Templates Work Group
HL7 Working Group Meeting
Atlanta GA (US) – October 4-9 2015
Monday Q3
Friday Q1
Monday Q3
Location: Room 209 / Date: 2015-10-05Time: 12:30pm – 15:30pm
Chair / Kai Heitmann / Note taker(s) / Mark Shafarman
Attendee / Name / Email / Affiliation
Kai Heitmann / / HL7 Germany
Lisa R Nelson / Independent Consultant
Sean McIlvenna / Lantana Consulting Group
Mark Shafarman / / Shafarman Consulting, Inc
Quorum Requirements Met (yes/no): 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 review
· review of agenda for the Templates WG for this week (see supporting documents below) including ensuring Templates WG attendance at the various WG meetings.
· detailed discussion of versioning of templates (additional topic).
Templates versioning discussion
This discussion embraced several inter-related use cases.
Which working groups should be able to define a new version of a template in a specific clinical and/or administrative area? And how is that template version used by other groups.
· This is a question of “governance” in the broadest sense. For example, CCDA templates concerning pharmacy should initially have been defined (and balloted) by the Pharmacy WG, and then integrated (and balloted) in the (specific) SD WG CCDA contexts. In general, the WG containing the SME’s (subject matter experts) for a given topic should create the initial version of a particular template; and when that template version is needed for a specific SD documents (e.g. a CCDA document), then any changes needed need to be reviewed/approved by the Pharmacy WG.
· The same approach should be used in creating templates from Patient Care, Orders and Observations, etc.
This approach is currently being used in the creation of FHIR resources and profiles, but historically it has not been fully implemented in the creation of template versions used by the Structured Documents WG, and hence there are a number of subject area/technical issues needing to be resolved … hopefully using this two-stage type of process.
· Note that a generic approach to documenting (and tracking) these changes was described in the HL7 Templates Registry Business Process Requirements Analysis, Release 1. In this document we used the terms Templates Custodian and template for what we are now calling (in the Templates DSTU) Governance Group and template version to define the processes of a governance group adopting (re-using a given template version produced by a different governance group) versus adapting (a governance group changing a given template version created by another governance group, and using that changed version).
Other relationships between versions of a given template, and/or versions of different templates are described in the Templates DSTU. These are documented in Section 3.4 of the Templates DSTU, and include relationships such as specialization/generalization, backwards/forwards compatibility, etc.
It was also noted that value sets versioning has similar versioning requirements both within and among governance groups.
Sean McIlvenna noted the similarities between the templates versioning requirements, and those of distributed revision control and source code management (SCM) repository systems, such as that provided by GIT (and/or the web-enabled GitHub). Being able to track the changes that a template version can undergo between governance groups is similar to following/managing the versions of a program, including forks needed to support changes in its functionality brought about by changes in requirements.
Templates DSTU Best Practices use cases discussion
The following specific use cases need to be covered in a ‘best practices’ guide for the following types of users of templates.
Templates version creators (per governance group and between governance groups). Examples of such groups include national bodies, HL7 International Affiliates, and professional organizations.
Templates version consumers (per governance group) -- using template versions
· for generating documents
· receiving documents
· validating documents
Consumers creating templates from:
· Published implementation guides based on a fixed set of template versions. Examples are needed for: 1) how should a template version that is going to be replaced (but still valid) be represented; as well as 2) how should a template version that has been terminated be represented in a published guide (a technical correction could be created if this happens after the publication date of the implementation guide).
· Systems capable of starting from computable representation of template versions (such as those specified in the Templates DSTU)
Next steps for the DSTU
We need to add a “best practices” section giving implementation guidance for the use cases discussed above, as well as others that may surface during this WGM.
Supporting Documents
· The Templates WG agenda for the October 2015 WGM is located at: http://wiki.hl7.org/index.php?title=Templates_WGM_2015_October#Templates_WG_Agenda_for_the_October_2015_WGM_in_Atlanta.2C_US .
· The HL7 Templates Registry Business Process Requirements Analysis, Release 1 is located at: http://www.hl7.org/implement/standards/product_brief.cfm?product_id=328 .
· The Templates DSTU is located at: HL7 Templates Standard: Specification and Use of Reusable Information Constraint Templates, Release 1 .
