Cores+Services+Meetings

toc

Agenda/Minutes 2011-05-10
May 10, 2011 Agenda
 * Spec Factory FAQ

Agenda/Minutes 2011-04-26
April 26, 2011 Agenda
 * Spec Factory FAQ
 * 71 On-demand documents [|FAQ/37559758]
 * Update to Query for Docs and Retrieve Documents
 * No concerns raised regarding moving forward with this change
 * 74 ATNA mapping for Patient Discovery [|FAQ/37940530]
 * Query sent to Audit Logging experts. Unclear why there is confusion since the author sees the specification as non-ambiguous.  Further explanation forthcoming.
 * 75 Patient Discovery SemanticText [|FAQ/37941012]
 * Answered in post, current formulation is consistent with HL7 V3 specification.
 * 76 Patient Discovery Agent tag [|FAQ/37941440]
 * The approach is believed to be conformant with the HL7 V3 specification.
 * 77 Correlation of response in deferred messaging - alternate approach [|FAQ/37999716]
 * Discussion of use of the relates-to soap header. Was requested to make the use of this header as specified at the profile level.  Use case for this was not convincing and certain members were concerned with inconsistent and therefor complicated implementations.  Agreed that profiles can add slot values to the RegistryResponse element and can use this to support business level correlation of messages.
 * Cancel next weeks call, next call 5/10

Agenda/Minutes 2011-04-12
April 12, 2011 Agenda
 * Spec Factory FAQ
 * No new questions
 * Discussion of planning for Summer major release
 * Agreed to prepare the on-demand changes to be included in that release

Agenda/Minutes 2011-03-29
March 29, 2011 Agenda
 * Deferred Response use in Document Submission - no way to identify the original request
 * Reviewed Messaging Platform specification version 2.0.0.5 which requires the use of relatesTo element for this purpose
 * Spec Factory FAQ
 * 65 http://exchange-specifications.wikispaces.com/message/view/Spec+Factory+FAQ/36394324 - has been answered by Eric
 * 66 http://exchange-specifications.wikispaces.com/message/view/Spec+Factory+FAQ/36343558 - this is not a question for the specification but instead a question for some library
 * 67 http://exchange-specifications.wikispaces.com/message/view/Spec+Factory+FAQ/36343396 - this is also a question for the developers of the HL7 V3 API
 * 68 http://exchange-specifications.wikispaces.com/message/view/Spec+Factory+FAQ/36732866 - answered in posting

Agenda/Minutes 2011-03-22
March 22, 2011 Agenda
 * Spec Factory FAQ
 * No new questions

Agenda/Minutes 2011-03-15
March 15, 2011 Agenda
 * Review PQRI Updates
 * Spec Factory FAQ
 * #3 - waiting for Tom
 * #4 - waiting for Tom
 * #57 - How much checking should there be of the format of document unique ID?
 * Recommend to close
 * #58 Please restore section numbering in the Retrieve Documents specification http://exchange-specifications.wikispaces.com/message/view/Spec+Factory+FAQ/35526790
 * Not a technical question - staff will address
 * #59 Retrieve Documents specification refers to IHE ITI TF Vol. 1 & 2a, 2b, 2x, 3 Revision 6.0 http://exchange-specifications.wikispaces.com/message/view/Spec+Factory+FAQ/35526714
 * All references should point to 7.0.
 * #60 Specifications refer to two different versions of IHE ITI TF Supplement XCA TI http://exchange-specifications.wikispaces.com/message/view/Spec+Factory+FAQ/35526574
 * All references should point to 7.0
 * #61 Which version of the C80 specification should be used in support of the Query for Documents and Retrieve Documents specifications? http://exchange-specifications.wikispaces.com/message/view/Spec+Factory+FAQ/35526404
 * The panel approved version should be used. The references were put in prior to panel approval.
 * #62 ITI TF-2a sections 3.18.4.2.5 and 3.18.4.2.4 are missing from ITI TF-2a (Revision 7.0) http://exchange-specifications.wikispaces.com/message/view/Spec+Factory+FAQ/35526342
 * Looks like a change is needed to the IHE specification.
 * #63 Please clarify current exchange support for async http://exchange-specifications.wikispaces.com/message/view/Spec+Factory+FAQ/35838350
 * A confusing subject which will require fixes in several specifications in order to be clear. Agreed to address in spec factory meeting.

