HL7 Work Group Meeting Minutes

HL7 Templates Draft Meeting Minutes
Location: Esquivias Meeting Room / Date: 2017-05-12
Time: Q1 - 9:00-10:30 PM CEST
Facilitator / Kai Heitmann / Note taker(s) / Mark Shafarman
Attendee / Name / Affiliation
Sebastian Bojanowski / HL7 Poland
Kai Heitmann / HL7 Germany, Gefyra GmbH
Roman Radomski / HL7 Poland
John Roberts / Tennessee Department of Health
Mark Shafarman / Shafarman Consulting, Inc.
Quorum Requirements Met: Yes
The Templates Work Group Decision Making Practices (DMP) states: A quorum for committee meetings requires that a co-chair and at least two other HL7 Templates members be present, where no single organization or party represents more than a simple majority of the voting Work Group membership for that meeting.

Agenda topics

Continuation and follow-ups from Monday’s Minutes

Mark will finish updating remaining comments and add them to the latest version.

Approval of minutes from Monday 8 May 2017:

John moves to approve the minutes for 8 May 2017. Kai seconds the motions. It passes 4 in favor, 0 negatives, and 0 abstentions.

Continuation of Ballot resolution for HL7 Templates Standard: Specification and Use of Reusable Information Constraint Templates, Release 1

Remaining Ballot item:

Adaptation vs. Equivalency:

•  It is not actually clear from the text what is the effective difference between “Adaptation (based on)” and “Equivalency (equals)”, I mean it seems to be more a formal definition than a practical. Reading the text the main difference seems to be the following: in the adaptation the design change while in the equivalence the design is declared to be the same. But in practice if for the equivalence a “transformation exists without addition or loss of meaning.” , at the same time the use of different vocabulary (LOINC vs. SNOMED) or different XML representation are provided as examples … but there are very few limited cases of use of different vocabularies that allow to apply iso-semantic transformations…

Part 1:

John moves that the typos will be corrected without further review by the Templates WG. Sebastian seconds. The motion passes 4 in favor, 0 abstentions, 0 negatives.

Part 2:

Kai will clarify the language to distinguish whether the following are part of the ballot, or are parts of implementations only: e.g. value sets, open vs. closed templates, generalizations vs. extensions, etc.

Kai will draft these clarifications, which we will discuss, modify as needed, and approve at a later date.

Conference call schedule:

We agreed to continue our bi-weekly schedule at the same date and time: Tuesdays at 2pm Eastern. John will update the conference call schedule.

Our SWOT:

Our SWOT has been submitted to the TSC for approval on Feb 28. We have asked the TSC to review it. But either the review hasn’t happened, or the updated SWOT hasn’t been posted on the on the website http://www.hl7.org/Special/committees/template/overview.cfm before the start of this meeting. Kai resolved this issue during the Madrid meeting, and it has been posted as required.

Other TSC issues:

Draft changes to the Templates WG’s Formal Relationships with Other HL7 Groups (changes highlighted in red).

The Work Group will have close, ongoing relationships with the following HL7 Work Groups:

·  Structured Documents Work Group to ensure that the rules for creating templates are consistent with the rules for creating HL7 structured documents; the alignment was, is and will be subject to ongoing discussions

·  FHIR Work Group to ensure alignment with the development of FHIR resources, profiles and other related artifacts, especially the alignment of expressing constraints and the underlying constraint specification methodology for FHIR profiles

·  Vocabulary Work Group to ensure that template data structures make proper and consistent use of vocabulary domains and vocabulary bindings

·  Conformance Work Group to ensure that the rules for defining constraints in templates are consistent with those for other HL7 artifacts, especially the alignment of expressing constraints and the underlying constraint specification methodology for HL7 version 2 profiles

·  Modeling and Methodology Work Group to ensure that the rules for creating templates are consistent with those for other HL7 artifacts.

·  All other working groups that create CDA templates and CDA implementation guides to facilitate the consistent use of template design principles and the underlying constraint specification methodology.

Motion: Kai moves: Accept these changes to our Mission and Charter statement, and forward them to the TSC. John seconds. The motion passes 4-0-0.

International Patient Summary:

Templates is a participating WG. We also need to confirm our participation and type of participation in other current ballots, especially those sponsored by the SD workgroup.

Other important and useful links for the International Patient Summary:

• International Patient Summary IPS

• http://international-patient-summary.net

• Nascent Implementation Guide at http://international-patientsummary.net/mediawiki/index.php?title=IPS_implementationguide_1

New Project on comparison constraint specification methodology (to discuss and then to create a PSS)

• V2 profiling, developed by NIST, not recently balloted

• CDA/v3/v2.xml/xml: Templates ITS, almost normative

• FHIR: StructuredDefinitions

We need to answer two questions:

• Is it desirable to have one for all in place? A technical and strategical analysis, including stakeholder opinions, short-term and long-term visions, community size, with communities like IHE.

• If so, what does it look like, e.g. what is missing and/or needs to be added to the

StructuredDefinitions WG (and other WG uses of templates) to be consistent across work groups without losing any of the necessary functionality.

Art-Decor Update:

See attached PowerPoint.

© 2017 Health Level Seven® International. All rights reserved.