Implementation Conformance Working Group Meeting – January 2011

Conformance and Guidance for Implementation/Testing Working Group

Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada – May. 13-18, 2012

1.  Monday – Q1

CGIT Meeting Minutes
Location: Sheraton Wall Centre / Date: May 14, 2012
Time: 9:00 –10:30 am
Chair / Frank Oemig / Note taker(s) / Wendy Huang
Attendee / Name / Email / Affiliation
Rob Snelick / / NIST
Frank Oemig / / HL7 Germany
Wendy Huang / / Canada Health Infoway
Vincent McCauley / / HL7 Australia
Adri Burggraaff / / HL7 Netherlands
Quorum Requirements Met: (yes/No)
Yes

1.1.  Agenda Topics for Quarter

# / Key / Description / Presenter / Action Needed / Time
1 / Call to Order / 9:00
2 / Approve agenda / Frank
3 / Approve minutes (San Diego) / Frank
4 / follow-up action items / Frank
5 / Project Review / Frank
6 / Adjournment / 10:30

1.2.  Minutes/Conclusions Reached

1.2.1.  Approval of Agenda

Moved by R. Snelick, seconded by V. McCauley. Motion passed unanimously 4-0-0.

1.2.2.  Approval of Minutes

Moved by W. Huang, seconded by A. Burggraaff. Motion passed unanimously 5-0-0.

1.2.3.  Follow-up Items

Projects review: Updated project for v2.8 proposals and DTSU testing tool kit.

Actions
·  Follow up with HL7 HQ where the XML v2.x encoding rules are published
Note by Frank: this is currently in process.

1.3.  Supporting Documents

Agenda: http://wiki.hl7.org/index.php?title=CGITWG_May_2012_WGM_Agenda

2.  Monday – Q2

CGIT Meeting Minutes
Location: Sheraton Wall Centre / Date: May. 14, 2012
Time: 11:00am – 12:30pm
Chair / Frank Oemig / Note taker(s) / Rob Snelick
Attendee / Name / Email / Affiliation
Rob Snelick / / NIST
Frank Oemig / / HL7 Germany
Vincent McCauley / / HL7 Australia
Adri Burggraaff / / HL7 Netherlands
Quorum Requirements Met: (yes/No)
Yes

2.1.  Agenda Topics for Quarter

# / Key / Description / Presenter / Action Needed / Time
1 / Call to Order / 11:00
2 / V2.8 Ballot reconciliation / Rob / Update Chapter 2b
3 / V2.7.1 Ballot reconciliation / Rob / Update Chapter 2b
4 / Adjournment / 12:30

2.2.  Minutes/Conclusions Reached

2.2.1.  v2.8 Ballot Reconciliation

All negatives were done already, continuation with the affirmative comments and suggestions.

Assigned disposition/comments for all affirmatives.

Chapter text needs to be updated based on ballot comments and revisions made in 2.7.1 need to be brought forward.

Publishing is targeting August 3rd ballot date; therefore CGIT needs to submit Chapter 2B to publishing by July 13, 2012.

2.2.2.  v2.7.1 Ballot Reconciliation

2.7.1 ballot resolution completed. CGIT had one comment; Orders and observations has the master ballot spreadsheet for 2.7.1. CGIT has included its resolution in that document since there was only one comment.

CGIT needs to update chapter 2b and submit to publishing: Rob is presenting the additions for conditional elements: we do have the new notation "C(a/b)" to clarify the meaning of the optionality.

Discussion, whether "a" and "b" can be the same. the example makes of a constraint rendering a condition to constantly "false".

possible examples:

age depending on date of birth

check digit scheme on check digit

C(R/X):

if condition is always false it could result in:

=> C(X/X) --> implement condition

=> X -> no evaluation

question: how to handle the double quotes with regard to optionality codes?

They are not normal values for "RE" they are allowed because the field can stay empty, or "R" they are NOT allowed!

Motion to fix the typos for v2.7.1 (with that all negative comments are resolved) Frank/Adri. (all in favor: 3-0-0)

Open topic for a discussion: the change of optionality between versions with regard to implementations.

