ITI Agenda 2017-2018

From IHE Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

July 2018 F2F – TI Meeting, 16 July – 20 July 2018

This 5-day meeting is focused on review of public comments submitted. The goal is to come to a resolution for all the comments received and publish the documents for Trial Implementation period.

Meeting Location
RSNA Building, Oak Brook, IL
WebEx information
Meeting Number: 920 025 504
Password: Ask co-chairs (mzanardini@consorzioarsenal.it , Elliot.Silver@mckesson.com )
Link: https://himss.webex.com/himss/j.php?MTID=md211300e1b77c577cdd051b72a79f8b5
Support material
Work item documents and support material may be found in the meeting folder

Agenda & Minutes

All times listed are tentative, and may be revised during the meeting—refresh often.

Agenda Overview
Time

Oak Brook, IL

(US Central, UTC−06:00)

Monday, 16 July Tuesday, 17 July Wednesday, 18 July Thursday, 19 July Friday, 20 July
08:30 am–8:45 am Breakfast Breakfast Breakfast Breakfast Breakfast
8:45 am–9:00 am
9:00 am–9:15 am Introductions and Agenda Review Metadata Handbook Metadata Handbook Metadata Handbook Final Review / voting
9:15 am–9:30 am TF Maintenance
9:30 am–9:45 am
9:45 am–10:00 am
10:00 am–10:15 am
10:15 am–10:30 am
10:30 am–10:45 am
10:45 am–11:00 am Morning Break Morning Break Morning Break Morning Break Morning Break
11:00 am–11:15 am RMU RMU AS4 RMU / ATNA CP Joint PC/TC
11:15 am–11:30 am
11:30 am–11:45 am
11:45 am–12:00 noon
12:00 noon–12:15 pm
12:15 pm–12:30 pm
12:30 pm–12:45 pm Lunch Lunch Lunch Lunch Lunch
12:45 pm–1:00 pm
1:00 pm–1:15 pm
1:15 pm–1:30 pm
1:30 pm–1:45 pm AS4 AS4 Appendix V CPs AS4
1:45 pm–2:00 pm
2:00 pm–2:15 pm
2:15 pm–2:30 pm
2:30 pm–2:45 pm
2:45 pm–3:00 pm
3:00 pm–3:15 pm
3:15 pm–3:30 pm Afternoon Break Afternoon Break Afternoon Break Afternoon Break
3:30 pm–3:45 pm FHIR and IHE Joint Meeting ITI/PCC/QRPH RMU TF Maintainance / Planning Cmte tasks
3:45 pm–4:00 pm
4:00 pm–4:15 pm
4:15 pm–4:30 pm
4:30 pm–4:45 pm
4:45 pm–5:00 pm
5:00 pm–5:15 pm
5:15 pm–5:30 pm Wrap-up, homework, agenda updates Wrap-up, homework, agenda updates Wrap-up, homework, agenda updates Wrap-up, homework, agenda updates

Monday, 16 July, 2018

Day 1: Monday, 16 July, 2018
Time

Oak Brook, IL

(US Central, UTC−06:00)

Leads Activity Notes
8:30 am–9:00 am

Breakfast

9:00 am–9:15 am Elliot/Mauro

Introductions and Agenda Review

Participants: Elliot Silver (Change Healthcare), Mauro Zanardini (Arsenàl.it), Vassil Peytchev (EPIC), Lynn Felofher, John Moherke (ByLight), Massimiliano Masi (Tiani), Umberto Cappellini (AGFA Healthcare), Sylvie Colas (ASIP), Ken Meyer (IBM/Merge), Joe Lamy (AEGIS), Elliott Lavy (Harris Operating), Gregorio Canal (Arsenaàl.IT), Luke Duncan (IntraHealth) , Chris Melo (Philips), Charles Parisot (GE)

9:15 am–10:45 am Lynn

TF MAINTENANCE TOPICS:

Finish Ballot 48 comment resolution:

CPs - Plan & Prioitize:

  • see "JulyF2F" tab on the CP Tracking Spreadsheet
  • present the status of Assigned CPs; identify areas that need focus; ensure we have resources to address them
  • identify specific CPs that need to be balloted before the Jan 2019 connectathon
  • determine what to do with CPs currently assigned to inactive committee members
  • schedule focus for CP calls in Aug and Sep

And:

  • FHIR STU4 updates

Later this week:

  • make progress on Appendix V CPs (1122, 1123)


10:45 am–11:00 am

Morning Break

11:00 am–12:30 pm Ken

RMU

Review of the post public comment version o the RMU supplement. Ken lead the discussion. The consolidated spreadsheet with comments received during PC is posted in the ftp site. Pending discussion related to the interaction with On-Demand Documents and snapshots. Can we change a snapshot? Is this something that can be accepted in accordance to local policies?

12:30 pm–1:30 pm

Lunch

1:30 pm–3:15 pm Pim/Massiliano

AS4

Proposal to start with the resolution of Vassil comments made in the ititech googlegroup. We should take in mind that the spec will be implemented by AS4 native actors and by IHE WS actors, so we need to figure out the right way in order make things duable for both sides.

Open issue for Vassil: deal in explicit way with Simple SOAP and MTOM/XOP, and having the references in order to re-create the MTOM/XOP form the AS4 exchange.


3:15 pm–3:30 pm

Afternoon Break

3:30 pm–5:15 pm John

FHIR and IHE:

  • FTP vs GITHUB
  • Release 4 updates
  • How to submit CPs on FHIR
  • FHIR Documents
  • FHIR testing
  • Strategic view (shared between NA and EU) of the mobile plug-a-thon


  • GITHUB vs FTP: could be an alternative for a collaborative way during development. REquires only to use markups. FHIR has chosen the same format. Any user can download a copy, and the GIT system allows a distributed mechanism of versioning. Could we replace what we do using GIT ? Maybe we have a more eneric question: do we need to change the structure of ou documentation changing the TF views (vol1 vol2 etc.) ? Reusability/modularity of our profiles should not be affected by this approach (transactions and actors concepts are reusable). GIT could be a collaborative tool but still publish pdf, or we can move to the dicom approach that publish multiple versions created from the same source. What about using GIT for FHIR conformances resources? This will make things more reachable. Markdown does not affect conformance resources publication, but both (documentaiton management and resources) requires a mature version management mechanism. The urgent need is fhir conformance. The idea to change the documentation is big and probably could only be analyzed by us, but need to be discussed elsewhere. We will reach out with Mary how diffucult will be to manage markdown. The point is that the documentation is not a big deal , the issue will be how the documentationis managed.
  • FHIR Release 4 updates: It will come out new year. Shortly after ONC will release meaingful use criteria. Now they reccomends use of APIs , with use FHIR release 4. We do not have anything on release 4, so we need to decide if we want to be still referenced in ONC. Our plan is to conver them once the Release 4 will be released (e.g. interested on QEDm or mXDE). mXDE IUA (that does not need any change) PDQm (not to much changes) QEDm (not to much updates needed) MHD (some relevant changes, and has a bunch of pending CPs) have high priority. Issue: we do not have idea of the window between Release 4 and ONC (we should ask to someone that participate both on onc and IHE). In mid november, we should start to see something freezed form Release 4, so we can start after tech meeting. ACTION ITEM: Elliot will contact Jurgen in order to discover the deadline of ONC publication, presenting our possible scheduling to have profiles ready for Release 4 and ONC. PIXm and PDQm could be done but they have low value. mCSD probably is the last in order of priority. Elliot report back to the planning cmte when will get back from Jurgen.
  • How to submit CPs on FHIR: if we need to create a CP during a profile, sumbit gforge tracker. Soon it will be managed by JIRA.
  • FHIR Documents : PCC and QRPH are spending time in order to convert CDA to FHIR documents resources.
  • FHIR testing: testScripts / exampleScenario are out of scope for ITI this cycle. Requires a lot energy in order to produce value.
  • Mobile plug-a-thon view: This should be further discussed. It is hard to engage app developer. But the point should be to focus the event for them to educational/learning activities
5:15 pm–5:30 pm Elliot/Mauro

Wrap-up, homework, agenda updates

HOMEWORK:

  • AS4: not ready
  • Metadata Handbook: Charles
  • RMU: Elliot
  • ATNA CP: Vassil

Tuesday, 17 July, 2018

Day 2: Tuesday, 17 July, 2018
Time

Oak Brook, IL

(US Central, UTC−06:00)

Leads Activity Notes
8:30 am–9:00 am

Breakfast

9:00 am–10:45 am Vincent

Metadata Handbook

Participants:: Elliot Silver (CHC), Mauro Zanardini (Arsenal.IT), Charles Parisot (GE), Chris Melo (Philips), Lynn Felhofer (ITI TEch Mngr), John Moherke (ByLight), Umberto Cappellini (AGFA), Sylvie Colas (ASIP), Vincent Van Pelt (Nictiz), Gregorio Canal (Arsenal.IT), Joe Lamy (AEGIS), Ken Meyer (IBM), Luke Duncan (IntraHealth), Oliver Egger (IHE Swiss), Elliott Lavy (Harris)

Main part of the comments are related to open issues. We received comments from three companies. The main part of comments can be easly accepted. The discussion will focus on items that needs discussion.

John will publish the spreadsheet in the FTP site with tracked action items for the day.

10:45 am–11:00 am

Morning Break

11:00 am–12:30 pm Ken

RMU

Review of post PC version of the document. Ken lead the discussion. Mauro nd Elliot will review it tonight.
12:30 pm–1:30 pm

Lunch

1:30 pm–3:15 pm Charles/Pim

AS4

Goal to tackle the Appendix V updates. All the comments on AS4 are ok.

Strategy: we will have a CP that does the redoc of Appendix V , that prepare the TF for AS4 and include Vassil's CP (HL7 clean-up). Then the will be the supplement of AS4. Ballot package: 2 CPs and a clean Appendix V. Within the next couple of weeks we need to send out this ballot. End of august ballot closes , and in september we will do pc resolution in order to have this published befroe CAT registration. Publish a new version in the fall of 2x. AS4 does not need to wait 2x publication. We can add in the intro of AS4 that the supplement is based on 2x version that will be published in september (Appendix V + CP X and CP Y).

