ITI Tech 2007 Meetings

From IHE Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Minutes July 23-27


RSNA Headquarters
820 Jorie Boulevard Oak Brook, IL 60523

To join the WebEx session during the meeting
Go to
Password: meeting
Click on ITI Technical Meeting for today's date
Or follow the instructions to join by teleconference only

To check for compatibility of rich media players for Universal Communications Format (UCF), click the following link:

Nearest Hotel
Marriott Residence Inn
790 Jorie Boulevard Oak Brook, IL 60523
Ph 630-571-1200
Special Rate: RSNA $139 "subject to availability"


The following is a tentative agenda and will be revised during the meeting. All times are rough estimates and will be changed with little notice.

July 23, Monday: 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.
08:30 (.5) Continental Breakfast
09:00 (.5) Introductions/Agenda Review – Karen/Bill
09:30 (2.5) XCA (review comments) – Karen
12:00 ( 1) Lunch
01:00 (1.5) XUA (review comments) – John
02:30 ( 2) Appendix V: WS for IHE Transactions (review comments) – Vassil
04:30 ( 1) PIX/PDQ V3 (first read through, review comments if any) - Vassil
05:30 (.5) Plan Monday night homework/meetings
July 24, Tuesday: 8:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.
08:00 (.5) Continental Breakfast
08:30 (2.5) Joint with PCC 
08:30      (.5) Editorial Responsibilities
09:00      (1) BPPC - Keith
                Agreed to move BPPC to ITI, will be published as an ITI profile
10:00      ( 1) QED & PIX/PDQ V3 overlap - Keith
11:00      ( 1) White Paper synthesis - Case management, Data Reuse White papers - Charles, Sarah, Sondra
12:00 ( 1) Lunch
01:00 ( 1) RFD  (Review comments) – George 
02:00 (1.5) XDS Patient Identity Merge (Review comments) - Bill
03:30 ( 2) XDS.b (Review comments) – Roberto 
05:30 (.5) Plan Tuesday night homework/meetings
July 25, Wednesday: 8:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.
08:00 (.5) Continental Breakfast
08:30 (1.5) CP processing - Karen
10:00 ( 2) XDS.b - Roberto
12:00 ( 1) Lunch
01:00 ( 1) XUA (read TI draft) John
02:00 ( 1) Appendix V: WS for IHE Transactions (read TI draft) – Vassil
03:00 ( 2.5) XCA (read TI draft) – Karen
05:30 (.5) Plan Wednesday night homework/meetings
July 26 Thursday: 8:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.
08:00 (.5) Continental Breakfast
08:30 (.5) RFD (read TI draft) - George
09:00 ( 1) BPPC (read TI draft) - John
10:00 ( 2) XDS.b (read TI draft) – Roberto 
12:00 ( 1) Lunch
01:00 ( 1) XDS Patient Identity Merge (read TI draft) - Bill
02:00 (1.5) XDS Affinity Domain Checklist Whitepeper (review comments) - Dave
03:30 ( 1) PIX/PDQ V3 (review comments, read TI draft) - Vassil
04:30 ( 1) Prior year supplements move to final text plus continue CP processing - Charles
05:30 (.5) Plan Thursday night homework/meetings
July 27 Friday: 8:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.
08:00 (.5) Continental Breakfast
08:30 ( 2)
              Appendix V TI read
              Template for XDS Affinity Domain 
              XDR/XDM update - charles
10:30 ( 1) Planning future conference calls and face-to-face meetingagenda for 2007-2007 - Karen/Bill
11:30 (.5) Plan for domain overlap review - Karen
12:00 ( 1) Lunch
01:00 (  ) ITI Technical committee adjourne

Attendees List

Web Services for IHE Transactions (Appendix V)

Review consolidated comments at IHE_Public_Comment_Appendix_V-ITI-TF-June-2007.doc

Cross-Enterprise User Assertion(XUA)

