Control/Query Working Group Meeting Minutes
January 19 – 23, 2004
San Diego, California
General Editor: Joann Larson
Quarter 1, Monday, January 19, 2004
Topic: Meeting Overview, v3 ballot overview, Shared Messages Ballot reconciliation
Session scribe: Joann Larson
Attendees
Name / Member / Affiliation / E-mailNelson, Dale (chair) / y / Zed-Logic /
Larson, Joann (scribe and Db update) / y / Kaiser Permanente /
Henderson, Mike / y / Eastern Informatics /
Aitchison, Penny / y / HL7 Netherlands /
Davis, Mike / y / VA /
Marshall, Glen / y / Siemens /
Pratt, Doug / y / Siemens /
Ruggeri, Roberto / y / Microsoft /
Spronk, René / y / HL7 Netherlands /
Agenda
# / Key / Description / Presenter / Action Needed / Time1 / Call to Order
2 / Agenda approval – this session
3 / Memphis Minutes Review
4 / Agenda approval – summary for the week
5 / Report on v3 ballot status
6 / Review Action Items
7 / Shared Messages – Negative Major
8 / Shared Messages – Referrals
9 / Shared Messages – Priority 2
10 / Adjournment
Action Items
# / Description / Who / History/Update / Status1Q2-01 / <include date>
I.Call to Order
The meeting was called to order by the chair Dale Nelson at 9:28 AM PST. Joann Larson was the scribe. Quorum attained.
II.Agenda approval – this session
Motion by Glen Marshall, second by Doug Pratt – to approve agenda for this session.
III.Memphis Minutes Review
Motion by Rene Spronk/ second by to approve the Memphis minutes 7-0-0. See Attachment 1Q1-01 200309 CQ WGM Minutes Memphis.
IV.Agenda approval – summary for the week
Motion by Glen Marshall second by Rene Spronk – approve agenda summary for the week as modified – 7-0-0. See Attachment 1Q1-02 Agenda Summary.
V.Announcements
Glen Marshall will represent CQ at Publishing Thursday
Grahame Grieve will not be here this week. Need to make sure we have the right people in the room when the XML ITS DataTypes and DataTypes Abstract ballots are being reconciled.
VI.Report on v3 ballot status
Joann reported on the preliminary findings as to whether or not the 10 CQ ballots passed or not and the number of ballot response sheets CQneeded to reconcile. See Attachment 1Q1-03 Initial v3 Ballot Summary.
VII.Action Item Review
None
VIII.Shared Messages – Negative Major
Four major negative items were discussed and disposition attained. The database was updated by Joann Larson.
SEQ / Key / Motion / Moved/second / Y-N-A / Comment1Q1: 01 / 501 / Persuasive with mod - accept the change requested and also change the cardinality to 0..*. / Rene Spronk / Glen Marshall / 6-0-2 / Characterized as technical/not substantive - Marshall/Henderson
1Q1: 02 / 502 / Persuasive with mod - accept the change requested and also change the cardinality to 0..*. / Rene Spronk / Glen Marshall / 7-0-1 / Characterized as technical/not substantive
1Q1: 03 / 503 / Persuasive with mod - accept the change requested and also change the cardinality to 0..*. / Rene Spronk / Glen Marshall / 6-0-2 / Characterized as technical/not substantive
1Q1: 04 / 504 / Persuasive with mod - accept the change requested and also change the cardinality to 0..*. / Rene Spronk / Glen Marshall / 8-0-0 / Characterized as technical/not substantive
IX.Inbound Referrals
Dale Nelson reported that CMETs was referring 19 line items to the Shared Messages ballot group.
X.Shared Messages – Referrals
Not discussed.
XI.Shared Messages – Priority 2
Not discussed.