  • homework: Umberto and Mauro will review AS4.
3:15 pm–3:30 pm

Afternoon Break

3:30 pm–5:15 pm Elliot/Mauro JOINT PCC/QEPH/ITI
  • ITI-65 and PCC-1 Actor discussion (Denise)


5:15 pm–5:30 pm Elliot/Mauro

Wrap-up, homework, agenda updates

Wednesday, 18 July, 2018

Day 3: Wednesday, 18 July, 2018
Time

Oak Brook, IL

(US Central, UTC−06:00)

Leads Activity Notes
8:30 am–9:00 am

Breakfast

9:00 am–10:45 am Vincent

Metadata Handbook

Participants: Mauro Zanardini (Arsenàl.IT) , Elliot Silver (CHC), Sylvie Colas (ASIP), Umberto Cappellini (AGFA), Massimiliano Masi (Tiani), John Moherke (ByLight), Lynn Felhofer (ITI Tech Manager), Charles Parisot (GE), Vincent Van Pelt (Nictiz), Ken Meyer (IBM), Ben Levy (Corepoint), Vassil Peitchev (EPIC), Chris Melo (Philips), Oliver Egger (IHE Swiss)

John leads the discussion. Discussion about the using of serviceStart and serviceStop in query. John Charles and Vincent now need time to execute action items. We will try to meet the deadline. Tomorrow we will have a final review.

10:45 am–11:00 am

Morning Break

11:00 am–12:30 pm Charles/Pim

AS4

Massimiliano leads the discussion. MOTM/XOP issue related to small attachment that are not optimized. This is not an issue for AS4. We requires the creation of multiple MIMEs. The wiki will manage the issue as an implementation guide.

Action Items:

  • The develop the Wiki Supplement overview (?)
  • Develop the ITI-56 Patient Locator Transaction used in XCPD (Charles)
  • CP on asynch option (either one) on XCA (Lynn)
  • CP on Option renaming in XDS, MPQ and XCF (Lynn)
  • Move the App V.4.8 Samples for AS4 to FTP site. Create an AS4 Option Folder with three files: one readme, one XML for P&R request and one for P&R response, for X-GW doc retrieve, two for XCPD Pt Discovery (Pim)
  • Turn bullet in letter sections to ease reading (Charles)
  • Fix the shall may in the asynch options text (Lynn)

NOTE FOR EDITORS: before to publish in TI , needs to have content ready for the wiki.

12:30 pm–1:30 pm

Lunch

1:30 pm–3:15 pm Massi/Lynn/Vassil Appendix V - CPs
  • Massimiliano's CP has been finalized.
  • Vassil's CP finalized.


  • Manteinance:
    • CP-ITI-1124-10: ATNA CP, resolution of comments.


3:15 pm–3:30 pm

Afternoon Break

3:30 pm–5:15 pm Ken

RMU

Session is focused on comments resolution. There are some sections that belongs to MU. The decision is to keep them both in MU and RMU and submit a CP on MU in order to allign the text (Replace this section with the new one). Ken will try to integrate changes directly in MU tonight.

5:15 pm–5:30 pm Elliot/Mauro

Wrap-up, homework, agenda updates


Thursday, 19 July, 2018

Day 4: Thursday, 19 July, 2018
Time

Oak Brook, IL

(US Central, UTC−06:00)

Leads Activity Notes
8:30 am–9:00 am

Breakfast

9:00 am–10:45 am John / Ken Metadata Handbook / RMU

Participants: Mauro Zanardini (Arsenàl.IT), Lynn Felhofer (ITI Tech Mgr), Vassil Peytchev (EPIC), John Moherke (By Light), Chris Melo (Philips), Umberto Cappellini (Agfa) , Sylvie Colas (ASIP), Luke Duncan (IntraHealth), Ben Levy (Corepoint), Joe Lamy (AEGIS), Vincent Van Pelt (Nictiz), Oliver Egger (IHE Swiss) , Charles Parisot (GE) , Massimiliano Masi (TIANI)

  • Review of updates. Session suspended in order to complete some updates.
  • RMU: line by line reading started. Ken asks for a final review off-line before early evening. Ken will integrate them and we will discuss tomorrow if the profie is ready to go.
10:45 am–11:00 am

Morning Break

11:00 am–12:30 pm Charles
  • ATNA CP


Review of CP-1124-10 about ATNA TLS. Review of the rationale in order to reflect/clarify the intent. The two options have been revised.

CAT participants create a topic area in which product are expected to support the options and Vassil's ATNA CP. And organize communication around this and not only around the CPs. Lynn will check if we will have tools able to support the testing. Rob highline that , for vendors, the effort will be manly configurations. We can package the CPs testing, and extract data after CAT, but this will not have a flag in the product registry.

Lynn will collect comments from ballot commenters in order to finalize the version before to ballot it again.

12:30 pm–1:30 pm

Lunch

1:30 pm–3:15 pm Charles/Pim

AS4

We went throught the document in order to consolidate comments made by Lynn. Charles will provide a final cleaned version. Lynn presented the CP submitted by Lynn in order to update transactions that has Async.
3:15 pm–3:30 pm

Afternoon Break

3:30 pm–5:15 pm Lynn / Daniel / John
  • Metadata Handbook
  • TF Maintenance
  • Planning Cmte tasks
  • John presents the Metadata Handbook. Introduction re-written in order to describe the problem and not the results. John asks for a final review overnight.
  • Status of manteinance: CP-1122 is finished , CP-1123 needs to have a final review from Vassil.
  • July 26th , we will finish BCP195.
5:15 pm–5:30 pm Elliot/Mauro

Wrap-up, homework, agenda updates

  • RMU FINAL REVIEW NEEDED: John , Elliot
  • METADATA HANDBOOK NEEDS FINAL REVIEW: Umberto , Sylvie
  • AS4 FINAL REVIEW: Pim , Mauro

Lynn handle the CP for WS-Add renaiming

Friday, 20 July, 2018

Day 5: Friday, 20 July, 2018
Time

Oak Brook, IL

(US Central, UTC−06:00)

Leads Activity Notes
8:30 am–9:00 am Breakfast
9:00 am–10:45 am Mauro / Elliot

FINAL DECISION TI PUBLICATION: Voting session

Participants: Ben Levy (Corepoint) , Ken Meyer (IBM), Elliot Silver (CHC), Mauro Zanardini (Arsenàl.IT), Raffaele Giordano (Arsenàl.IT), Lynn Felhofer (ITI Tech Mng), Chris Melo (Philips), John Moherke (ByLight), Pim (Sonnenglanz Consulting), Sylvie Colas (ASIP), Charles Parisot (GE), Gregorio Canal (Arsneàl.IT).

  • RMU: received mainly editorial changes form Elliot S. THe main point of discussion is changes in vol.3 in accordance to the John email (we are changing vol3 content that will affect all the profiles): this need further discussion. CP for MU is another topic of discussion, does not need to be defined today, but we should have a strategic view.

change introduced: the options will reflect a required grouping. We skippped others John comments that does not have technical/editorial impact.

  • Metadata Handbook: received some comments from Sylvie (mainly editorial). Received comments from Ken in order to revise the serviceStart/stop paragraph. Chris Melo sent comments mainly editorial. John will update serviceStart/Stop discussion. We will revise the text later. DONE
  • AS4: received comments from Mauro, received comments from Pim. Lynn has a couple of comments pending. No major problems, there is transaction ITI-56 that has some technical challanges, and it was not in the V5 posted yerstaday night. Lynn suggest to have a reading throught the documents: charles disagreeded on that. Renaming CP: Lynn did the exercise, and thought that probably we do not have to rename WS-Addressing. NOTE: Still need to update wiki for urns. We will revise the choice to introduce the new name for existing Async Option.

Charles will approve all the changes, and then will do the re-labeling. The document will be provided by Monday. Charles will also revise CP-1122 in accordance to that decision.

MOTION moved by Charles: vote conditional issuing on Monday edited version for two day review and email review(Mauro will collect feedback). Call 26th from 9 to 10 in order to finalize in order to see if people wants to block. Pim second it. Abstain Umberto, Abtain Sylvie. No negative votes. MOTION APPROVED

MOTION moed by Mauro:fallow the same approach for RMU . No abstension. No negative votes. MOTION APPROVED

MOTION moved by John  : Approve Metadata Handbook as editet this morning to approve for publication (final version is in the ftp site). Mauro second It. No abstensions. MOTION APPROVED

The call scheduled will be a decision meeting, this will be the last opportunity just to say NO.


CP 1122 discussed during the normal CP call on Thursday.


TF Mantainence: we want to collect feedback in order to see what to do. Planning Cmte will add this Work item to the next monthly call.

  • Lynn requested to schedule a call on september (before the start of the new cycle) in order to evaluate the work done during the last years, evaluate tools we used, and evaluate the process we used to prioritze. Mauro will create a doodle in order to find a date for the call. Mauro collect feedbacks from RAD that did this.
  • GITHUB Handbook ready , could be reviewed. The whole is converted in markdown. Mary will take a look on Markdown. WP could be a good exercise. DONE
  • near tearm ballot theme for CPs. Go to the Planning monthly call. DONE
  • Co-chairs elections/candidates: Elliot's term is complete and Daniel's term is complete. Elliot cannot run again. And nominations end today. DONE


10:45 am–11:00 am

Morning Break

11:00 am–12:30 pm Mauro/Elliot/John/Daniel Joint Technical / Planning cmte
12:30 pm–1:30 pm

Lunch/Adjourn


POST F2F CALL SCHEDULED

Thursday, 26th July, 2018

DECISION MEETING - ITI Technical Committee - AS4 & RMU Confirm Publication:

Participants: Charles Parisot (GE), John Moherke (ByLight), Lynn Felhofer , Elliot Silver (CHC), Luke Duncan (IntraHealth), Oliver Egger (IHE Swiss), Ken Meyer (IBM), Vassill Peitchev (EPIC), Pim, Elliot Levy (harriscomputer).