Agenda/Minutes 2011-03-08
March 08, 2011 Agenda
 * Spec Factory FAQ
 * #53 - Question about the access control model specified in ebXML/RIM
 * Recommend to close
 * #3 - waiting for Tom
 * #4 - waiting for Tom
 * #57 - How much checking should there be of the format of document unique ID?

Agenda/Minutes 2011-03-01
March 1, 2011 Agenda
 * Spec Factory FAQ
 * Should this group meet less often given low attendance and not much to do

Agenda/Minutes 2011-02-14
February 14, 2011 Agenda
 * Spec Factory FAQ
 * 3 & 4 - Patient Discovery - two open issues waiting for action by Tom
 * 53 - Question about the access control model specified in ebXML/RIM
 * Answer posted, belongs to S&P group? Agreed.
 * 48 - waiting for fix to be applied
 * work is completed, will be closed
 * 49 - waiting for fix to be applied
 * work is completed will be closed
 * 50 - livingSubjectId in patient discovery - waiting for action?
 * Developers guide to be updated to reflect this advice
 * 52 - XDSUnknownPatientID error code - review recommended fix
 * Integrate this change into the spec and draw attention at all hands call

Agenda/Minutes 2011-02-01
February 1, 2011 Agenda
 * Spec Factory FAQ
 * Add sort by work group to google spreadsheet
 * Agreed to the plan and give Karen edit access to the google spreadsheet
 * Patient Discovery - two open issues waiting for action by Tom
 * Tom to provide some details on technical solution
 * Architecture - recommend to close
 * 48 - Incorrect Health Data Locator code
 * needs correction in specification
 * Benson to apply fix and will go into next NTC cylce
 * 49 - QFD spec typo
 * needs correction in specification
 * Benson to apply fix and will go into next NTC cylce
 * 50 - livingSubjectId in patient discovery
 * Advice is to not specify the livingSubjectId element at all. If it is specified it must include both root and extension.
 * in PIX/PDQ V3 section 23.5 it states the requirement for both root and extension
 * 51 - Correct format for creationTime
 * Question has been answered
 * Close this issue as answerd
 * 52 - XDSUnknownPatientID error code
 * Discussed difference between stale PID and invalid PID as explained in the question
 * Agreed that if the responder cannot distinguish between stale and invalid they must return the error and NOT an empty list as suggested. Returning an error in this case is preferred because the initiator has the same path forward independent of whether the responder can distinguish. In all cases, if an empty list is returned the initiator has no need to do further patient discovery work as the only possible reasons for this are that there are no records for a valid PID or the PID has never been know by responder - suggesting the initiator is either on a fishing expedition or has an internal error. When the error is returned this suggests that either the PID is stale or the responder doesn't know whether the PID is stale or invalid. So in all cases the initiator can take the same corrective action which would include patient discovery unless the PID was discovered recently (which would suggest an error on responder's side).
 * Karen to wrote this into the discussion post and after agreement the specification can be updated to clarify this recommendation. Note that this is not a change to the intent of the specification but, instead, an improvement on the wording currently in the specification.


 * Cancel Feb. 8 and 22 meetings

Agenda/Minutes 2011-01-25
January 25, 2011 Agenda
 * Spec Factory FAQ
 * Patient Discovery - two open issues waiting for action by Tom
 * Tom will address these shortly
 * Architecture - Joe Lamy question answered, recommend to close
 * Agreed to close this question
 * Query for Documents - HealthcareFacilityTypeCode
 * Tom provided an answer, answer was posted in discussion list
 * Spec update to be done by Deloitte team
 * Addition of scheme OIDS to table ongoing
 * Meeting minutes [[file:Core Services WG Weekly Call 1-25-2011.doc]]

Agenda/Minutes 2011-01-18
January 18, 2010 Agenda
 * Meeting was cancaled

Agenda/Minutes 2011-01-11
January 11, 2010 Agenda
 * Spec Factory FAQ
 * None to be addressed by this group
 * Updates to Query and Retrieve doc specifications
 * NTC package recently released
 * Agreed to put minor updates to query & retrieve into the package to be reviewed on Jan. 24 by the NTC
 * Concern with relationship to the recently announced S&I framework initiatives
 * Relationship not yet defined