Review consolidated comments at XUA Combined Comments

Approved for Trial Implementation profile at XUA TI Approved

Cross Community Access (XCA)

Review consolidated comments at IHEPublicComment-ITI-TF-XCA.combined.070719.doc

Partially updated profile at IHE_ITI_TF_Supplement_XCA_TI_2007-07-19.doc



Review consolidated comments at IHE_Public_Comment_PIX_PDQ_V3-ITI-TF-June-2007.doc

Joint PCC&ITI Discussion

  • BPPC
  • HL7 V3 Web Services use by PIX/PDQ V3 & QED (ITI Appendix V)
  • HL7 V3 message appendix included in QED and overlap with PIX/PDQ V3 supplement
  • Reuse White paper

BPPC -- Now owned by ITI

Current BPPC Supplement Draft

combined BPPC comment

Retrieve Form for Data Capture (RFD)

Review consolidated comments at rfd-comments-combined.doc

Partially updated profile at IHE_ITI_TF_Supplement_RFD_TI_072307.doc

Merge Supplement



CP Processing

  • Results of Ballot 1 Combined ballot results
    • CPs that passed ballot
    • CPs with comments/negative votes on ballot
      • CP 28 Agreed that SOAPParseError should be a Soap fault. This will error will be removed from the CP and another CP created to describe use of soap falt. Other typos will be applied and an updated CP ready for integration.
      • CP 30 Agree to cancel this CP.
      • CP 117 Needs wording improvement, apply to all transformations and make it optional not required. Updated CP with these modifications ready for integration.
      • CP 156 Wording has been agreed, updated CP will be integrated.
      • CP 187 Discussed include discussion of no multiple slots with same name. Small editorial change then ready for integration.
      • CP 208 Small editorial change will be made then CP will be ready for integration.
      • CP 227 Agree to cancel this CP.
      • CP 228 Concern brought up after ballot that it is not complete. Will be moved back to assigned, Bill & Sarah to communicate updated thinking regarding this CP and continue revisions.
      • CP 237 Needs more work, moved back to assigned.
      • CP 250 New version 03 availabe and will be integrated.
  • Integration of approved CPs to ITI TF v4.0 - documents ready for review by August 3. Review complete August 9, August 10 ready for release. Agreed to move PAM to final text. All other supplements remain Trial Implementation.
    • Volume 1 - George
    • Volume 2 - Manuel
    • Scanned Doc - Sarah
    • Stored Query - Bill
    • XDR & XDM - Charles (delayed til Sept. after next ballot cycle complete)
  • Other CPs of interest
    • CP-ITI-241-09.doc - Document source replace support from required to optional. reviewed and some changes made. Ready for Ballot.
    • CP-ITI-234-05.doc - ATNA Maintaining a List of Certificates for Trusted Nodes/Applications. Reviewed on general direction of the CP. Authors will revise with detailed wording and then ready for Ballot.
  • Incoming CPs Incoming
    • CP-ITI-MM-DocumentErased.doc reviewed and determined too big for a CP. Request to submit as profile proposal. Rejected
    • CP-ITI-MM-DestoryingData.doc reviewed and determined that could probably be accomplished by use of the existing standard. Requested submission of profile proposal if standard not sufficient. Rejected.

XDS Affinity Domain Checklist Whitepaper

Planning for domain overlap review

  • formatCode inconsistent with Lab domain use
  • XDS-SD alligned with PCC TF update