  • AS4: Charles received comments from Ken and Lynn.
  • John moves the motion to have options that mandates mandatory grouping for the 4 options. Wednesday we will deliver RMU to Mary. Elliott Levy and Pim: abstain , NO objections, motion APPROVED.

April/May 2018 F2F – Volume 2 Meeting, 30 April – 4 May 2018

This 5-day meeting is focused on reaching a version of profiles ready for public comment.

Meeting Location
RSNA Building, Oak Brook, IL
WebEx information
Meeting Number: TBD
Password: Ask co-chairs (mzanardini@consorzioarsenal.it , Elliot.Silver@mckesson.com )
Link: TBD
Support material
Work item documents and support material may be found in the meeting folder

Agenda & Minutes

All times listed are tentative, and may be revised during the meeting—refresh often.

Agenda Overview
Time

Oak Brook, IL

(US Central, UTC−06:00)

Monday, 30 April Tuesday, 1 May Wednesday, 2 May Thursday, 3 May Friday, 4 May
08:30 am–8:45 am Breakfast Breakfast Breakfast Breakfast Breakfast
8:45 am–9:00 am
9:00 am–9:15 am Introductions and Agenda Review Metadata Handbook Metadata Handbook Metadata Handbook Metadata Handbook
9:15 am–9:30 am Metadata Handbook
9:30 am–9:45 am
9:45 am–10:00 am
10:00 am–10:15 am
10:15 am–10:30 am
10:30 am–10:45 am
10:45 am–11:00 am Morning Break Morning Break Morning Break Morning Break Morning Break
11:00 am–11:15 am XCMU XCMU AS4 XCMU Scheduling and Wrap-up
11:15 am–11:30 am
11:30 am–11:45 am
11:45 am–12:00 noon
12:00 noon–12:15 pm
12:15 pm–12:30 pm
12:30 pm–12:45 pm Lunch Lunch Lunch Lunch Lunch
12:45 pm–1:00 pm
1:00 pm–1:15 pm
1:15 pm–1:30 pm
1:30 pm–1:45 pm AS4 AS4 Publication planning, etc. AS4
1:45 pm–2:00 pm
2:00 pm–2:15 pm
2:15 pm–2:30 pm
2:30 pm–2:45 pm
2:45 pm–3:00 pm
3:00 pm–3:15 pm
3:15 pm–3:30 pm Afternoon Break Afternoon Break Afternoon Break Afternoon Break
3:30 pm–3:45 pm FHIR Conformance Joint Meeting

ITI/PCC/QRPH

XCMU AS4/RMU
3:45 pm–4:00 pm
4:00 pm–4:15 pm
4:15 pm–4:30 pm
4:30 pm–4:45 pm
4:45 pm–5:00 pm
5:00 pm–5:15 pm
5:15 pm–5:30 pm Wrap-up, homework, agenda updates Wrap-up, homework, agenda updates Wrap-up, homework, agenda updates Wrap-up, homework, agenda updates

Monday, 30 April, 2018

Day 1: Monday, 30 May, 2018
Time

Oak Brook, IL

(US Central, UTC−06:00)

Leads Activity Notes
8:30 am–9:00 am

Breakfast

9:00 am–9:15 am Elliot/Mauro

Introductions and Agenda Review

Participants: Vincent Van Pelt (Nictiz) Mauro Zanardini (arsenàl.IT) Elliot Silver (Change Healthcare) Ben Leavy (CorePoint) John Moherke (ByLight) Ken Meyer (IBM Watson) Luke Duncan (Intrahealth) Umberto Cappellini (AGFA) Joe Lamy (SSA) Vassil Peytchev (Epic) Sylvie Colas (ASIP) Bill (NIST) Lynn (ITI Tech Manager) Oliver Hegger (ahdis) Daniel Berenzeanu (ReadyCOmputing) Charles Parisot (GE) Massimiliano Masi (TIANI)

Some administrative issues related to the secretariat. Sarah Bell is the reference for ITI activities.

9:15 am–10:45 am Vincent

Metadata Cookbook

Review of the outline of the document. First 18 pages are ready for review. They state context and introduction content . Vincent asked for feedback on the “Statements and Questions” documents, that represents a summary of the princeples that will be addressed in the core of the cookbook. Reviewed the Cathegorization Architecture: list of principles to apply when an organization would set up an Affinity Domain.


REVIEWERs: ELLIOT and JOHN

10:45 am–11:00 am

Morning Break

11:00 am–12:30 pm Ken

XCMU

Overview of the document. If the Persistence option is supported by the Responder we are not requiring it to be grouped with a Registry or a Responding Gateway. It should be implemented in that way, but we will not require it in our spec. It is up to the developer to figure out how to manage the persistence, and this could be communicated to customers and purchaser via Integration statement (in which the product support both responder and Registry…). The forward option requires that the chaining of subsequent Update Request. The forward should be managed as a required grouping between an initiator and a responder. The additional behavior related to the grouping will be described in the cross-profile considerations section. The cmte had a discussion about how use-cases are documented. We should not cover too technical details there, but we should cover the business needs. Use-cases text needs to be simplified. Security Considerations will be completed later in the week.

We should consider how to manage content that is shared with MU "heavy". Right now we do not highline what has been changed from previous version.

REVIEWERs: vol.2 - RMU - JOE and MAURO

12:30 pm–1:30 pm

Lunch

1:30 pm–3:15 pm scheduled: Charles, effectively: Vassil / Ken

AS4

Charles is missing. Time assigned for a CP discussion

CP Vassil: Server Certificate validation. Add a named option in order to cover an RFC requirement that asks clients to validate the DN field in the server certificate and not the CN. Now the text in ITI-19 is controversial 3.19.6.1.3. Public internet Certificate validation Option: if the DN is present it shall be validated. The CP should also consider to have suggestion for content of client certificates , that shall not contain DN field, otherwise the server will fail the validation.

NOTE added 1st May: We spoke improperly about DN. The RFC mandates validation of FQDNs present in the DNS-ID (see RFC https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6125#section-4)

Second CP: referenceIDList and subissionSet: make it optional only on XDR. In XDS it cannot be used.

Review of vol.2 of RMU.

Charles take the lead of the last 45 minutes: Key decisions to take:

  • Review Outcome of the second survey (mail sent to XDS XDR XCA XCPD implementers that tested Async during CAT in the last 3 years): consistent feedback. There is no deployment of the Async option. 14 answers not using it in production. 1 GE is using it in a small deployment and could be changed. In PC we could say: we identified low adoption of Async, and we are proposing to retire the old once accepted the new one. If we receive the comment to keep it, we could revise this in july. FINAL DECISION: we are not going to retire Actual async, we will explore how to define the AS4 option in addition to the actual async modality.
  • Aggreement on redoc CP for Appendix V: proposal do have a redoc CP to reformat the Appendix and having a parallel work in order to add AS4 stuff. Vassil propose himself to work on hl7 v3 bindings updates (reference to the ballot version and not the normative version of the spec): updates related to WS and Hl7 in the same CP in order to make reading/review more easy. Charles will consider CP 517 and CP 1025, maybe they could be canceled.
  • Pim proposal to link SOAP header info to AS4 attachments: ----- not discussed ----


  • XDS transactions support of AS4 option: we cannot keep this between gateway because it uses end-to-end headers.
    • XDS as a profile: no AS4 option;
    • XDS transactions in XCA: the doc consumer should be able to declare AS4 option when interacting with INI-GW. It is assumed that initiating and responding entities for AS4 are the IGW and the RGW.
    • XCDR: actually does not support Async;
    • XDR: does not have Async;
    • MPQ: ---
    • XCF: ---
    • XCA-I: ---

REVIEWERs: none for now.

3:15 pm–3:30 pm

Afternoon Break

3:30 pm–5:15 pm John

FHIR Conformance

result of the work done by John (see how to integrate CapabilityStatement in our word specification): there is no real value added today. We should move to this approach once we will have an on-line publication process and a governance to do that. External perception that IHE is not adding value, this is wrong. There are still a lot of stuff that we could manage and capabilityStatement or sturcturedDefinition are not. Some requirements are not expressible in fhir resources. Main advandage for hl7 is that the specification is html. In our case the governance is still missing. We will explore in next sessions this week how to manage TestScripts.
5:15 pm–5:30 pm Elliot/Mauro

Wrap-up, homework, agenda updates

Tuesday, 1 May, 2018

Day 2: Tuesday, 1 May, 2018
Time

Oak Brook, IL

(US Central, UTC−06:00)

Leads Activity Notes
8:30 am–9:00 am

Breakfast

9:00 am–10:45 am Vincent

Metadata Handbook

Participants:

Mauro Zanardini (arsenàl.IT) Elliot Silver (Change Healthcare) John Moherke (ByLight) Ken Meyer (IBM Watson) Umberto Cappellini (AGFA) Vassil Peytchev (Epic) Sylvie Colas (ASIP) Lynn (ITI Tech Manager) Daniel Berenzeanu (ReadyCOmputing) Chris Melo (Philips) Ben Levy (Corepoint) Matt Blackmon (Sequoia) Charles Parisot (GE) Joe Lamy (SSA) Tarik Idris (ICW) Massimiliano Masi (TIANI)

Vincent is not able to join due to technical issues.

The handbook needs a radical restructuring, because we do not have to focus on the metadata concept or on convincing readers that the WP is useful. The goal should be to have a set of principles. A handbook needs to be far more actionable. We already have a lot of material that describe metadata concepts and Document Sharing in general. The title is too wordy.

Plan is to review the document and propose a restructuring of the content.

new proposed concepts to put in the handbook:

  • Audience
  • How to use this handbook
    • Scaling: the handbook guidelines, should be able to scale from a minimal set of rules (for small deployments) to a large scale project (cross-border)
  • When to use this handbook - adding new partners, sources
  • Pointers to Doc Sharing documentation/background
  • Characteristic of "good" metadata and what can go wrong
  • Approach/procedure
    • Consider Current/proposed deployments
    • Consider Breadth of content/sources/users
    • COnsider capabilities of implementations
    • Consider the how each attribute is used in TF-3 bubble diagram
  • Use-cases: green-fields, existing environments, merging of environments: standalone or federated
  • Handling non-conformance
  • Governance: you need an overgoing body that manges the AD (add codes... etc.)
  • implementing your decisions
  • Item-by-item suggestion
    • Characteristic? In a table? Or criticality by environment, etc.?
    • Per profile considerations???

