Conformance Meeting Minutes
Attendance
Name / Organization / M3 / T1 / T2 / T3 / T4 / W1 / W2Lisa Carnahan / US NIST / X / X / X / X
Lee Coller / Oracle / X / X
Len Gallagher / US NIST / X / X / X
John Lyons / Siemens / X / X / X / X / X / X / X
Frank Oemig / HL7 Germany / X / X / X / X / X / X
Peter Rontey / US VA / X / X / X / X
Rob Snelick / US NIST / X / X / X
Chris Lynton-Moll / AHML / X / X / X / X / X / X / X
John Garguilo / US NIST / X
Donald Creaven / US VA / X / X / X / X
Monday Q3
Agenda
Administrivia
Approve minutes
Approve agenda
V2.6 ballot reconciliation
V2.7 proposals (length discussion)
Minutes from May 2006 WGM approved (Pete/Rob) 5-0-0
Agenda approved (Lisa/Rob) 5-0-0
V2.6 ballot reconciliation
Comment # 94 (frank) Motion passed that the enumerated values for the annotation types of the profile schema match the text in section 2.b.7.7. (Lisa/Chris) 4-0-1
Comment #94 (frank) The TC is not sure what the second part of the comment “an add a column in the attribute table” means. Will ask Frank for clarification.
Comment #95 (frank) Pete is no longer co-chair. List of co-chairs will be updated.
Comment #64 (JoAnn) Comment regarding 2.b.5.1 and using V3 vocab language (e.g., value sets) – will be discussed in the joint INM meeting (MonQ4). See Conformance Minutes below (TuesQ1) for approved motion to update Section 2.B.5.1 per the comment.
Comment #65 – agreed to change ‘CE’ to ‘CNE’ – This is considered a typo and is approved based on the approved motion to correct all typos.
Comment #66 – change the word ‘definitions’ to ‘definition’ – This is considered a typo and is approved based on the approved motion to correct all typos.
V2.7 proposals
1. Update on existing proposal to eliminate the requirement for max length (Frank).
Discussion: even though the max length column would go away, the message profile would still specify to optionally include a min and max length. Conformance and INM have agreed to this proposal. INM should decide who should make this change. We will take this to the joint Conf/INM meeting MonQ4. FOLLOW-UP: At the joing Conf/INM meeting MonQ4 INM agreed that this should go forward in V2.7; however it cannot go forward in V2.6. INM is responsible for the language changes outside of Chapter 2B.
2. Add a structure to the message schema where example (or test?) messages could optionally be included. (Rob) Add a place for a set of test messages with description for what the focus of the test message is (e.g., if the test has an error –the description of the error). The description section in the schema should be structured so that it can be processed by testing tools.
3. Add language in Chapter 2B that details what it means for a message to be conformant to a profile (rather than the current abstract language). Examples of such details: value instances must conform to any local constraints defined in the profile; value instances must use the tables specified in the profile.
4. The Conforamnce SIG should encourage that any lessons-learned through the use of MWB go back to the standard for consideration. Need to further discuss: awareness, process, etc.
Q4 Joint with INM
1. Get new language for section 2.B.5.1 and 2.B.5.2 to Tony Wed Q1. INM agreed that the V2 language comparable to a value set would be ‘table’.
2. Frank’s length proposal cannot be done in V2.6. We can do it in V2.7. INM has action items from this proposal.
3. JoAnn brought up that Chapter 5 conformance language (5.1.3.2) should be in sync with Chapter 2. Chapter 5 has the notion of a profile.
Conformance SIG Action item: need a proposal to clean up language of Chapter 5 with respect to conformance. This will impact other chapters that use the query/profile language and mechanism.
Tuesday Q1
V2.6 ballot reconciliation
Worked on section 2.B.5.1 and decided on the following language:
Statements of table conformance will be consist of the definition of the table and its constituent elements. To the maximum extent practical it should be possible to objectively determine objectively validate the content of a given message instance against the table definition in the profile.
This change will be updated in the document and John Lyons will get the document to Tony Julian so that it can be taken to the ARB.
Tuesday Q2
V2.6 ballot reconciliation
1. Messaging Workbench 6.6
New Logo for the Message Maker
New Features
You can now mark a repeated segment as a repetition. You also add a repetition of a segment directly.
Now in validation the Workbench will check each repetition against the pattern it created from the definition until it finds a match. If a pattern is not found then it will generate an error. Frank brought up a point that what if the order did matter. Peter said he would look into that although he thought that order did not matter according to HL7.
Now in Message Generation there is now a concept of value sets. For instance generating a message where PID.3 is encountered you can specify for what ID’s will be used and what name PID.5 and PID.7 will be used. This enables the possibly to have consistency between transaction instances.
A key will be needed to enable the value sets button which can be obtained from Peter.
If you want to clone a segment now you can
Localized tables will now be highlighted in red.
Peter will put out an announcement when the new version is up on the website.
2. Message Maker
Rob talked about what they are working now with Message maker. They are working on putting together a framework to support testing of HL7 systems based on conformance profiles
Based on a set of configurable actors
Models the behavior of real systems
Initiators and responders
Script driven - with user domain knowledge
Relies on core ste of services (Java API’s)
More focus on message content (generation, validation)
Working with DVTK (Dicom Validation Toolkit) for IHE testing
Message generation and validation services
Web Services interface initially
Work in progress
Showed the API’s which were available from the Message Maker and for the Framework.
3. AHML (Australian Healthcare Messaging Laboratory)
They have done some work fine tuning the reporting section.
When Messages are sent in and can not be identified they not be tested but the reporting tool will indicate that.
You can now find the history of a particular user and be able to look at what the errors were that were generated from a profile.
They would like to get the process of getting the messages in via a webservice.
There are no fees for testing, only a fee for certification. For certification someone has to submit about 100-150 messages.
They are seeing an increase in users about 5 or so a week.
Tuesday Q3
Worked on Ballot Reconciliation for V3. Please spreadsheet at the bottom of the Minutes.
Tuesday Q4
Worked on Ballot Reconciliation for V3. Please spreadsheet at the bottom of the Minutes.
Wednesday Q1
Worked on Ballot Reconciliation for V3. Please spreadsheet at the bottom of the Minutes.
Wednesday Q2
Worked on Ballot Reconciliation for V3. Please spreadsheet at the bottom of the Minutes.
Wednesday Q3 (Joint Meeting with MnM (MnM hosting)
Please see the MnM meeting minutes.
Wednesday Q4 (Joint Meeting with MnM (MnM hosting))
Please see the MnM meeting minutes, also see the spreadsheet at the bottom of these minutes.
Thursday Q4 (Joint Meeting with Vocabulary (Vocabulary hosting))
Please see the Vocabulary meeting minutes.