Prior year supplements move to final text

  • XDR
  • XDM
  • XDS-SD
  • PAM
  • BPPC
  • Stored Query

Future conference calls

Minutes May 14-18

Attendees List

Attendance: May 14 – 18, 2007
Attendees May 14 May 15 May 16 May 17 May 18
Bill Majurski – NIST X X X X  
Chad La Joie – Georgetown X X X X X
Charles Parisot – GE Healthcare X X X X X
Dave Heaney – McKesson   P      
Dave Iberson-Hurst – Assero   X X X X
Don Jorgenson – Inpriva Inc. X X X X  
Glen Marshall – Siemens Medical X X X X X
George Cole – Allscripts X X X X X
John Moehrke – GE Medical X X X X X
Karen Witting – IBM X X X X X
Laurie Williams – IBM P     P  
Lori Fourquet – E-Healthsign P X X X X
Lynn Felhofer – MIR X X X X X
Manuel Metz – GIP-DMP X X X X X
Frédéric Law-Dune – DGME X X X X X
Pascal Artigue – GIP-CPS X X X X X
Maryann Hondo – IBM X X P P  
Massimiliano Masi – Spirit X X X X X
Mike Nusbaum – M. H. Nusbaum & Associates Ltd.   X      
Rob Horn – AGFA X X X X X
Roberto Ruggeri – Microsoft X X X X X
Steve Speicher – IBM   X X X P
Tony Mallia – VA Consultant P        
Umberto Cappellini – Spirit X X X X X
Vassil Peytchev – Epic Systems X X X X X
LaVerne Palmer – HIMSS Staff X X X X X
Holly Gaebel – HIMSS Staff X X      

DMP Use Case

DMP Use Case 1.0.pdf

Updated version based on conversations during the meeting:

DMP Use Case 1.1.pdf

Web Services for XDS

Discuss the documents posted at [1]

May 14

  • Reviewed open issues in IHE_ITI_TF_Supplement_XDSWS_2007-05-14.doc and resolved all.
  • Reviewed XDSWS Option.ppt and agreed to define one chapter in Vol.1 called XDS which describes two profiles - XDS.a (existing set of transactions) XDS.b (new transactions).

May 16

Review updated draft at: IHE_ITI_TF_Supplement_XDSWS_2007-05-15.doc

A zip file with the schema and WSDL files at


A vote was taken to approve profile for issue to Public Comment pending email review.

Yeahs - Unanimous

Cross-Enterprise User Assertion(XUA)

Issues list at Issues List

Please become familiar with WS-Policy. Two documents are recommended:

Notes taken at May 18 face-to-face


A vote was taken to approve profile for issue to Public Comment pending email review.

Yeahs - Unanimous

Cross Community Access (XCA)

Review supplement at XCASupplement.2007.05.10.doc

Background information can be found in April 18-30 online discussion.

Updated version based on 5/14 discussion at XCASupplement.2007.05.15.doc

Updated version without change tracking XCASupplement.2007.05.16.norc.doc

Updated version with change tracking from last version onlyXCASupplement.2007.05.17.doc


After reviewing the above the committee agreed to release it for public comment: pending the addition of requested updates and an email review next week.


Draft of revised supplement is at the IHE ftp site - IHE_ITI_TF_Suppl_PIX-PDQ_HL7v3_TI_2007-05-14.doc

Topics to be discussed:

Volume 1
  • New organization as new (separate) profiles

Follow the XDS example - two profiles in chapter 5, two profiles in chapter 8

  • Naming of the new profiles


Volume 2

General topics:

  • Purpose and presentation of the restricted model

Informational regarding the IHE requirements; explain how the requirements may differ from the full message.

  • Do we need restricted schema based on the restricted model

full schema reference; possibly add appinfo to represent IHE requirements; clarify receiver requirement, and allow full message to be sent Other IDs - the root of the must match Scoping and Scoping shall only have a root.

  • Reference to schema and wsdl files

Patient Identity Feed transaction review

  • New organization of the message semantics
  • Adding explicit section on specific wrappers
  • Wrapper versions

Put an open issue regarding wrappers R2, solicit comments from HL7 INM and MnM.

Appendix R
  • Data type mapping changes

Tcon May 23,2007

Reviewed IHE_ITI_TF_Suppl_PIX-PDQ_HL7v3_TI_2007-05-21_notrack.doc. This version of the document contains only a subset of the changes that are needed. Several more weeks of editing are needed before a technically complete document is ready for review. This will miss the deadline for public comment distribution currently defined. Review with the sponsor (HIMSS) is needed - not available on the call. This review will be pursued and a proprosal for next steps formulated later.