NOTE:

We should guarantee that the content does not overlap with the two WP already published by IHE ITI related to Affinity Domain and Metadata Usage: DocSharing AffinityDomainTemplate


10:45 am–11:00 am

Morning Break

11:00 am–12:30 pm Ken

XCMU

Review of the comments collected during night.
  • New Requirement added: An initiator cannot create a RUD transaction that conveys multiple Extrinsec objects that belongs to different communities. An error code is defined for this.
  • Versioning: the Responder migh be capable of storing multiple versions for the same logical ID . Add Local History persistence option, but we are not including it in our actual version of the document (if it requires more than one page... ). The intent is to cover minimal viable versioning system , avoiding the versioning of all the related object. Ken will provide a prposal of solution for this issue later today


12:30 pm–1:30 pm

Lunch

1:30 pm–3:15 pm Charles/Pim

AS4

Charles leads the discussion.

Should we add AS4 option for XDS Docu COnsumer in the context of XCA. Proposal to add it, and add a note in the PC document in order to collect feedback from readers. Add in iti-18 and iti-43 iti38 iti-39 the AS4 option. The option for the consumer will be restricted to interaction with GW. The note will say that we took this decision for PC but we can either remove the option for the XDS consumer or extend it to the XDS Registry / XDS Repository. XDR / XCDR also need the AS4 option, so we will add it in iti-41 and iti-80. We will not cover: MPQ and XCF. iti-69 and iti-75 are in charge of RAD so Charles will check with that cmte if they need this option or not.

Pim presentation describe the alternatives technical solutions available.

Alternative 1: Just one mime part with the xml soap message and the base64 encoded inline.

MOTION: Alternative 2: Multiple mime part one for each document and one for the xml soap message.

Rationale:

  • Document is separate from XML message
  • Most close with existing transactions

Vassil move to accept this alternative and spend time in analyze details of this technical solution, Elliot seconded it. No abstensions.

Charles will provide Appendix V today, and all the transactions (90% version ready for review).

3:15 pm–3:30 pm

Afternoon Break

3:30 pm–5:15 pm Elliot/Mauro

Joint ITI/PCC/QRPH session:

  • ITI/PCC/QRPH round-table updates
  • PCC: Discussion about maintainance of IHE defined codes (issue of XDW based workflow definition typeCodes)
  • Derek: LMIC-related update from the IHE Board retreat and subsequent WHO meeting
  • PCC:Adding an IHE Constraint column to FHIR profile tables to show where the cardinality has changed from base FHIR.
  • PCC: For things that are base FHIR operations, such as PUT and GET, do we point to the base fhir url, or should we make it STU specific?
Round table presentation. Updates of cmte works:
  • ITI:
    • FHIR Conformance :produce StructuredDefinition and CapabilityStatement useful for implementation.
    • Document Sharing Metadata handbook: selecting vocabularies or other choice to be made in order to set up an Affinity DOmain
    • AS4 option: add a secuirty layer on actual Async protocol
    • XCMU: cross-community metadata update, and a semplyfied Metadata Update operation.
  • PCC:
    • DCP: Dynamic Care Planning
    • CDA Document Summary Section
    • Emeregncy Care Summary (CDA and FHIR composition)
    • Maintainance: deprecation of 5 profiles. Two deprecation process: the one defined in the wiki , and a detailed one prosed by Tone. NEw status of the document that states that there is the intent to be deprecated.
  • QRPH:
    • Quality Misure
    • ---
    • ADX: HIV tracking
    • Publication of the Tech Framework this year

The problem to collect info about IHE profiles implemented and used should be reported to sponsors. The regional deployment commitee does not provide useful feedbacks. Unless we license the spec , we will not have a complete picture of products/projects that uses our spec. Suggestion is that the intent of deprecation has a timeOut, the timeOut should be discussed in the DCC group. The product Registry is something usefull: https://product-registry.ihe.net/PR/home.seam

typeCodes for XDW:

PCC is assigning typeCode. Guidance of maintaining this codes and where to publish them. We still need to define the governance in order to create and assign a new typeCode. About XDW Raffaele and Mauro will formalize a governance rule in order to create a new WD code. ACTION ITEM: figure out how to create codes and engage PCC for this. And once it is ready we will pass this to the DCC. Mauro will create a wiki page for this. Probably we should highline this link to the wiki.

FHIR issues:

  • consistent way in order to create a table the list the IHE specific cardinality for FHIR resource elements. Take as example the MHD vol.3 tables. In future we will have a totally different way to represent this (e.g. StructuredDefinition). We should minimize the content taken from external standards. Solution: there is no requirement to armonize, PCC will further discuss this.
  • CP to change the url from dstu2 to stu3. We should use the specific link to the specific version.

MIC updates:

WHO and IHE, openHIE adopted a bunch of profile. Facilitate the adoption in middle/low incoming countries. Deployment cmte IHE-WHO. Universal Halth Coverage is the goal: implementing standards in the same way: IHE Profiles.



5:15 pm–5:30 pm Elliot/Mauro

Wrap-up, homework, agenda updates

Wednesday, 2 May, 2018

Day 3: Wednesday, 2 May, 2018
Time

Oak Brook, IL

(US Central, UTC−06:00)

Leads Activity Notes
8:30 am–9:00 am

Breakfast

9:00 am–10:45 am Vincent

Metadata Handbook

  • Potential joint session with PCC/QRPH for feedback
Participants: Mauro Zanardini (arsenàl.IT) Elliot Silver (Change Healthcare) John Moherke (ByLight) Ken Meyer (IBM Watson) Umberto Cappellini (AGFA) Sylvie Colas (ASIP) Lynn (ITI Tech Manager) Ben Levy (Corepoint) Joe Lamy (SSA) , Pim (Sonnenglanz Consulting), Charles Parisot (GE), Vassil Peytchev (Epic) Massimiliano Masi (TIANI)

John has provided during night a new prposal of Outline for the handbook. The new outline is more focused on action to take.

About National examples: the excel material should be put in the FTP site and we can point to it.

PUBLIC COMMENT GOAL: Elliot suggest to postpone the publication. We have probably two weeks of time in order to send it to Mary (if she agreed on this). Issues will be find people the will commit their time in order to review this work-item the next week. We will figure out if we need to change our publication plans tomorrow, when we will see a more refined version of the document based on the new outline. The list of Categorization Architecture concepts (from Vincent document) have been reviewed in order to identify the new belonging section for all these concepts.


10:45 am–11:00 am

Morning Break

11:00 am–12:30 pm Charles/Pim

AS4


Three topics:

1) Draft CP for appendix V review is needed as soon as possible to have fixed references for the rest of the work-item. The assigned number is CP-1122, Massimiliano is the editor. This CP will be just editorial. There will be a second CP , in charge to Vassil, in order to make updates to the HL7 V3 WS requirements.

2) Status of the vol.1 and vol.2: issue related to the optionality of the new Async option and old Async. We need to guarantee that we are not breaking any actual requirement.

3) Finish discussion of the packaging of AS4 for the soap messages

12:30 pm–1:30 pm

Lunch

1:30 pm–3:15 pm Elliot/Mauro

Publication planning, etc.

  • TI to FT review (joint with Planning)
  • Publication schedule
  • CP integration assignments and deadlines
  • Planning for FHIR release 4
  • Brainstorming about addressing ITI knowledge gaps (the "Rob void")
  • Review CP process (number of CPs, turn around, quality)
  • Retirement issues
  • CAT results Report

1) Editors and reviewers have been assigned in order to do CP integration: CP Spreadsheet

2) DEN and DDA and PLT have been proposed for integration in final text. CSD and HPD are candidate, but we need to figure out the big picture: now we have a FHIR version of them. What do we want to do? This should be discussed next year.

  • PLT: no evidence that has been implemented, and IHE-JAPAN is pushin it in order to see it tested in the next CAT
  • DDA: Delayed Document Assembly, should be promoted to Final Text. And it is in the field. It has been tested during CAT, and it is pretty stable. This affect 1 2a and 2b. The cmte propose to defer the formal approval for a Plan decision meeting that will be scheduled on Friday
  • DEN: The only issue is for Encrypt Option for XDM. The cmte would move forward with the entire document. ACTION ITEM: Charles will reach out some German companies that could have implemented the encript option.

3) Deprecation no profile suggested.

4) Publication Schedule: we are publishing TF and TI before the July f2f. Mary will not have to do some work on FHIR conformance. AS4 , RMU , Metadata Handbook due to Mary July 30th.

5) Plan for FHIR release 4 updates: we would probably need to publish them early. ONC is revising MU, and they want to reference Release 4. Do we want to play that game? Release 4 will be published in December/January. Onc is going to delay until this. We could get primary profiles done in a month since Release 4 publication. We could ballot before the Release 4 publication. IHE USA should interface with ONC , describing our plan. Elliot will bring up the topic during the co-chair meeting. IHE-ITI PLAN: MHD QEDm PDQm that meet criteria of MU, should be taken in consideration. We will start the ballot as soon as possible in October, in order to work on a stable versionof the fhir build. We will consolidate minor editorila changes after the publication of Release 4 (planned in Dec/Jan).