Agenda/Minutes 2011-01-04
January 4, 2010 Agenda
 * Spec Factory FAQ
 * Review Patient Discovery Questions from Joan Duhaime
 * All responses were agreed to by the team, Amram will contact Joan to confirm acceptance.
 * Joe Lamy questions about Retrieve Doc set content of document
 * Questions are adequate so far, discussed extent that further checking of document content makes sense. Will post to Q&A once full investigation of issue is resolved.
 * Review demo of drop box improvements
 * Meeting Minutes [[file:Core Services WG Weekly Call 1-4-2011.doc]]

Agenda/Minutes 2010-12-21
December 21, 2010 Agenda
 * Spec Factory FAQ
 * Joe's homeCommunityId question
 * Lots of explanation of the purpose and use of homeCommuinityId. Joe says the party that was validating has decided not to validate it. For now testing will flag this situation but not call it a violation.
 * Agreed: Should be not specified but if it is specified it should be ignored.
 * Karen will submit a CP to IHE to get this problem resolved and documented.
 * Email discussion between Tom Davidson and Karen regarding whether the homeCommunityId returned in a Patient Discovery request must be all the same. Agreed that there can be different ones, but that they must be resolvable through the UDDI registry to a service entry point. In general, when a request, whether Patient Discovery or Query for Docs, returns different/multiple homeCommunityIds this represents a collection of communities behind a higher level community. This environment is currently not considered in testing and it is unclear whether it should be supported or not. IHE allows for this capability and this team has not either adopted or disallowed it.

Agenda/Minutes 2010-12-14
December 14, 2010 Agenda
 * Spec Factory FAQ
 * 12/10 Joe's homeCommunityId question
 * Will discuss next week
 * Used remaining time to give feedback on Change and config mgmt doc

Agenda/Minutes 2010-12-07
December 07, 2010 Agenda
 * Spec Factory FAQ
 * Deloite will submit the RI questions from last week to the FAQ
 * Several errors in the Patient Discovery Specification have been identified, Karen will make these fixes and send to Amram for processing.
 * 4.1 Special Handling for More Attributes Required : should not list mothers maiden name, living subject birth place name & address
 * Appendix A Patient Discovery Response  should have only one telecom element.
 * Other FAQ's in the table are assigned to the S&P workgroup
 * Capability and Change request forms
 * Karen will make the changes directly in the current files and send to Amram
 * The On-Demand will reference the wiki page
 * Support team will take the beginning content below, finalize and move through the process

Agenda/Minutes 2010-11-30
November 30, 2010 Agenda
 * Spec Factory FAQ
 * No new questions or progress on pending questions
 * Reference Implementation (RI) Message Platform Specification Clarification Requests - submitted by email only
 * Answered several that were relevant to this group. Others to be addressed by Security and Privacy group
 * Agreed the questions would be submitted to the Spec Factory FAQ

Agenda/Minutes 2010-11-23
November 23, 2010 Agenda
 * Spec Factory FAQ

Agenda/Minutes 2010-11-16
November 16, 2010 Agenda
 * Review updates to adopt IHE 'On Demand' solution, see update spec on the IHE extensions page.
 * Spec Factory FAQ
 * Review those items not resolved from the 11-02 call.
 * Review any new items

Agenda/Minutes 2010-11-09
November 9, 2010 Agenda
 * Spec Factory FAQ
 * Review those items not resolved from the 11-02 call.
 * No update on PatDisc-2 and PatDisc-3.
 * Review of DocQuery-3 found that this is a new requirement and advised to put it through that process
 * Review any new items
 * No new items pertaining to this group
 * Review Guidance pages and new Q&A work
 * Discussed the overlap of "Guidance" and "Q&A" Most felt that Q&A could become a page of links to the various Guidance pages. Given limited representation on the call we deleyed decision.