Retrieve Form for Data-capture (RFD)

Discuss the documents posted at [2]

Latest supplement material is IHE_ITI-TF_Suppl_RFD_TI_2007-05-10.doc

  • XForms 1.1
  • Security
  • updates to Retrieve Form transaction
  • new WSDL
  • new Retrieve Clarifications transaction

Information on previous tcons can be found at RFD Discussions


A vote was taken to approve profile for issue to Public Comment pending email review.

Yeahs - Unanimous

Merge Supplement

Draft of the Supplement covering the handling of A40 Merge Patient ID messages in XDS on the FTP site at


For background on decisions made in this Supplement see the first two entries in the Closed Issues section near the top.

General agreement on the direction. Requires text to be converted to detailed prose and issues list to be cleaned up to be more readible. Only concern is what should happen when submission on an "old" patient id (one deprecated through the merge message). options: a) registry rejects as invalid patient id b) registry accepts submission as a submission to "new" patient id (automatic merge). Reason for b) is to account for a race condition. Response to a query with "old" patient id should be consistent with the decision on submission, i.e. if a) return nothing b) return "new" information

Tcon May 23, 2007

Reviewed xds_patient_link_supp_02.doc and editorial comments collected.


Unanimously approved for public comment pending edits described during the call.

CP Processing


Planning for June Conference Speakers

FINAL VERSION POSTED, with ITI-sponsored sessions highlighted in yellow, at ihe_workshop_program_v4e.xls

Appendix L updates and XDS National Extensions Guidelines

Revised version of Appendix L revisions based on April 23, 2007 tcon.

Latest version for the Appendix L discussions has been posted, see IHE_ITI_XDS_Affinity_Domain_Extensions_v6.0.doc

Plan to release this as a WhitePaper for public comment in June.

IHE Security and Privacy for HIE Whitepaper

Minutes and current draft at

ITI Planning Whitepapers

IHE ITI Aggregate Data-V4.1c.doc

Future conference calls

See ITI_Technical_Committee for future tcons.

Supplement for Appendix V: Web Services Transport for IHE Transactions

  1. Appendix V was upgraded to be a supplement so that it is not ignored or overlooked like last year.
  2. Decided to make everything use SOAP 1.2 (for public comment). ITI profiles are compatible with this. This needs to be coordinated with the other domains.
  3. Examples of WSDL: Went through the text to ensure that the normative requirements are in the body of the profile, e.g. "field X shall be Y". Profile may have snippets from WSDL in the text. Full WSDL informative examples will be on the IHE site. Vasil will propose a structure and populate it with a couple examples. Discussion will be needed among co-chairs about this.
  4. Approved the document for public comment (questionable whether we still had quorum) subject to approval of edits. We added some time to the PIX/PDQ call. Vasil will issue the supplement by morning on Monday so that people have two days to read. Any issues are to be raised on the tcon.

Tcon May 23, 2007

Reviewed IHE_ITI_TF_Supplement_Appendix.V_2007-05-21_notrack.doc and received editorial updates.


Unanimously agreed to publish for public comment pending editorial changes agreed to on the call

Minutes May 8

See the RFD page

Minutes May 2

Attendees - Rob Horn, Bill Majurski, Laurie Williams

Agenda - Configuration Management White Paper

Minutes May 1

See the RFD page

Minutes April 30

See the XCA page

Minutes April 25

Attendees -

Agenda - CP 203 (component/sub-components search in PDQ), 228 (FindDocument SQ eventCode problem), new CP on submitting XDS Associations

Minutes April 24

See the RFD page

Minutes April 4

See the Configuration Management Whitepaper page

Minutes April 3

See the RFD page

Minutes March 30

Attendees Jeff, John, Glen, Roberto, Karen, Lynn, Maryann

See XUA March 30 Agenda and XUA profile.