6) Turn-over of resources is an issue. CAT 2019, will need to share a clear message that we need to work on cyber secuirty promooting an update of ATNA. IF we would promote 2019 as a security year, we should upgrade tool and tests. We have to do things in the Cmte very fast, and we have to do CAT allignement, and advertisement, tested , and results should be promoted. We can ballot something during the fall in order to have updated spec for the CAT. Serious CP on ATNA list ciphers requirement on TLS that should be made clear, we have to add a name to it, in order to have a clear name "ATNA-Cyber". We still have issue of resources to engage: maybe the new topic can encourage people. Next CAT will need to have more focused and deterministic tests on the security stuff. We still have 2 CPs assigned that cover this. Do we need to do more? It seems not. ITI should have a new version of ATNA , (via CP) and complete this before summer: primary author Vassil John and the CPs will introduce a new option. What is missing is a packaging work in order to put a common hat to all these CPs (attentio to keep consistency between DICOM and our solution). Lynn will dedicate next 3 CP call to this topic. CP should be separate but bundled in some way. May 10th Vassil will discuss the CP about Certificate validation (and may 24th a second discussion). Having this completed and balloted before summer we could start to discuss with tooling people. ACTION ITEM: Charles will start interaction with sponsors and produce a marketing message for US and EU CAT. This will allow ITI to recruit new people. Recuiting effort will be done on Europe by Charles in order to find people that can contribute on the scheduled CP calls, but the final goal is to engage those people permanently.

7) Where do we need to focus our effort on pending CPs? Now we decided to focus it on Sec, so we can postpone this discussion.

8) CAT Results: CAT_results

3:15 pm–3:30 pm

Afternoon Break

3:30 pm–5:15 pm Ken

XCMU

Review of the RMU document. Issue related to the deprecation of document related to the change of confCode. The need of IHE Swiss cannot be satified because it is not based on document sharing principles, do we still need to work on this work-item following a different need? Based on MU model the Swiss will figure out a way to deal the issue. Complication from IHE Swiss are out of the table. How this look like in our work-item that would cover not xds community? XCA allows no XDS remote community. Given what XCA grant about this , is there a way in which we can do an MU without requiring the remote to be compliant with XDS document sharing model. We can manage the MU request as a MEtadata Notification transaction. Maybe add a full XDS capability option. Accept the transaction , accept it and persist it , accept it and manage it as defined in the XDS model.

PROPOSAL for two Options:

  • Store Option : persist the request with the full metadata model (may or may not be an XDS Registry but is equivalent to MU)
  • Ask me something and I ll give you a response back; This behaviour include Forwarding.

Maybe add the Froward Option.

5:15 pm–5:30 pm Elliot/Mauro

Wrap-up, homework, agenda updates

  • People are asked to Read VOl.1 of RMU
  • Top to bottom read of AS4

Thursday, 3 May, 2018

Day 4: Thursday, 3 May, 2018
Time

Oak Brook, IL

(US Central, UTC−06:00)

Leads Activity Notes
8:30 am–9:00 am

Breakfast

9:00 am–10:45 am Vincent Metadata Handbook Participants: Mauro Zanardini (arsenàl.IT) Elliot Silver (Change Healthcare) John Moherke (ByLight) Ken Meyer (IBM Watson) Umberto Cappellini (AGFA) Sylvie Colas (ASIP) Lynn (ITI Tech Manager) Ben Levy (Corepoint) Joe Lamy (SSA) , Pim (Sonnenglanz Consulting), Charles Parisot (GE), Vassil Peytchev (Epic) Massimiliano Masi (TIANI) Luke Duncan (IntraHealth)

Metadata Handbook: classCode is a categorization, typeCode is a label of the document so different codes can overlap. CONCLUSION: not ready for publication next week. New time line, we need to send it to mary by May 28th. Tcons scheduling: 2 meetings per week between now and that date. John will send some homework to Vincent tonight.

AS4: review of the document, that is in final version.

10:45 am–11:00 am

Morning Break

11:00 am–12:30 pm Ken

XCMU

Why the RMU does not fit Swiss need: They need to distinguish deprecated and updated. XDS Backend Option replace the previous two.

With this option we cover a full XDS capabilities or allows the baseline without version management requirements. The middle ground is not addressed, and it is wrapped in the unconstrained baseline. Discussion raised about expected actions for the RMU transaction. A set of subsections have been defined in order to cover: full XDS capability, simple proxy , have a persistence not full XDS compliant.



12:30 pm–1:30 pm

Lunch

1:30 pm–3:15 pm Charles/Pim

AS4

review of the final version of the document.
3:15 pm–3:30 pm

Afternoon Break

3:30 pm–5:15 pm Charles/Ken

AS4/RMU

We are not completing the review of appendix V this week. The amount of time we have this week will be dedicated to transactions. We are going to schedule a call for the next week.

RMU: Review of the transaction content. Ken will make an update tonight in accordance to discussion we had. We will start at 9:00 with RMU with potential questions from Ken. If no time needed we will play around with the two topics left AS4/RMU.

5:15 pm–5:30 pm Elliot/Mauro

Wrap-up, homework, agenda updates

Friday, 4 May, 2018

Day 5: Friday, 4 May, 2018
Time

Oak Brook, IL

(US Central, UTC−06:00)

Leads Activity Notes
8:30 am–9:00 am John / Vincent

Metadata Handbook

  • John has migrated the significant content from the original Metadata handbook to the new format.
  • John is offering to continue to coordinate the handbook through to delivery for Public Comment.
  • Document skeleton is still too much of an outline without meat.
  • Key challenge is defining the "process" that the document will describe.
  • John has identified several people willing to contribute over the next month.
  • Proposal: T-cons Tues & Friday weeks of May 7, May 14, May 21 @ 9-10:30 CT.
  • Invite people directly involved with original EU paper plus others to participate.
9:00 am–10:45 am Charles / Ken

Start with AS4 and RMU follows

  • Charles led continued review of the AS4 document
    • continuing with review of ITI-43, -55, -80
    • Reviewed open issues

Action: Elliot to send email to authors reminding them of wiki, etc. obligations before TI publication.

10:45 am–11:00 am

Morning Break

11:00 am–12:30 pm Mauro/Elliot

Scheduling & Wrap-up

  • Delayed Document Assembly approval for FT
  • T-con scheduling
  • CP integration schedule
  • confirm priority for CP time
  • Residual time dedicated to RMU
  • Joint session with Planning:
    • vote to send Delayed Document Assembly to Final Text -- passed unanimously
  • AS4
    • Wed May 9, 10 am - noon CT - Appendix V review
    • Charles to get draft for PC to Lynn for May 10, Lynn to Mary for May 14
    • PC close target is June 22, therefore Open May 21.
    • AS4 PC comment review June 28, 11-12:30 ct
  • RMU
    • Tuesday May 8 10:30-noon CT Final review
    • RMU PC comment review Tues June 26 10:30-12:30 CT
  • May 10, 17, 24 CP calls extended to two hours.
  • Metadata handbook
    • Tuesday & Friday, weeks of May 7, 14, 21, 9-10:30 am
    • Tuesday July 10, 9-11 AM CT
  • July 10 target for documents with feedback applied ready for reading in prep for TI F2F.
  • Motion to send AS4 to PC pending offline review of issues section, and agreed on edits of App. V on Wednesday May 9. Moved Charles/John. Carried.
  • Review of RMU continued
    • Motion: for Ken to apply renaming and other changes discussed today, then send out the RMU supplement to ITI Tech later today, with the notice that we intend to vote to approve it to go to PC at next weeks' meeting. Moved: John/Ken. Carried unanimously.
12:30 pm–1:30 pm

Lunch/Adjourn

February 2018 F2F – Volume 1 Meeting, 12–16 February 2018

TThis 5-day meeting is focused on a review of Vol. 1 content and overall approach for new work items.

Meeting Location
Note change of location
Oslo Science Park, Gaustadalléen 21, 0349 Oslo
WebEx information
Meeting Number: 929 338 062
Password: Ask co-chairs (mzanardini@consorzioarsenal.it , Elliot.Silver@mckesson.com )
UPDATED LINK: Click here
Support material
Work item documents and support material may be found in the meeting folder

Agenda & Minutes

All times listed are tentative, and may be revised during the meeting—refresh often.

Agenda Overview
Time Monday, 12 February Tuesday, 13 February Wednesday, 14 February Thursday, 15 February Friday, 16 February
Oslo

(Central European, UTC+01:00)

Oak Brook

(US Central, UTC−06:00)

08:30–08:45 1:30 am–1:45 am Breakfast Breakfast Breakfast Breakfast Breakfast
08:45–09:00 1:45 am–2:00 am
09:00–09:15 2:00 am–2:15 am Introductions and Agenda Review Joint session of ITI, PCC, QRPH, and PHARM AS4 XCMU AS4
09:15–09:30 2:15 am–2:30 am Metadata Cookbook
09:30–09:45 2:30 am–2:45 am
09:45–10:00 2:45 am–3:00 am
10:00–10:15 3:00 am–3:15 am
10:15–10:30 3:15 am–3:30 am
10:30–10:45 3:30 am–3:45 am
10:45–11:00 3:45 am–4:00 am Morning Break Morning Break Morning Break Morning Break Morning Break
11:00–11:15 4:00 am–4:15 am FHIR Conformance XCMU FHIR Conformance Metadata Cookbook Scheduling and Wrap-up
11:15–11:30 4:15 am–4:30 am
11:30–11:45 4:30 am–4:45 am
11:45–12:00 4:45 am–5:00 am
12:00–12:15 5:00 am–5:15 am Lunch & Learn
12:15–12:30 5:15 am–5:30 am
12:30–12:45 5:30 am–5:45 am Lunch Lunch Lunch Lunch
12:45–13:00 5:45 am–6:00 am
13:00–13:15 6:00 am–6:15 am
13:15–13:30 6:15 am–6:30 am
13:30–13:45 6:30 am–6:45 am XCMU XCMU Metadata Cookbook AS4
13:45–14:00 6:45 am–7:00 am
14:00–14:15 7:00 am–7:15 am FHIR Conformance
14:15–14:30 7:15 am–7:30 am
14:30–14:45 7:30 am–7:45 am
14:45–15:00 7:45 am–8:00 am
15:00–15:15 8:00 am–8:15 am
15:15–15:30 8:15 am–8:30 am
15:30–15:45 8:30 am–8:45 am Afternoon Break Afternoon Break Afternoon Break Afternoon Break
15:45–16:00 8:45 am–9:00 am AS4 Metadata Cookbook XCMU FHIR Conformance
16:00–16:15 9:00 am–9:15 am
16:15–16:30 9:15 am–9:30 am
16:30–16:45 9:30 am–9:45 am
16:45–17:00* 9:45 am–10:00 am*
17:00–17:15* 10:00 am–10:15 am*
17:15–17:30* 10:15 am–10:30 am* Wrap-up, homework, agenda updates Wrap-up, homework, agenda updates Wrap-up, homework, agenda updates Wrap-up, homework, agenda updates
* Note: 17:30 (5:30 pm) finish time needs to be confirmed with our hosts; we may have to conclude by 17:00 (5:00 pm).