Friday Q1
Location: ? / Date: 2015-10-09Time: 09:00am – 10:30am
Chair / Kai Heitmann / Note taker(s) / Mark Shafarman
Attendee / Name / Email / Affiliation
Calvin Beebe / Mayo
Jeff Brown / ASCO
Peter Gilbert / Meridian
Kai Heitmann / / HL7 Germany
Alexander Henket / / HL7 Netherlands
Erin Holt / TN Dept. of Health
Brent Marquard / River Rock
Lisa R Nelson / Lantana
Brian Reinhold / Lamprey Networks, Inc./PHCA
John Roberts / TN Dept. of Health
Mark Shafarman / / Shafarman Consulting
Michael Tan / / NICTIZ
Quorum Requirements Met (yes/no): 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.
Welcome and Introductions of members and visitors present
Agenda Review
· Templates ITS Release 1: DSTU comments received, discussion of same
· Kai: Art-Decor update
· Kai: US/EU cooperation possibilities
· Lisa: Trifolia update
· Follow-up from meetings during the week
· Next WGM schedule
Templates ITS Release 1 DSTU comments and discussion.
Kai mentioned that the coming intermediate (dot) release (not needing to be balloted) will support use cases for both template designers and implementers (by governance groups):
· status (state machine) clarifications
· best practice examples
· deprecated/retired clarification
· examples of inclusion and containment
· conformance statements vs. table representation of same: which should be the “canonical form”; how should that be identified/labeled in the DSTU; are there other “canonical” forms of labels for conformance specifications of template versions (statements vs. table)?
· how to use the DSTU to exchange template version registry information as well as template version repository information.
· how to create and use links between technical labels (between OID level template version identifiers) and human readable labels (human readable template version identifiers). There may be multiple human readable labels for each OID-level template version identifier.
ART-DECOR update (Kai)
· Supports a shared document repository for CCDA templates
· Release 1.6 is operational (includes an xml database, xforms environment is now used in the tooling)
· Enhanced performance: Optimizer 100 times improvement
· IHE EU tooling (validation and editing) is available
· V. 2.0 to be release around new year’s 2016
· EU implementations are coming along
· New editor; supports links between templates and terminology (binding), a value-set editor, FHIR support (including link between FHIR resources and CDA templates)
· HAI: Art-Décor has created the first web-enabled implementation guide.
· xii. A design tool is being created to assist with FHIR work; and template work also. Looking for ways to help enable the Lantana tool to work together on this.
Kai: US/EU cooperation possibilities.
· Public Health Case report may be the first U.S. Art-Decor implementation
· A number of EU implementation guides have been published (4 in Germany) which can be shared with HL7 International and HL7 affiliates.
· There are 400 published templates in EU Art-Decor implementations
· In the EU, Art-Decor is being used in Austria, the Netherlands, Germany, Norway and Italy.
· The first Polish CDA IG is ready for review . Art-Decor has multi-lingual features that support these implementations. Note that the Templates DSTU also supports multi-lingual template versions.
Trifolia update (Lisa)
· Trifolia implements a template repository for CDA R2 templates.
· It is implementation guide focused (can copy previous template versions from a previous IG, and create new template versions)
· It is more at a repository level than at a registry level.
· It does handle versioning and vocabulary value set binding,
· HL7 members can use it for free,
· Its current release is 2.18.4.0
· It is fairly straightforward to create Templates DSTU representations for Trifolia templates (Kai has done this for recent CCDA releases), but the process has not been automated. Sean McIlvenna has expressed interest in this. (See Templates WG minutes from the Monday q3 above of this working group meeting.)
Follow-up from meetings during the week
· Calvin: Templates, CGIT, SD, and FHIR have been working together on IG designs for FHIR, taking into account commonalities among their separate implementation guide specifications. We need to coordinate this more formally, perhaps through the Publishing committee, and apply the design commonalities to the implementation guides created by all of the above groups. Peter Gilbert could be our contact person for publishing. Hopefully we can also coordinate this with Vocabulary and Tooling. Kai mentioned that we also have to create a mapping between the narrative form of the implementation guides, and the computable forms specified in the Templates DSTU and FHIR specifications.
· The Pharmacy WG is taking their v2 and v3 models and mapping them to/from corresponding FHIR profiles as well as CDA templates for the Universal realm. Kai is participating in this project (he provided an Art-Decor demonstration for them at this meeting. This should be added to the joint meetings for the January 2016 meeting. (Confirm with Pharmacy schedule for Q2 Wednesday).
· Schedule for the next working group. Kai will create this on the HL7 wiki. It will be the same as for the current WGM, except that Q3 Monday will move back to Q1 Monday.