2.3.  Supporting Documents

See amalgamated reconciliation spreadsheet

3.  Monday – Q3

CGIT Meeting Minutes
Location: Sheraton Wall Centre / Date: May 14, 2012
Time: 1:45pm – 3:00pm
Facilitator / Rob Snelick / Note taker(s) / Rob Snelick
Attendee / Name / Email / Affiliation
Rob Snelick / / NIST
Frank Oemig / / HL7 Germany
Adri Burggraaff / / HL7 Netherlands
Quorum Requirements Met: (yes/No)
Yes

3.1.  Agenda Topics for Quarter

# / Key / Description / Presenter / Action Needed / Time
1 / Call to Order / 1:45
2 / V2.9 Proposals / Write and submit proposals
3 / Adjournment / 3:00

3.2.  Minutes/Conclusions Reached

3.2.1.  v2.9 Proposals

Discussion included V2.9 Proposals

Sender/Receiver profile compatibility: Rob presented a document/table that indicated sender/receiver usage indicators that are compatible (please see below). Each combination was discussed. Frank noted that sender X and receiver RE is compatible. Even though this may not be a desirable effect it is none the less compatible since the receiver will not fail if the information is not received. Rob will write a v2.9 proposal.

Clarification of the delete indicator was discussed and whether or not it satisfies content for R or RE. For R it does not. The delete indicator is not content; it signifies receiver side expected behavior. For RE it really has no implication (it terms of satisfying usage requirements) since for RE an element is not required to be populated. Contrast this with the “empty”. Create a section to better explain these concepts with regards to conformance in chapter 2B.

3.2.2.  Discussed Material

Compatible Conformance Usage between Sender and Receiver Profiles

The table below indicates what the allowable pairs for binding profiles are. Note, this is not an operational analysis; it is a tool to evaluate if a sender profile and a receiver profile is compatible. For a pair of profiles to be compatible then all element pairs in the profiles must adhere to the profile compatibility rules given in the table below. For example, if the sender profile specifies an element as required and the receiver profile also specifies the corresponding element as required, then for that element the profiles are compatible. If however, the sender profile specifies an element as not-supported and the receiver profile specifies the corresponding element as required, then for that element the profiles are not compatible since the receiver is expecting data that the sender will never provide.

The top part of the table addresses implementable profiles where each element must be profiled; that is, no elements can be O or optional. The bottom part of the table addresses constrainable profiles.

Optional elements apply only to constrainable profiles. Often SDOs develop constrainable level profiles for national specifications (E.g., in the U.S. for Meaningful Use certification). Their goal is to specify elements that are needed to meet their use case requirements. Beyond that they allow trading partners to agree upon local customization of the remaining un-profiled (or optional) elements. The analysis of optional elements for profile compatibility provides guidance for pairing potential implementable profiles derived from constrainable profiles. A definitive assessment of profile compatibility can’t be made until implementation profiles are developed. However, this guidance will aid in the specification of constrainable profiles. As is to be expected profile compatibility of constrainable profiles is directly linked to the requirements of the compatibility rules of implementable profiles.

HL7 V2 Sender/Receiver Pair Profile Compatibility Rules for Implementable Profiles
Sender / Receiver / Compatible / Comment
R / R / Yes / Sender and Receiver have the same expectations.
R / RE / Yes / Receiver supports this element but not always expecting it.
R / X / Yes / Receiver doesn’t support this element.
RE / R / No / Receiver is not guaranteed to get required data.
RE / RE / Yes / Sender and Receiver have the same expectations.
RE / X / Yes / Receiver doesn’t support this element.
X / R / No / Receiver will not get required data.
X / RE / Yes / Receiver will not get data it expects in certain instances[1]
X / X / Yes / Sender and Receiver have the same expectations.
Compatibility Analysis for Optional Elements being derived from Constrainable
Sender / Receiver / Compatible / Comment
R / O / Yes / Receiver does not expect data and may support this element in the future. Compatible receiver profiling include R, RE, or X.
RE / O / Possible / Receiver does not expect data and may support this element in the future. Compatible receiver profiling include RE, or X.
X / O / RE or X / Receiver does not expect data and may want support this element in the future. However, it can only be compatible if it is constrained to X.
O / R / Only R / Receiver requires the data. Compatible sender profiling option is R.
O / RE / Yes / Receiver expects data in certain instances. Compatible sender profiling options is R or RE.AND X
O / X / Yes / Compatibility sender profiling options is R, RE, or X.
O / O / Possible / Compatibility can be achieved by following the rules for implementation profiles as given above.
  1. Add section for vocabulary conformance in Chapter 2B similar to V3 RCnL. Make a V2.9 Proposal. This should include a section on how to evaluate CWE, CNE, etc.