Monday, 12 February, 2018

Day 1: Monday, 12 February, 2018
Time Leads Activity Notes
Oslo

(Central European, UTC+01:00)

Oak Brook

(US Central, UTC−06:00)

08:30–09:00 1:30 am–2:00 am

Breakfast

09:00–09:15 2:00 am–2:15 am Elliot/Mauro

Introductions and Agenda Review

Participants: Elliot Silver, Vincent Van Pelt, John Moerkhe, Umberto Cappellini, Lauren, Martin Schemler, Sylvie Colas, Miriam, Alberto, Luke, Lynn, Joe, Ken, Mauro , Gregorio, Dmytro, Karima, Pim , Vassily
  • Lauren gave opening remarks
09:15–10:45 2:15 am–3:45 am Vincent

Metadata Cookbook

Vincent lead the session. Th esession is focused in understanding the status of the work-item.
10:45–11:00 3:45 am–4:00 am

Morning Break

11:00–12:30 4:00 am–5:30 am John

FHIR Conformance

FHIR:
  • John reviewed current ITI FHIR conformance resources
  • Discussion of current and potential uses of Simplifier, the FHIR registry, Forge, ClinFHIR, Art-decor,
12:30–13:30 5:30 am–6:30 am

Lunch

13:30–15:30 6:30 am–8:30 am Dmytro

XCMU

Dmytro lead the session. The session starts with an high level presentation of the profile. Scope: starts from change confCode. Trimmed down to not structural elements.
  • DOes XCMU aboslutely requires versioning ? probably not.
  • There is no expectation that all the communities are XDS.
15:30–15:45 8:30 am–8:45 am

Afternoon Break

15:45–17:15 8:45 am–10:15 am Charles/Pim

AS4

Charles and Massi lead the discussion. Goal of this session is to have a high level presentation of the AS4 work-item.
17:15–17:30 10:15 am–10:30 am Elliot/Mauro

Wrap-up, homework, agenda updates

Homework: dmitro will update document in accordance to discussion we had. Tomorrow , standards selection and grouping. People off-line should understand all the actor behaviors in order to have a complete standard selection. Bill will present version numbering usage in MU, this might affect scoping in vol.1 and tech solution.

Tuesday, 13 February, 2018

Day 2: Tuesday, 13 February, 2018
Time Leads Activity Notes
Oslo

(Central European, UTC+01:00)

Oak Brook

(US Central, UTC−06:00)

08:30–09:00 1:30 am–2:00 am

Breakfast

09:00–10:45 2:00 am–3:45 am See Pharmacy Agenda

Joint session of ITI, PCC, QRPH, and PHARM

See [Pharmacy minute]
10:45–11:00 3:45 am–4:00 am

Morning Break

11:00–12:00 4:00 am–5:00 am Dmytro

XCMU

Participants: Lynn , Ken , Bill, Joe, Lamy , Marie , Sylvie, Tarik, Daniel, John, Charles , Umberto , Massimiliano , Elliot, Mauro , Martin
12:00–13:30 5:00 am–6:30 am

Lunch & Learn

13:30–14:00 6:30 am–7:00 am Dmytro

XCMU

Dmytro did not join the call. Eliot/Tarik lead the session.

We have classification of metadata There is a transaction between Ini and Responding GW: are there any other technical implications or interactions? There is a need to formalize the interactions in the initiating site. Maybe we can just say that initiating gw has the magic, and we should not define how to trigger this transaction. Something to take in conosideration during Standards selection will be to choose if we want to make multiple updates to multiple communities, do we need to use multiple transaction? Decision: XCMU Administrator can talk to the Registry directly.

It is impoprtant to provide a set of error conditions that help administrator and initiating to understand what is going on.

Elliot will send the content discussed in the session to Dmytro and Tarik, as a menthor, will update him in order to do the needed updates to the document.


14:00–15:30 7:00 am–8:30 am John

FHIR Conformance

Luke lead the session.

Clear direction and bullet point of what are the principles. Luke presented mCSD conformanceResources , Location.structureDefinition


15:30–15:45 8:30 am–8:45 am

Afternoon Break

15:45–17:15 8:45 am–10:15 am Vincent

Metadata Cookbook

Vincent lead the session. Focus on the approach and on the focus of the cookbook.
17:15–17:30 10:15 am–10:30 am Elliot/Mauro

Wrap-up, homework, agenda updates

Wednesday, 14 February, 2018

Day 3: Wednesday, 14 February, 2018
Time Leads Activity Notes
Oslo

(Central European, UTC+01:00)

Oak Brook

(US Central, UTC−06:00)

08:30–09:00 1:30 am–2:00 am

Breakfast

09:00–10:45 2:00 am–3:45 am Charles/Pim

AS4

Participants: Bill , Mauro, Gregorio , Charles , Tarik, Elliot , Ken , Lynn , Luke , Sylivie , Mary , Umberto , Massimiliano , John , Joe , Vincent , Pim , Dmytro ,

AS4: Session extended in order to come out form the meeing with the list of acceptable solutions. We do not need to take decision during this meeting, but we should understand all the possibilities.

10:45–11:00 3:45 am–4:00 am

Morning Break

11:00–12:30 4:00 am–5:30 am John

FHIR Conformance

AS4 continuation.
12:30–13:30 5:30 am–6:30 am

Lunch

13:30–15:30 6:30 am–8:30 am Vincent

Metadata Cookbook

Vincent lead this session. Focus on the approach: idea is to define the principles.
15:30–15:45 8:30 am–8:45 am

Afternoon Break

15:45–17:15 8:45 am–10:15 am Dmytro

XCMU

Dmytro presented updates done in accordance to the previous session.
17:15–17:30 10:15 am–10:30 am Elliot/Mauro

Wrap-up, homework, agenda updates

Thursday, 15 February, 2018

Day 4: Thursday, 15 February, 2018
Time Leads Activity Notes
Oslo

(Central European, UTC+01:00)

Oak Brook

(US Central, UTC−06:00)

08:30–09:00 1:30 am–2:00 am

Breakfast

09:00–10:45 2:00 am–3:45 am Dmytro

XCMU

Participants: Martin, Marie , Sylvie , Elliot, Mauro , John , bill , lynn ., ken , Vincent, Umberto, Tarik , Dmitro , Joe ,

We are not going to touch MU, even that we will have an overlap with XCMU … we need to test that the overlap does not break MU. Discussion about the versioning capabilities in MU , should we support these ? We know that MU will require CP … the result could be a new work item on MU or a list of CPs.

One of the most important points: Message encoding will be kept unchanged…

The Tech cmte agreed on a plan for vol.2 of XCMU:

Copy and erase pattern, modify Expected actions and simplyfing IIT-57. Define a new transaction with a new number. It is important to ttry to not change message encoding and not change soapAction, and this transaction will have cros-community flavors. We need to change the name of the supplmentent “MU light“ . We need to pay arttention to communication to our readers and to not create conflict between ITI-57 and the new transaction. Accepting a future work-item to put resources in future on MU (in order to fix the heavy part of MU). If this work-item light will become crazy, we will kill it. We will try to be silent on trivial issues related to MU heavy.

10:45–11:00 3:45 am–4:00 am

Morning Break

11:00–12:30 4:00 am–5:30 am Vincent

Metadata Cookbook

Metadata cookbook:

Review of principles list.

Next step for Metadata handbook: idea is to go thorugh list of metadata in order to see if we can add principles about each of them , and following this principles put in an appendix 2 3 examples of applications of this principles. Organize biweekly calls, have a table of contents. Identify a well known point in the ftp for the codes (library) , work out on the structure of this folders tree… figure out how to publish this content because it is of interest (one of the primary goal of the original proposal).


12:30–13:30 5:30 am–6:30 am

Lunch

13:30–15:30 6:30 am–8:30 am Charles/Pim

AS4

Editorial approach reviewed by the cmte: go with existing check references from tomorrow morning Tomorrow finish assessment , make a final decision based on the assessment.

15:30–15:45 8:30 am–8:45 am

Afternoon Break

15:45–17:15 8:45 am–10:15 am John

FHIR Conformance

Luke lead the session and presents mCSD conformance resources (use a table to describe the combination of option and related conformance requirements).
17:15–17:30 10:15 am–10:30 am Elliot/Mauro

Wrap-up, homework, agenda updates

Friday, 16 February, 2018

Day 5: Friday, 16 February, 2018
Time Leads Activity Notes
Oslo

(Central European, UTC+01:00)

Oak Brook

(US Central, UTC−06:00)

08:30–09:00 1:30 am–2:00 am

Breakfast

09:00–10:45 2:00 am–3:45 am Charles/Pim

AS4

Participants: Elliot Tarik mauro gregorio Sylvie Marie ohn , Massimiliano Pim Charles Daniel, Martin Lynn, Ken

ACTION ITEM: Charles will update the wiki to add web services tags.

Option: restructure the whole Appendix V but do not change the landing V.5. There is table V.2.4.1 , can be moved : update known references , and add name (known as ….) in the new place.

Work out a new outline for appendix V. Make this appendix V more interesting for implementers … right know till V.5 is not interesting for them… so we need to identify if the 1-4 are of interest ,

ACTION ITEM: the co-chairs will organize a call with implementers in order to see if we need to re-write the text or just do not care of it. Massi will work out a text about this… not using the word AS4 in this call for feedback. And we We will present a new outline.