XII.Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 10:34 AM PST upon a motion by Doug Pratt and a second by Rene Spronk
Quarter 2, Monday, January 19, 2004
Topic: v 2.6 proposals
Session scribe: Mike Henderson
Attendees
Name / Member / Affiliation / E-mailLarson, Joann (chair) / y / Kaiser Permanente /
Henderson, Mike (scribe) / y / Eastern Informatics /
Davis, Mike / y / VA /
Jewell, Gaby / y / Cerner /
Marshall, Glen / y / Siemens /
Nelson, Dale / y / Zed-Logic /
Pratt, Doug / y / Siemens /
Spronk, René / y / HL7 Netherlands /
Agenda
# / Key / Description / Presenter / Action Needed / Time1 / Call to Order
2 / Agenda approval – this session
3 / Review Action Items
4 / Segment vs datatypes policies and procedures
5 / 157 / MSH - Add Sending and Receiving detail / Lloyd M
6 / 283 / NTE - Add Date Fields / Gaby J
7 / 273 / MFI - Add Field / Jane F
8 / 330 / MFE - Add fields / Jane F
9 / 300 / XAD - Add components / Lloyd
10 / Deprecated datatypes / Joann
11 / Adjournment
Action Items
# / Description / Who / History/Update / Status1Q4-01 / 20030908: Refer table for Protection Code to Vocab for consideration / Joann Larson / 20040105: CQ Telcon: Joann L reported that this has not yet been done / Open
1Q4-02 / 20030908: Refer Protection Code table to PA for consideration / Glenn Marshall / 20040105: CQ Telcon: Glen reported that PA has revised its proposal -- no further CQ action needed - effectively closed / Closed
1Q4-03 / 20030908: Get a ruling on use of TS vs DTM from ARB / 20040105: CQ Telcon: Joann reported that this has been done (ARB said we should deprecate TS) / Closed
1Q4-04 / 20030908: Check with Vocab chairs to see if they want to look at changes to table 0201 / Roll forward to Vocab meeting / Open
2Q2-01 / 20030909: Confirm example for Sending Network Address that references IPV4 / Joann Larson / Need review of the example (take up Q4) / Open
3Q1-01 / 20030910: Model the 7 query types defined in chapter 5 in Messaging Workbench. / Jenni Puyenbroek / 20040105: Larson: According to the minutes, this was completed. Was it assigned and completed on the same day? Is this a copy and paste error? (take up Q4) / Open
4Q2-01 / 20030911: document the difference between the NA and MA data types. / Tony Julian / 20040105: CQ Telcon: Joann reported that Tony has submitted proposals addressing this - considered done / Closed
5Q1-01 / 20030912: take length discrepancies for certain item numbers to ARB. Our feeling is that it is legitimate to have different lengths. / Joann Larson / Open
5Q1-02 / 20030912: Ask ARB - should we be using DTM or TS for date fields? / Joann Larson / Use DTM / Closed
5Q2-01 / 20030912: Determine format for metadata tables / Open
I.Call to Order
The meeting was called to order by Joann Larson at 1103 PST.
II.Agenda approval – this session
Gaby and Joann were present to deal with their items. It was agreed to deal first with deprecated datatypes, then adding date fields to the NTE and then the segments vs. datatypes policies and procedures. Approved (Jewell/Spronk).
III.Action Item Review
Statuses updated as noted in the table above.
IV.Deprecated datatypes
After consultation with ARB it has been decided that DTM rather than TS should be used as the data type for all date and time fields. See Attachment 1Q2-01 ARB Telcon Minutes DEC 4.
Data type TS will be deprecated per a new proposal (motion Jewell/Spronk). Question moved by Henderson, passed 5:0:2.
V.283 NTE - Add Date Fields
Proposal was previously accepted pending DTM issue. Now that DTM issue is resolved, this proposal can move forward toward publication.
It was noted that the segment attribute table shows Component 5, Entered By, as XCN, while the narrative shows it as CE. Jewell moved the correction of CE to XCN, Pratt seconding, passed 5:0:2.
Per ARB ruling, Components 6, 7, and 8 will be data type DTM.
This proposal is ready to publish in the V2.6 ballot.
VI.Segment vs datatypes policies and procedures
Joann presented the current working paper, which was last discussed December 18, 2003.See Attachment 1Q2- 02 Segment vs data type.
Doug pointed out that an example of changing a datatype to a segment was the introduction of the TQ1 and TQ2 segments to replace the Timing/Quantity field in the ORC segment. Dale Nelson briefly discussed the ISO phrase “distinct values” by discerning the difference between different values and different instances of the same value.
Doug also pointed out that, operationally, we must introduce a segment if an extension to any component of a data type would cause the definition of “sub-sub-components”, which are not acceptable within HL7 V2. René pointed out that this is a restriction imposed by the ITS; we might instead introduce additional sub-delimiters, which he does not advocate. Doug discerned 3 categories: fundamental, such as integer and DTM; composite, such as CE; “composite-composite”, requiring introduction of a new delimiter [which contributed to the eventual breakdown of TQ], or adding semantic concepts to a data type; or requiring more than 5 or 7 components.
Joann pointed out that we should consider whether any particular composite concept has been introduced in V3 data types; if not, it might well be better expressed as a segment.
Lloyd McKenzie is proposing extensions to XTN and XAD data types. Joann looked at criteria in the document:
-Does any component need to repeat?
-Do any components alter the original intent?
-Are there serious downstream consequences?
Lloyd’s proposal 300 would cause XAD to have 23 components. Glen opined that 23 semantic concepts is too many to try to associate. Gaby would like to see him map the components to a V3. Joann pointed out the V3 mappings.
Lloyd’s proposal 299 would cause XTN to have 18 components (from the present 12). Mike asked whether Tables 201 and 202 were internal to HL7 or derived from CCITT or elsewhere. Doug and Glen confirmed that they were originally HL7 codes.