3.3.  Supporting Documents

See amalgamated reconciliation spreadsheet

4.  Tuesday – Q2

CGIT Meeting Minutes
Location: Sheraton Wall Centre / Date: May 15, 2012
Time: 11:00am – 12:30pm
Facilitator / Frank Oemig / Note taker(s) / Rob Snelick
Attendee / Name / Email / Affiliation
CGIT / Rob Snelick / / NIST
CGIT / Frank Oemig / / HL7 Germany
Quorum Requirements Met: (yes/No)
No

4.1.  Agenda Topics for Quarter

# / Description / Presenter / Action Needed / Time
1 / Call to Order / 11:00
2 / V2.9 Proposals - Continued
·  / Rob / Write and submit V2.9 proposals
3 / Adjournment / 12:30

4.2.  Minutes/Conclusions Reached

4.2.1.  V2.9 Proposal discussion continued
  1. Profile fragmentation or profile components. Allow for reuse of common profile components and provide a formal mechanism to indicate variation on a given profile. This allows for modular creation of profiles. Create V2.9 proposal.
  2. Create a section on conformance verbs and what it means in terms of the usage indicators. For example a SHALL is required. Shall support is RE.
  3. Create a proposal for including conformance statements in 2B. The level of conformance statements and how to write the conformance statements.

4.3.  Meeting Outcomes

  1. Need to create and submit proposals.
  2. NIST and the VA are pursuing a joint project to create an implementation guide authoring tool. In short this will be a rewrite of the MWB in Java with additional features to support document authoring, ballot reconciliation and disposition archive, integration with downstream testing tools, and other additional functionality. Tooling will support V2.9 proposals.

4.4.  Supporting Documents

none

5.  Tuesday – Q3 (InM hosting)

CGIT Meeting Minutes
Location: Hyatt Regency by the Riverwalk Garden Terrace #135 / Date: Jan. 17, 2012
Time: 1:45pm – 3 pm
Facilitator / N/Ak / Note taker(s) / Frank Oemig
Attendee / Name / Email / Affiliation
CGIT / Rob Snelick / / NIST
CGIT / Wendy Huang / / Canada Health Infoway
CGIT / Frank Oemig / / HL7 Germany
InM / Tony Julian / Mayo Clinic
InM / Sandy Stuart / / Kaiser Permanente
InM / Dave Shaver / / CorePoint
Mark Tucker / / Regenstrief
Quorum Requirements Met: (yes/No)
Yes

5.1.  Agenda Topics for Quarter

# / Key / Description / Presenter / Action Needed / Time
1 / Call to Order / 1:45 pm
2 / V2.8 Ballot items / Rob
3 / Adjournment / 3:00 pm

5.2.  Minutes/Conclusions Reached

Please refer to the InM minutes on Jan 2012 WGM Tuesday Q3:

http://wiki.hl7.org/index.php?title=2012_01_15_inm_wgm_SanAntonio

Action Item: Rob to send v2.7.1 text on description of conditionals and text on definitions of interaction and transactions to InM. Need to harmonize use of the terms in HL7 V2.x.

5.3.  Meeting Outcomes

5.4.  Supporting Documents

6.  Wednesday – Q2

CGIT Meeting Minutes
Location: Hyatt Regency by the Riverwalk Garden Terrace #135 / Date: May 16, 2012
Time: 11 am – 12:30pm
Facilitator / Wendy Huang / Note taker(s) / Wendy Huang
Attendee / Name / Email / Affiliation
CGIT / Rob Snelick / / NIST
CGIT / Wendy Huang / / Canada Health Infoway
CGIT / Frank Oemig / / HL7 Germany
Quorum Requirements Met: (yes/No)
Yes

6.1.  Agenda Topics for Quarter

# / Key / Description / Presenter / Action Needed / Time
1 / Call to Order / 11:00
2 / RCnL: update and preparation for next ballot cycle (45 mins) / Wendy Huang
3 / Adjournment / 12:30

6.2.  Minutes/Conclusions Reached

Actions
·  Need to obtain XML original document to apply edits to.

Update: section 2.5

Candidates for Scope of updates:

·  Terms and wording alignment with: HL7 Core Principles, MIF, SAIF. Inclusion of FHIR to be determined after discussion with MnM

·  Add “invoking the constraint” to sections as appropriate

·  Add “best practices” to sections as appropriate

·  Section 1 – Overview

o  Add a section about conformance verbs. The direction is here: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2119

o  Section 1.2 – add in DAM into diagram– how it fits with DMIM and RMIM & Options to specify to message types further should be reflected

o  Use different DMIMs and different RMIMs in the second diagram below (Action item to Frank)

o  Section 1.3 – review and update when the rest of the document is complete

·  Section 2 – Constraints and Annotations

o  Under general section 2 update the sequence between Appearance Constraints and Cardinality constraints

o  Section 2.1 – specialized data types are mentioned (“collection types) however the concept of data types is not introduced into section 2.4

o  Section 2.2 – under generation section: need to explain what is appearance constraints (in addition to what it does) and review subsequent sections