Discussion topics

  • Use and define the term "principal".
  • Use case for making privacy (access) decisions. Agree that assertion could be used for access decisions but the profile will not suggest how.
  • Trust model, what part of the assertion is trustable
  • Be specific regarding which part of standard we are referencing
  • Word-smithing and revisions of use case section: See XUA Use Cases for updated use cases.

Minutes March 29

See the PIX/PDQ V3 page

Minutes March 28

See the XCA page

Minutes March 23

Attendees Karen, Bill, LaVerne, Lynn, Steve, Mike

  • CP-ITI-MOORE-PDQ-Connectathon-2007.doc - clarified use of MSH 5&6 and QPD 8. Steve agreed to draw some pictures and add some text to help clarify the point of confusion. Assigned to Steve and # 231.
  • CP 225 - suggestion to add a note to each stored queries that uses document uniqueid. This note could refer to the expanded description referenced in the CP
  • CP 206 - link vs. merge. Should registry support both merge and link. Current proposal says registry only supports link. Question of what then should it do with a merge message? Conclusion of the attendees is to convert this work into a supplement (spurs greater community comment and allows for a trial implementation period). The supplement would describe solutions for both merge and link. Community comment and trial implementation phase would help refine if both are required.

Minutes March 13-15


Attendees List

Web Services for XDS



  • How to specify the repository id. Repository id is an OID that is globally unique. The issue is how to go from this OID value to connection information. All agree that the submission from the Repository include two elements: Repository unique id and Document unique id. The consumer needs both of these elements to retrieve the document. Concern is that the consumer overhead of converting the repository id to the service endpoint is high.
  • obtaining patient id for logging from repository for retrieve. Possible solution is for the client to log the wsa:MessageID for the retrievedocument SOAP transaction
  • Should the elements expires/contentType/contentLanguage/lastModified be removed from the document retrieve response. could affect the operation of mapping processes (bridges between old&new) - clarify with Emmanuel. Group agreed to remove these elements.
  • consolidate response code across web services (start with reg/rep)
  • Structure of the supplement - a lengthy discussion regarding how the transactions would be integrated into the existing XDS profile, or part of a new profile. The product of the discussion is a document which describes a list of choices, one of which will be chosen during the call on April 2.
  • The existing stored query requires a very small change to the namespace used. Since the Stored Query is still in Trial Implementation making a small change like this is reasonable and will make the Query transaction consistent with the new transactions.
  • Need an IHE namespace policy - Bill agreed to formulate a proposal, distribute it to the ITI and PCC groups and when agreed propose it to the co-chair committee for approval. This supplement will be changed to reflect the outcome of this task. Make URN and not a URL. is first proposal.

PIX/PDQ HL7 V3 Updates and Web Services Transport

  • Content missing from original, will be included this season
  • 3 vendors last connectathon
  • HL7 version issue, at connectathon the current hl7 version was used. now get document updated
  • Newer version of web services binding in hl7 is available - we need to move to it. won't go normative until w3c and oasis documents stabilize. Concern regarding permanence of spec to support device manufacturers? vassil & roberto believe current effort in hl7 will we stable at end of year except for details like url/urns referenced. Since Trial Implementation version this year we can make small adjustmenet next year to accomadate any changes.
  • RMIM - person vs patient - agreed to use patient wherever possible
  • Updated doc on PIX/PDQ V3 available in early April.
  • The plan is to re-release a public comment version of the supplement in June (at the same time all public comment is released from ITI). And re-release a very different Trial Implementation in August. Expect to go to final text in 2008.

Cross-Enterprise User Assertion(XUA)

See: 3/13/07 XUA Minutes and 3/14/07 XUA Minutes.