Lloyd wants to revise Telecommunication Use Code; revise Telecommunication Equipment Type to better align with the V3 TEL data type; generalize Email Address to Communication Address, add effective dates; add an end reason; add a protection code.
Gaby pointed out that some of the V3 mappings were to attributes rather than to data type elements. Mike said this would be very objectionable if V2 were to grow forever, but might be less so if the purpose is to retain concepts between V2 and V3 (not to say to facilitate mapping).
René asks whether we have a solid use case for the proposed extensions. Mike suggested that such questions be taken up when Lloyd is present in the discussion.
Glen advocated adoption of external data types or vocabularies rather than re-engineering wherever possible; if we import a data type from another standard, we should not redefine it but should limit ourselves to constraining it.
Joann pointed out the LA1, LA2, and NDL data types, which contain obsolete components that can’t be fixed. Proposals have go to OO to deprecate the fields that contain these data type, while OO resists deprecating the fields unless CQ agrees to deprecate the data types.
Example: LA1 contains data type AD, which cannot be promoted to type XAD (because of sub-sub-components) but does not fully express address for international use. LA2 flattened the AD data type. NDL has many concepts combined. CNN drew negatives because of its limited expression and excessive number of concepts.
There were negatives on the new data types; these negatives were withdrawn with the understanding that the data types would be fixed in V2.6. Mike asked what was to be fixed; it seems that many things should be deprecated. Glen added that deprecation should perhaps be accompanied by the definition of new segments, most particularly for NDL.
LA1 is used in pharmacy messaging.
LA1 and LA2 are the equivalent of V3 participations (locations are participations in V3).
If replaced, Doug thinks LA1 and LA2 should perhaps be replaced not be a single segment but by a group of segments. René notes that LA1 and LA2 appear only as non-repeating fields?
Actions:
- Invite Lloyd McKenzie to Wed Q2
- Invite Scott Robertson to Wed Q2
VII.Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 1229 PST upon a motion by Marshall and a second by Spronk.
Quarter 3, Monday, January 19, 2004
Topic: v3 ballot reconciliation: Infrastructure Management
Session scribe: René Spronk
Attendees
Name / Member / Affiliation / E-mailHenderson, Mike (chair) / y / Eastern Informatics /
Spronk, René (scribe) / y / HL7 Netherlands /
Larson, Joann
(Db update) / y / Kaiser Permanente /
Aitchison, Penny / y / HL7 Netherlands /
Bishop, Charlie / NPFIT /
Hinchley, Andrew / y / HL7 UK /
Jewell, Gaby / y / Cerner /
Knapp, Paul / y / Continovation Services /
Marley, Tom / y / University of Salford /
Marshall, Glen / y / Siemens /
Pratt, Doug / y / Siemens /
Agenda
# / Key / Description / Presenter / Action Needed / Time1 / Call to Order
2 / Agenda approval – this session
3 / Review Action Items
4 / Infrastructure Management – Negative Major
5 / Infrastructure Management – Negative minor
6 / Infrastructure Management – Priority 2
7 / Adjournment
Action Items
# / Description / Who / History/Update / Status3Q2-02 / 20030910: don't have a mechanism for batch level acknowledment. Unclear if this should this be dealt with it at facilitator's meeting Thursday night or in a telcon? / Jenni Puyenbroek / 040119: open, invite a proposal from Rene to forward a proposal to CQ (which may be forwarded to MnM fot final resolution)
4Q1-08 / 20030911: Propose additional data element to Infrastructure root for extensibility support / Grahame Grieve / 20040105: CQ Telcon: Grahame reported that this is still open
I.Call to Order
The meeting was called to order by the chair Mike Henderson at 13:45
II.Agenda approval – this session
approved, no objections
III.Action Item Review
reviewed; both items still open.
IV.Infrastructure Management – Negative Major
Note: Numeric references are related to database entries.
452 (Lorenzi). 3 MTs, roll into 1 ? Glen: doesn’t this cause downstream issues ?
motion to accept and to replace current 3 MTs which each have 1 classcode with 1 MT allowing 1 of 3 classcodes (9-0-0).
Simplification with Substantive consequences; no new functionality was included; no functionality was taken out.
414(Koncar).
motion to declare item ‘not related’ (not part of the material open for ballot comments). Rene/Glen (10-0-0)
413(Koncar)
motion to declare item ‘not related’ (not part of the material open for ballot comments). Doug/Glen (10-0-0)
423(Spronk)
motion to declare item ‘not related’ (not part of the material open for ballot comments, substantive change, can’t deal with this item at this point in the process). Joann/Glenn (10-0-0)
450(Schadow)
move for item to be ‘non persuasive’ as per suggestion by Rene as shown in database. Glen/Paul. Discussion: proposal may have merits, but we feel its better served by implementation committee, or proposal for a future ballot, to get rid of any ambiguities. (10-0-0)
451(Schadow)
Might be a good issue for the v3 conformance team. CQs role is to create ‘stubs’. CQ facilitates the domain committees.
move to declare non related. Proposal may or may not have merits, but it’s too late in the ballot process for a major overhaul of the query domain. Glen/Paul. (10-0-0)
410(van Campen)
move to accept, clarify to balloter that QBP class is already in the response RMIM. Clarification also to be added to the v3 materials as well. Glen/Paul.
