IHE DCC Documentation Work Group Teleconference Minutes 2012-03-12

March 5th meeting canceled.

NameSpace:

---

• Chris Carr to talk to Steve Moore about "helpers" gathering NameSpace data.
• Mary Jungers has created preliminary version of google spreadsheet to begin to gather NameSpace info.

Volume 3 "shell":

---

• reviewed March 9th, 2012 version attached to email from Teri:

• ITI and Cardiology Vol 3 TF document TOC numbering is different from PCC and QRPH. How strictly do we want to prescribe the document format? Most specifically, PCC uses Section Entries in TOC 6.3.3.x. There are 7 categories of Section Entries currently defined in PCC. Does every domain have to/should they put their new/additional Section Entries into one of the PCC-defined categories so that authors attempting to reuse Sections can find them more easily? Or, should that be put into a searchable field in NameSpace tool which just points to a (any) TF section number?

Volume 1 Supplement Template:

---

• Actors and Options

• OK, this is really, really messy. In theory, in IHE Actors are defined within a Profile. Within that Profile, Actors can have defined Options. PCC (arguably had to) create Options on Actors in other domain's profiles. For example, PCC created a domain-wide (not IHE wide) View Option for it's Content Consumer Actors. It is expected that this PCC Content Consumer actor be grouped with an XD* profile (Karen hates XD*). Note that there is no Content Consumer Actor in the XD* profiles (there is a Document Consumer, etc.) As an example, Cardiology CIRC slightly tweaks the View Option, but also allows the CIRC Content Consumer to be grouped with a bunch of other profiles actors (e.g., DRPT, IEO, RFD, etc.)
• Recommendation 1: Pull the Content Module Content Consumer and Content Creator Options out of PCC into Volume 3 at a higher level, make them IHE-wide, and require them to be consistent across all domains if they are going to use them. If the defined options will not work, a domain will have to create a new IHE-wide Content Consumer or Content Create Option.
• Recommendation 2: Create a table in Section X of the Supplement Template for Content Modules which explicitly lists which Domains, Profiles, and Actors, and which Content Consumer/Creator Options may be Grouped together (and list in tabular format, just like current Groupings table). (The issue that this creates behind the scenes is that if a new XD* (sorry, Karen) profile gets created, all of the Content Modules profiles will need a CP, but then they would at least be given some thought if they shoudl be adopted/included or not).

• Bring this all up at the DCC call tomorrow to get wider input and consensus. Really need someone from PCC on these calls!