SECOND TRACK:

Another call for feedback , in which we say that we are addressing async functionalities, ask for people that has implemented it in IHE products. If you want to be engaged in this . (explicitly one hour involvement on the topic on a targeted call). Give us info if you did it , if you want participate do it.

ACTION ITEM: Charles will send the mail to Mauro and Elliot for review. If possible with outline of Appendix V.

ACTION ITEM: Elliot will send an email to RAD in order to check if they really do not intend to support async in XCA-I. In that case they should be specific on the Sync requirements.


10:45–11:00 3:45 am–4:00 am

Morning Break

11:00–12:30 4:00 am–5:30 am Mauro/Elliot

Scheduling, Miscellaneous, and Wrap-up

  • TF Publication schedule
  • Update on Gazelle definition of audit messages
  • Addressing knowledge gaps

Planning Cmte issues to be discussed:

  • Why is it significant that IHE strives to be international in scope and participation?
  • How does holding meetings internationally support the international scope of IHE's profiles?
  • What are one or two highlights of your domain's current work that will be advanced in Oslo?


ACTION ITEM: Mauro will send out an email to editors to see if they agree on integrate CPs as done in 2017, Lynn provdes on Monday the list of profiles that need to be updated.

PROFILE IN FT: DEN advocate john and Manuel. Delayed Document assembly: Daniel advocate

those shall be evaluated during planning decision call. (the advocate shall fill the spreadsheet in order to see if the meet FT criteria)

ACITON ITEM: The PLanning co-chair will organize a planning call in order to discuss the criteria to move in final text for the two supplements identified.

Audit events in gazelle: process in progress, we are not ready to use this approach formally in this cycle. Probably the process of maitaninance will be aligned to the outputs of the FHIR conformance work items. We will use gazelle this cycle. But we will keep also the pdf version. The lack in the tool:

1) We do not have role based profiling. 2) Comment field structured not managed.

We probably will come out with a pre-requisites on tools usable to manage our publications.

During the next F2F we shall discuss Rob gap.

Planning questions: Charles provide useful feedback in order to report to sponsors.


12:30–13:30 5:30 am–6:30 am

Lunch/Adjourn

November 2017 F2F – Technical Profile Kick-Off Meeting, 15–16 November 2017

This 2-day meeting is focused on a review of the detailed profile proposals, and selection of work items for the 2016/2017 year based on committee resources and technical readiness.

Meeting Location
RSNA Building, Oak Brook, IL
WebEx information for this meeting is
Meeting Number: 927 055 967
Password: Ask Jeremiah Myers (jmyers@himss.org)
Link: Click here
Support material
Profile proposals and other support information may be found in the meeting folder

Agenda & Minutes

All times listed are tentative, and may be revised during the meeting—refresh often.

Wednesday, 15 November, 2017

Day 1: Wednesday, 15 November, 2017
Time

Oak Brook (CST, UTC−06:00)

Leads Activity Notes
8:00 am–8:30 am Breakfast
8:30 am–9:00 am Elliot/Mauro Introductions and Agenda Review
  • Introductions
  • Sponsor Communications
  • Agenda Review
  • Patent Disclosure
  • Decision Making and Goals
  • Author commitments
    • wiki updates, T-cons, F2F participation, ...

Participants:

Jeremiah Meyers (HIMMS), Joey Lamy (AEIGS) , John Moherke (By Light), Pim van der Eijk (Sonnenglanz Consulting) Elliot Silver (Change Healthcare), Chris Melo (Philips), Lawrence , Ben , Vassil Peytchev (EPIC), Matt Blackmon (Sequoia Prj), Celina Roth (HIMMS), Dymitro Rud (IHE Swiss), Ken Meyer (IBM Watson), Luke Duncan (IntraHealth), Lynn Felhofer (ITI Tech Manager), Tarik Idris (ICW), Robert Horn (AGFA), Karima Blounquard (IHE Europe) , Anna Orlova (AHIMA), Massimiliano Masi (EU Commission / Tiani).

Sponsor communications: details about the vol.1 meeting will be shared soon by the sponsors. The meeting will be held in Oslo in February (see details about meeting dates above).

Elliot reviewed the agenda.

Co-chairs ask new profile editors, if they are aware of patents that affects standards selected. If anyone knows it, please make Co-chairs aware. This does not mean that this is a problem and we can either: find out a work-around, or manage licensing via IHE international. The patent disclosure is on the WIKI: Patent Disclosure.

Plan for the actual F2F: We will start from the Planning Cmte ranking, and we will evaluate each proposal and will identify the amount of work we can do, and identify the bandwidth of the cmte.

Requirements for Authors: have regular tcons between f2f meetings. In-person participation to f2f is strongly recommended but not required.

9:00 am–10:00 am Dmytro Rud Cross-Community Metadata Update (XCMU)

XCMU – Aimed to define single transaction very similar to iti-57, adding the target Community ID. Interest has been expressed by Germany, Austria and IHE Europe.

The cmte still needs to clarify the scope: Is the focus related to the management of structural or non-structural ? The initial prposal of Dymitro:

  • ConfidentiliatyCode,
  • deprecating documents
  • others, NO ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS to iti-57…

Dymitro is asked to restrict the number of use-cases: to only document metadata and document deprecation, avoiding change of structural metadata in the first scenario (a first analysis pointed out that we should EXCLUDE: patientID, documentUniqueId, repositoryUniqueId, objectType, hash , size ... we complete analysis will be done during the working calls). The Idea of the cmte is to come out with a safe sub-set of metadata and se-cases, that will make easy to do the profiling. NOTE: Attention should be put on SourceId, actual implementations of the Registry have a list of admitted sourceIDs, this is not correct in a cross-community environment. Lynn raise the point that we are making a supplement to a supplement of XDS. We have to keep this separate from MU. The relationship should be strongly taken in consideration. Maybe this work-item should be renamed in order to keep it separate from MU.

On the other hand, it could open up an opportunity to work on MU, in order to change it, refactoring MU… In that case the size of the work-item will increase drastically. We should keep the scope controlled.

Removal of document from Repo is not in scope.

Dymitro : author , and IHE Swiss will contribute with co-editors. Mentor identifyied: Tarik. Reviewers: Juerg Bleuer , Tony Schaller (IHE Swiss), Tarik (ICW).


10:00 am–11:15 am Massimiliano Masi / Charles Parisot AS4 extensions for Document Sharing

Option in development:

  • ATNA option to the IHE Stack;
  • Option to XCA/XCPD for a new stack;
  • Option to have a wrapping of SOAP stack;

If we just take the security layer instead of the SOAP header option, this will be more isolated and will not impact actual implementation. THIS CANNOT BE GRANTED, maybe change in soap header will be still needed. We can limit the AS4 usage between the initiating and responding gateways. This will make things more contained. There is agreement on this requirement. Are Vendors oriented to one specific option among the three? This is not known right now. This will be taken in consideration during the tech evaluation.

DEADLINE for the decision and criteria for the decision should be identified clearly.

Test tools are not an issue. An open source tool is already available online and EU commission will invest in combine IHE test tool and AS4 tools. The impact could be in iti-19 on the WS-I Async part of the spec.

Massimiliano: primary Author. Charles mentor . Reviewers: Vassil , Sylvie , Gregorio/Giacomo (Arsenàl.IT), Forcare (???) , Dave Franken (???), Intersystems (???).


11:15 am–11:30 am Morning Break
11:30 am–12:30 am Rob Horn RESTful ATNA

The core of the proposal is to identify Two transport mechanisms for the same transaction (syslog and RESTful/FHIR). Both the specification needs to be locked to the same abstract definition, so that we can continue the profiling in a transport independent manner. This could impact ITI20.

ANSWER: Rfc3881 is the abstract model to take in consideration.

Re-factore ITI-20 could be in scope: decided tomorrow based on the resources available. Maybe use one transaction with two flavors…

Author: Rob , no mentor needed; Reviewers: Mauro, Brad,

12:30 am–1:30 pm Lunch
1:30 pm–2:30 pm Vincent van Pelt Metadata Guidelines

Goal is to reuse the content drafted by the European Metadata task-force and:

  • Try to involve other continents on the Wrk-item: Africa. Luke will engage them.
  • Scalability is an important thing to take in consideration. How to change the Affinity Domain when the infrastructure is active? How to increase the number of documents shared?
  • define a methology to classify documents. The focus is on document categorization.
  • Define a suggested valueSet for principal metadata

Figure out a methodology to create the AD, and best practice for define ValueSets.

What are we gonna create?

A Process and an example of application of that process. A useful valuSet and a methodology in order to extend/maintain it.

PRIMARY GOAL: Principle for the design for metadata; SECONDARY GOAL: set of typical applications of those principles, the harmonization of the local ValueStes. (Vincent wants this task to be really particle: share of different value sets, mapping and analysis...). This will be done by a subgroup in parallel. We just need to have examples… in order to put the methodology in concrete.

Delivering the both it is considered important for the work-group.

For the secondary goal , we have to identify a process in order to ballot a valueSets armonization. ...

NOT MORE WP, BUT HANDBOOK…

How do we deal with not perfect armonization? How about what is already deployed? Is this in scope. Vince said that can be easily covered. CMTE CONSIDERED THIS OUT OF SCOPE.

Vincent: author ; mentor: Didi, reviewers: many (Sequoia , many European countries, need to extend to HIE vendors)


2:30 pm–3:30 pm Elliot Silver FHIR Tooling

Creation od Conformance resources: Trial a process and figure out how to manage the process. For the next year we will include in the deliverable for selected authors the production of this content, and we will follow a process in order to review and maintain it.

The process is not a deliverable for us. It will come from the IHE-HL7 Fhir group. Work-item is to follow that guidance and make it in concrete in the ITI domain and within the ITI process.

We can reverse the output, and maybe provide guidance to IHE at higher level in order to define how to do a Public comment on conformance statement objects (how to formalize a ballot for an XML object). For this year this is still informative. This is not manageable like the actual implementation material. We should take in mind that someone will take this as normative, but we will tag it as informative.

Automated normative Test scripts are excluded.

