuesday effective 9/25/2012 until 11/27/2012 from 1:00 PM to 2:00 PM.

TSC concall coordinates Dial 770-657-9270 and enter pass code 985371#

Co-chairs: Woody, Charlie
Today's Chair: Woody


  • Charlie Mead - regrets
  • Hugh Glover - present
  • Paul Knapp - present
  • Austin Kreisler - regrets
  • Lloyd McKenzie -
  • Ron Parker -
  • John Quinn - present
  • Pat van Dyke - present
  • Mead Walker - present
Scribe: Lynn Laakso

past meeting notes:

Action Items:

Action Items: none this week



Convene 1:05 PM EDT

  • Roll call
  • Woody notes Mead was supposed to pull out the scope of the changes relative to the V3 framework - what specs are to be supported by this backwards compatibility; SPL and what else? Mead will look at it
  • Mead moves and Paul seconds approval of minutes of 2012-10-09_V3_Datatypes_Task_Force. Hugh abstains, pass 4/0/1
  • Woody discusses page Versioning and Backwards Compatibility in V3 for review
  • Foundational elements (such as datatypes) that are not re-affirmed after 5 years are considered expired after 10 years by ANSI. It may require a reballot of the original material and re-publication as a new standard to re-establish its status with ANSI. TSC as 'court of last appeal' discussed.
  • DT R2 needed better publicity that it would deprecate prior messages. Paul notes that it's uncomfortable to have a specification dictate behavior outside of the spec; we'd need an attachment that lists the other obsolesced specifications affected by the breaking change.
  • Woody asks if we recommend putting in place the V3 framework from 10 years ago; without defining prior releases obsolescent.
  • Paul suggests a petitioner might request maintenance of a frozen version of an older standard for certain implementer. Woody thinks FDA wants to continue to evolve their specifications in the R2B environment before migrating to R2. Paul suggests we could approve an isolated fork without requiring changes be reflected in all possible forked tracks.
  • Hugh appreciates that we are doing this in something that we declare as obsolete, so we're not obligated to it forever. Woody notes if we create a transitional ITS to deal with models otherwise obsolescent, then let it run its 5 year life and then stop. Mead notes it's kicking the can down the road and have to deal with it later. Paul notes the represented community is small enough that the likelihood of adoption swinging over from the normative version to the forked version unlikely. Hugh fears this issue will have mobilized a community that was previously unaware.
  • Hugh's draft motion reviewed. Woody checks if the group is comfortable with the principles it establishes. Hugh notes that the mechanism can be separate from the principle we are trying to state. Not that this would become our answer but the basis for crafting our report, notes Woody but it begs the question of defining the community.
  • Paul notes that R2B may not be the answer and the revision will depend on what the community needs. Paul would like to see R2B become normative, as normative specs should be generated from normative specs, to have ITS make revisions and submit for January. R1.1 is only informative and is to be used for information purposes but not on the wire. If it's meant to be used on the wire it should then be normative so that other normative content can be balloted using it.
  • Woody notes we'll need a mechanism for schema transforms to express CPM in two versions. How to express the intent of the limited solution and its coverage but it should not become available to just anyone. Mead will talk to some people on the scope of community.
  • Motion: Hugh moves we adopt the principles of the draft motion for our purposes. Second by Pat. Vote: Unanimously approved.
  • Woody will try to place this on the wiki to cast the perspective based on these principles. Paul suggests we challenge the parties to identify if the suggested solution/pathway will solve their problem.
  • Motion: Paul moves that The task force agrees that the solution should be an R2B "fork" to be made normative and made available for use to a "defined" community of applications for the duration of the R2B specification. Challenge now is to define the community and be assured that this is a sufficient solution for them. Hugh seconds.
  • Need to solve the practical issue, says John, but we still need to establish the formalisms of what we mean by backward compatibility.
  • Paul notes HQMF is a second constituency where Structured Docs is developing other content using R1.1. Woody notes that the current ballot is Datatypes R2, but Paul notes that they expressed a desire to develop using R1.1.
  • Vote: unanimously approved.

Next agenda - talk about framing the community. Needs to be pushed out to Ron, Charlie and Austin

Next meeting 2012-10-23 V3 Datatypes Task Force - Hugh may not make the call.

Adjourned 2:13 PM EDT