20130819 TSC Content Review Team Call
|Content Review Team Agenda/Minutes
Location: call 770-657-9270 using code 985371#
Time: 1 pm Eastern Time
|Facilitator||Austin Kreisler||Note taker(s)||Lynn|
|no quorum definition|
- Review discussion over weekend
- Develop consensus recommendation/report for this week's call
Continue content review at http://wiki.hl7.org/index.php?title=Health_eDecisions
- Reviewed Lorraine's comments from email trail 8/18 3:28 PM.
- New product family, not mappable to the RIM, different ITS, wire format, templating.
- Not a profile of ISO datatypes in the IG. Parallel logical model with similar names but generated right from EA into a separate model. Paul adds they use the terminology that it is "informed by" not "implementing" the other base standards.
- Quote of the day: "It is inspired by existing standards in the same way that Picasso's paintings are inspired by real women… "
- As an IG it lacks a specification for which it is implemented, notes Keith.
- They want to ballot by September 3rd. They (ONC) need it published in October.
- What additional questions do we have for the CDS content team?
- Need to focus tomorrow afternoon's concall on their templates approach.
- If they go to ballot, need to let balloters know what they're reviewing. Their so-called DAM is a logical model; and generated normative track content came directly from model representation.
- If it's allowed to move forward, it's a new product family, it's not V3 and not any other standard we already have. Troubling with the overlap with HQMF and QRDA, notes Keith. Lloyd asks if there are requirements for its use to create a new product family or could an existing product family be used. There's not a compelling use case for a new product family. Austin notes that this should be the framework around which the recommendation is written. Keith sees the use of V3 structure but failure to use the V3 methodology to develop the material. It redefines everything at once at the same time without a coherent architecture. Dale adds they've modeled interval as its own class for example.
- How long do you need to develop those findings?
- Keith can do 10 minutes on templates right off the bat. 4 of 13 pages contain content, the others are information from somewhere else or orientation material. They seem to follow HL7 methodology for the templates. However the value of the document for their templates methodology is lacking for those that have worked on templates on the past. Complete and partial conformance definitions are new. It's not tied to the Templates DSTU work either. It doesn't specify how some things are done or what it means to be a template. Lifecycle and process are lightly addressed and not to normative specification quality.
- Lorraine adds diagnostic results not addressed in the model and was expected in the templates definition; but this does not seem to be addressed. What issues need to be fixed before ballot and which can be ballot comment. She volunteers to act as collator for people's responses.
- Need to assemble any additional questions for CDS content team for tomorrow's call. Can the content team complete changes in the next week or two before their ballot opens? Where does their team sit in terms of the work they continued over the weekend?
- Keith suggests we identify the various artifacts, what realm, and how they get divvied up, and what architecture do they follow.
- Doodle poll for Wednesday to meet again before Weds evening meeting.
|Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items|
© 2013 Health Level Seven® International. All rights reserved
Copyright © Health Level Seven International ® ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. The reproduction of this material in any form is strictly forbidden without the written permission of the publisher.