Opportunity to provide developers the structure definition for the NA CAT and collect feedback . Lynn will disseminate the existence of this content. Elliot as orchestrator of the WorkItem , he will create a dashboard to track status of activities and editors identified for each specific FHIR based profile. Meriem from ASIP will help Elliot as editor.

3:30 pm–3:45 pm Afternoon Break
3:45 pm–4:15 pm Anna Orlova Patient Administration (PAM) US national extension

November 2nd the National Extension has been presented to IHE USA and they approved to work on it. Anna expects by April the doc will be ready for review. No reason to contact the International cmte until it is completed, and when IHE USA has agreed on the content of the document. Probably we will dedicate time on July to the doc. Primary contact: Anna.

Anna will develop, Mentor: Ben. IHE US will approve, and after that will come to us for Review and integration.

4:15 pm–4:30 pm Elliot/Mauro Review, homework, agenda updates
4:30 pm–5:30 pm TBD Joint session of ITI/PCC/QRPH Technical
  • Committee work update round robin
  • Low and middle income countries (Derek)
    • How this affects Connectathon, the Final Text Process, and the costs associated with countries in which there are no deployment committees.
  • FHIR Plan Definition for Care Planning Profile (Denise)
    • Joint collaboration with ITI/PCC
  • Profiles offering alternative "expressions" (Gila)
    • Guidance on PCC profiles offering alternate transactions: CDA content creator/consumer or FHIR
  • ITI FHIR pilot
  • FHIR Tutorial request (Denise)
    • Plan a FHIR tutorial for committee members
In the Room:

Jeremiah Myers (HIMSS), Joe Lamy, Pim Van Der Berg, Chris Melo, Mauro Zanardini, Raffaele Giordano, Sylvie Colas, Ben Levy, Chaub Perisot, Matt Blackmon, Nichole Drye-Mayo, Lauren Lemioux, Elliot Silver, Alaina Elliot, Laura Bright, Maddie Mailly, John Stam, Derek Ritz, Lori Forquet, Didi Davis, Emma Jones, Gila Pyke, Thomson Kuhn, Caila Brander, Andrea Fourquet, Michael Clifton, Amit Popat, Denise Downing, Lauren Groden,


On the Phone:

Lynn Felhofer, Ken Meyer


MINUTE:


Cmtes work-items in evaluation:

PCC

  • Emergency Transport to Facility (ETF)
  • CDA Document Summary Section
  • FHIR PlanDefinition for Care Planning
  • CP’s and Wikis

QRPH:

  • ADX for HIV misures
  • Emergency Trasport to Facility (ETF)
  • defect reporting: RFD based content profile.

ITI (has not completed the choice yet):

  • XCMU
  • Supporting AS4 on XCA/XCPD/XCDR
  • Adding Restful PUT for ATNA (Profiling AuditEvent)
  • Metadata Hand book
  • FHIR Conf Resources
  • PAM National Extension
  • SNIF: Simplified Network Information Form

PlanningDefinition: merge of two work-items, and Mauro (form ITI) Raffaele will support that work-item.

Derek: IHE profiles are taken in implementation in lower incoming countries. Good uptake , but development countries does not have deployments cmtes. OPenHIE, produces open sources tool based on IHE… with local deployment cmtes we can reduce the costs … not having deployment commete we cannot figure out what is used in those places… Involve this emerging countries in define national extensions will be really useful in order to reduce costs, and in order to expand the bandwidth of IHE International. Another point is that we, as IHE, should figure out how to build profiles on WHO standards… Deployment side of IHE, should take this in considerations. There is no problem in create virtual of countries (e.g. East Africa, ecc...)… they need to share spec and share the using of specification. And we can publish in VOL.4 , but things in vol.4 need to be owned by a deployment cmte. Moving this thematic to the GDC is important.

Gila: raised the point that they are drafting a proposal with two transactions, that allow the sending of content using FHIR and using CDA. Each mechanism has different actors. Why two solutions for the same thing? IHE should eliminate confusion. The decision to do it anyway can be made by PCC, ITI suggest to clearly document the reasons for the choice.

ITI is coming out with a Conformance Resource ballot process. ITI would like to engage other domains in our review process. FHIR – IHE group created a prototype of process for creation and management of conformance resources. That is available and ITI will follow this, with the idea to improve it. John, offered to test the same process inside PCC or QRPH domain for old o new supplements. ITI is looking for people that want to be involved in ITI process.

Denise: ask for FHIR tutorials. Guidance on specific resources (e.g. Provenance). John offers himself to answer any question. http://wiki.ihe.net/index.php/Guidance_on_writing_Profiles_of_FHIR


Thursday, 16 November, 2017

Day 2: Thursday, 16 November, 2017
Time

Oak Brook (CST, UTC−06:00)

Leads Activity Notes
8:00 am–8:30 am Breakfast
8:30 am–8:45 am Elliot/Mauro Introductions and Agenda Review Participants: Ruth (GE Healthcare) , Tarik Idris (ICW) , Massimiliano Masi (EU Commission/Tiani), Luke Duncan (IntraHealth), Lynn Felhofer (ITI Tech Manager), Rob Horn (AGFA), Karima Blounquard (IHE Europe), Ken Meyer (IBM Watson) , Maarten Daniels (???), Pim van der Eijk (Sonnenglanz Consulting BV), John Moherke (By Light), Joe Lamy (AEGIS), Charles Parisot (EU Commision), Elliot Silver (Change Healthcare), Mauro Zanardini (Arsenàl.IT) , Sylvie Colas (ASIP Sanitè), Ben Levy (Corpoint Healthcare) , Vassil Peytchev (EPIC), Matt Bowman (Sequoia Prj).
8:45 am–9:15 am Lynn Felhofer Technical Framework Maintenance proposal

Alternatives for F2F TF Maintenance time:

  • None - tcons are enough
  • 2-4 hours on
    • targeted or thorny CPs
    • blitz - divide by bundle
    • structural TF changes & out-of-box thinking
  • Something else?

For the 2017-18 publication cycle, TF Maintenance/CPs will only be done in tcons; no F2F time.

9:15 am–10:15 am Ruth Berge Survey of Network Interfaces Form (SNIF)

The extensibility of the solution should be taken in consideration. The scope of the proposal should be only to define the content of a file, and we will use other already defined mechanisms to share this file (e.g. NPSFm).

The focus is not only on Hospital use-cases, but would also cover broader use-cases, such as HIE config.

Author: Ruth , mentor: John. Reviewer: Sequoia, Ben, Intermountain , Mayo.

10:15 am–11:00 am Elliot/Mauro Complete evaluation matrix
  • Determine technical feasibility of completion
  • Determine committee capacity
  • Primary author and Mentor assignments

Decide on items work to be recommended to ITI Planning Committee

The cmte reviewed the Tech evaluation matrix.

  • RESTful PUT , is only the PUT : we exclude the refactoring of ITI20.
  • XCMU should require attention to the scope.

John moved motion to accept all except ATNA Put(and manitnanece excluded form F2f time) , Ben seconded it. Abstentions: Chris Objections: Tarik , Rob , Ken

John Supsended the motion and ask people against the previous motion to submit another bundle.

Amendment : Rob suggested to postpone SNIF (in addition to ATNA), Ken and Tarik approve

John accepted amendment,

Tarik , Ken , Rob : turned their vote in Approve.

Abstain : Charles , Mauro , Pim No objections.

11:00 am–11:15 am Morning Break
11:15 am–12:00 noon Elliot/Mauro Continue profile evaluation/selection
12:00 noon–12:30 pm John/Daniel Joint session with ITI Planning Committee
  • Finalize work item selection
ITI TEch presents the final decision made. ITI Plan approve.
12:30 pm–1:30 pm Lunch
1:30 pm–2:00 pm Mauro/Elliot Schedule T-cons through to February F2F

Remind authors of expectations

tcons scheduled
2:00 pm–3:30 pm Lynn Felhofer Technical Framework Maintenance working session

Assigned CPs ftp://ftp.ihe.net/IT_Infrastructure/TF_Maintenance/CPs/1_Assigned/

  • Determine how to move forward, or whether to cancel. See notes on outcomes --->

Swan song of TF Mtce during F2F mtgs this cycle: These CPs were discussed. Next step identified:

  • 863-00 - Conflicting MIME type on duplicate documents - evaluated options listed in Rationale - The group concluded that the use case was largely theoretical and there is not compelling reason to update the technical framework. Cancel.
  • 862-00 - Metadata update MIME type propagation - 3 alternatives discussed; decided to remain silent in the TF & Cancel this CP.
  • 845-00 - FormatCode format, validation, and value-set clarification - scope reviewed and adjusted; notes added; remains assigned to John M
  • 718-00 - Namespace ID required even if ISO OID set - content reviewed; inconsistency still exists in TF & changes are needed; notes added to CP. Currently assigned to Vassil; needs new owner.
  • 817-00 -Add referenceIdList slot to Submission Set metadata - Lynn will contact Vassil to determine whether this is still needed.
  • 314-00 - XDS Folder Entry identifiers - the update requested by this CP has subsequently been implemented via referenceIdList. Cancel
  • 560-06 - XFRM Submission (XDS-SD) - Ken & Bill recommend to cancel per CP 985 in ballot 44
  • 736-01 - clarification of BPPC typeCode - Vol 3 Sec 5.1.2.1.1 references the based PCC TF mapping rqmts which covers typeCode; and no changes is needed to Sec 5.1.3.1.1.1 for Class Code, so this CP can be cancelled.
  • 307 - PDQ Continuation Protocol in One Socket or Multiple Sockets - Lynn will contact Vassil & Steve Moore to see if this CP is still needed.
  • 211 - PIX/PAM Integration - Too old to keep. It’s too difficult to resolve changes discussed with subsequent updates to the Technical Frameworks. If it’s really a problem, another CP will be surface. Cancelled.
  • 977 - XTN datatype clarification for phone number - discussed unresolved comments from 'Ballot 44 and the CP was updated. One comment remains; Rob will work to resolve it.
3:30 pm–3:45 pm Mauro/Elliot
Wrap-up, Adjorn
Afternoon "Break"