V.Infrastructure Management – Negative Minor
VI.Infrastructure Management – Priority 2
VII.Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at Mike Henderson upon a motion by Glen and a second by Paul
Quarter 4, Monday, January 19, 2004
Topic: Joint CQ/Conformance session
Session scribe: Dale Nelson
Attendees
Name / Member / Affiliation / E-mailHenderson, Mike (chair) / y / Eastern Informatics /
Nelson, Dale (scribe) / y / Zed-Logic /
Larson, Joann / y / Kaiser Permanente /
Puyenbroek, Jenni / y / McKesson Information Solutions /
Rontey, Pete / y / VA /
Aitchison, Penny / y / HL7 Netherlands /
Bishop, Charlie / NPFIT /
Lyons, John / y / Siemens /
Marshall, Glen / y / Siemens /
Pratt, Doug / y / Siemens /
Agenda
# / Key / Description / Presenter / Action Needed / Time1 / Call to Order / Mike Henderson
2 / Agenda approval – this session
3 / Review Action Items / :10
4 / 296 / Annotations and constraints / Jenni Puyenbroek / :25
5 / Tables for message profiles / Jenni Puyenbroek / :25
Decision Making practices update / Jenni Puyenbroek
6 / 328 / Update mode protocols / Joann Larson / :25
7 / Adjournment / :05
Action Items
# / Description / Who / History/Update / Status1Q4-01 / <2004-01-19> Take reorg of Ch 2 into 2-A and 2-B forward to publishing committee / Joann Larson / Open
1Q4-02 / KP and VA will take leadership to form possible subcommittee, and/or address update mode proposals / Joann Larson / Open
I.Call to Order
The meeting was called to order by the chair Mike Henderson (MH) at 3:38 PM.
II.Agenda approval – this session
Approved MH
III.Action Item Review
IV.296 Annotations and constraints – Jenni Puyenbroek (JP)
JP: Presented “Proposal from Conformance for Chapter 2. “
Conformance held discussion of which artifacts (list follows) were important in a profile
Artifact list:
Annotations:
-Description
-Reference
-Implementation Notes
-Design Comments
Tools (MWB) will include an ability to denote which of these annotations will appear in document.
This proposal to enhance section 2.12. Starting with section 2.19.
Joann Larson (JL): Is there enough new material to create section 2.b? JP: It would make maintenance easier. As long as it stays normative.
CH02-A.doc and CH02-B.doc
Action: Take reorganization of Ch 2 into 2-A and 2-B forward to publishing committee
JP: Motion: sections 2.12 and 2.19 to file CH02-B.doc and that that be normative subject to approval of Publishing committee.
JL: 2nd
Vote: 7-0-2
JP: Conformance plans to have annotations and a type attribute that will allow expansion of different types of annotations and stay normative.
Currently we have the 3 above. Everything is currently lumped into implementation notes. Need place for notes for developers and projects, not necessarily consumed by external parties. This is in keeping with the V3 mif technology.
Could have a new annotation type called a “difference”, for example.
JP: Continuing with annotations and constariunts,
-Predicates
Predicates. Are constraints. Currently we have condition predicate. Only avail conditionally. There exist other types of constraints that may be required. There are concepts of element value relationships – e.g. if patient is male, don’t do this, etc. May be inter-segment. Runtime only.
Formalism for parser is under consideration.
Pattern matching – reg-ex – refers to a value of an element only.
For Predicates, element-value, pattern match, have <text> <formalContent>
Wanted consistency with .mif – using OCL, not reg-ex.
Other annotations and constraints on list we did not discuss:
-Element Value Relationships
-Vocabulary
Table proposal
-Pattern Matching
V.Tables for message Profiles (296?)
JP described a current work in progress: This is not a proposal in the database yet. JP plans to elaborate this and bring it forward soon.
To be added to existing conformance profiles, at same level as existing static level definitions; table element profile.
For each table element, there could be an implementation note, where the values are name, longname, source, usage.
A list of table values could be supplied.
There are proposed DTD/Schema changes. Refer to Conformance committee document.
VI.Decision Making Practices
DMP conformance approved, and visually reviewed.
No questions, comments or motions were made.
Motion : JL endorse decision making document as amended
JP: 2nd
7-0-2
VII.Update mode proposals (328)