Agenda/Minutes 2010-11-02
November 2, 2010 Agenda
 * Spec Factory FAQ
 * Query For Documents : XDS metadata - What should the format code(s) be when the document entry is a native document and not a file that is wrapped in a CDA (e.g. – Word Documents, PDF, TIFF, etc)?
 * Answer: Discussed some choices: copy the mimeType, leave as empty string, use specific format code. Revisit next week.
 * Query For Documents : XDS metadata - The Query For Documents specification indicates the following in Section 3.2: Query Parameters, and am currently assuming that this applies to the XDS metadata that is returned in the Query for Documents response (even though it isn’t explicitly stated).
 * Answer: No, obvious in most cases except one - practice setting code. clinical specialty is the same as practice setting. Will create table to explain these details on wiki.
 * Query For Documents : XDS metadata - The Query For Documents specification indicates that the HITSP C80 vocabulary sets should be used for the XDS Metadata attributes.
 * Is it permissible to use coded concepts that are not currently identified in the C80 document but are part of the same base vocabulary coding system?
 * Is it permissible to use a different vocabulary system other than the ones identified in C80?
 * Answer: no, this interferes with interoperability so participants must use the codes from C80. The codes are not intended to be universal, only to be high level. Right now this is what we must live with but expect a vehicle to be born to adjust the current set of codes. Also any sponsor can submit a new use case to adjust the set of codes.
 * Patient Discovery: SOAP Faults - The IHE XCPD specification indicates that SOAP faults should be used to return internal errors (line 919 – 921). The current WSDLs do not define a SOAP fault, should they?
 * Answer: ftp://ftp.ihe.net/IT_Infrastructure/TF_Maintenance-2010/CPs/FinalText/CP-ITI-518-FT.doc changes to return an error response rather than a soap fault.
 * Patient Discovery : Given a scenario where a home community supports multiple assigning authorities, assuming that the home community has performed a security evaluation and determined that it should honor the request, how should the home community respond if it is unable to communicate with one of the assigning authorities (e.g. – network connectivity problems). Should the home community return a patient discovery response with the patient information that it could successfully match along with a status value indicating partial success (assuming such a status value exists), or should the home community return an error response for the entire transaction?
 * Answer: Does HL7 V3 support a partial result? Tom will take a look and let us know.
 * Patient Discovery :Given a scenario where a home community supports multiple assigning authorities, is it possible to target patient discovery to a specific assigning authority?
 * Answer: Send CP template to Tom and he will fill it out. Target for review of this on Nov. 12 CP call in IHE.
 * Discussion of organization of FAQ: Eric recommends that we organize the faq to include headers for specifications. He will do this and everyone will review.

Agenda/Minutes 2010-10-26
October 26, 2010 Agenda
 * Review updates to adopt IHE 'On Demand' solution, see update spec on the IHE extensions page.
 * Update the example to include use of on-demand
 * Spec Factory FAQ
 * Reviewed current list, all applicable to Security & Privacy
 * Tom agreed to add his concern regarding multiple assigning authorities in Patient Discovery when one is not reachable. Will review next week.
 * Team name change from Info Services to Infrastructure
 * Change name to Core Services : adopt Messaging Platform, Web Services Registry, HIEM as additional specs managed by this group

Agenda/Minutes 2010-10-20
October 20, 2010 Agenda (rescheduled from usual time to Weds 12-1)
 * Review updates to adopt IHE 'On Demand' solution, see update spec on the IHE extensions page.
 * Document Submission Asynchronous Messaging - updated specification under review and approval
 * Determining responders' responsibilities in handling bad requests (to identify tests of these responsibilities)

Agenda/Minutes 2010-09-14
September 14, 2010 Agenda
 * Review the IHE 'On Demand' solution
 * Review and refine the Refactoring Efforts page
 * Plan out approach to prototype re-author Query for Documents spec
 * Specification template and level of detail
 * Implementation guidance topics (current questions, other sources
 * What is required in the response, which metadata elements
 * How do I target a query to return C32s?
 * Writing assignments - volunteers

Agenda/Minutes 2010-08-09
August 9, 2010 Agenda:


 * Query for Documents issues uncovered by Rich Kernan


 * XDSUnknownPatientID error code
 * intendedRecipient field use in Document Submission and associated content profiles
 * Timestamp Questions
 * On-Demand and Deferred Documents
 * Update on IHE work on Asynchronous Messaging

Agenda/Minutes 2010-08-02
August 2, 2010:

>
 * Query for Documents issues uncovered by Rich Kernan
 * On-Demand and Deferred Documents - new work from IHE
 * intendedRecipient field use in Document Submission and associated content profiles
 * XDSUnknownPatientID error code
 * Update on IHE work on Asynchronous Messaging