Cross Community Access

  • Discussion of large volumes of data and significant delay: Agreed that some sort of batching/async was needed. Bill suggested using ebRS "Iterative Query Support". This allows batching of query results. Bill says there is a concern with different types of objects being batched in the return and how they might be mixed. More investigation needed
  • Patient ID: Latest doc illustrates the choices. Everyone liked at least one of the options. No resolution.
  • Concern with term "Bridge" being confusing: Bridge is a confusing term because it doesn't clearly state that it is inside the organizations (versus between organizations). A new term is desired but was not found in the meeting. How about gateway?
  • Bridge chaining: Do we support a bridge propogating requests to another bridge? Proposal by Karen: only if that bridge is "inside" (i.e. invisible to external organizations). The complete implications of this need to be investigated.
  • Interactions with XDS Actors: Reviewed flow charts of interactions with XDS registry and XDS repository. Suggested several models for interactions with XDS consumers. Requirement for consumer to be able to request chunks of data, or receive data asynchronously.

XDS Metadata Nation Extensions

Reviewed the French extension to XDS (in French with Charles translating relevent bits). Charles will distribute to a limited group. Small group will work on a checklist for creating a national extension to XDS. Group led by Dave including Sarah, Lori and Charles.

CP Discussion

CP 164: Reviewed xds_164_07.doc. Resolved discussion topics identified in the document. New version to include resolutions and be reviewed in future CP call.

CP 204: Reviewed pix_204_01.doc. A new CP will be created for a related item that came up in the discussion

CP 206: Reviewed xds_206_01.doc.

  • Direction is that registry supports link but not merge. This CP will describe how the registry will support link.
  • Link will not update metadata but registry will be required to return entries related to all linked patients. Consumer may see patient ids in metadata that is not the same as that queried.
  • Suggestion that SQL Query would not support link and if consumer chooses SQL Query they would need to know the linked patient ids and individually query each.

Configuration Management White Paper

Collected problems to be solved relating to web services.

Joint PCC discussion

RFD Data Clarification

Suggestion to rename to notification. Discussion conclusion was that more detail regarding the use case is needed. Further dicussions will address.

Aggregate White Paper and Quality Domain

Charles presented current document

Web Services support of HL7 V3 messages

Discussed schema questions

WS and SOA Work Group

Overview of the ongoing work to create a group which focuses on Web Services and SOA for healthcare. Organizational work ongoing to have this group be a subcommittee of the ITI domain.

HITSP constraints on ITI profiles

  • Reviewed XDS constraints and determined they were appropriate as part of a national extension, no updates to XDS
  • Began review of PIX/PDQ constraints, continued to call following day. One contraint potentially being submitted as a CP

Future conference calls

Planned furture calls, a list of those scheduled can be accessed here

Minutes February 15


Karen, Don, Rob, Adrien, Goerge, Lori, Lynn, Dave, Ellie Avraham, Steve Moore, Roberto, Bill, Eric, Brad, John Moehrke, Steve Speicher

XDS Web Services


  • Question if security requires SOAP 1.2? Should both SOAP 1.1 AND SOAP 1.2 be supported or do we require SOAP 1.2 only? Roberto/John to investigate and resolve.
  • Be more explicit of list of changes, calling out metadata format changes.
  • Discussion of application of security to this profile. Suggestion by John to combine XUA and this work into one supplement - keeping it separate in terms of editing.
  • Accessing the repository given only an id, how to find the repository url. Possible ways to dereference the id, UDDI, configuration - need to consider available solutions and identify an appropriate one for this situation
  • Question regarding LastModified, could be confusing because explanation suggests document could be modified which XDS does not allow.
  • Question of ihe namespace administration - need ihe level procedure. co-chairs need to define procedure.

Cross Community Access

Reviewed XCATechnicalApproach.070214.doc

  • Need an ISSUES section: What issues exist around bridge to bridge (likely need to import all text into supplement template)
  • Do we need to have an immediate mode transaction, or can an asynchronous and somewhat delayed response be acceptable.
    • Dave is thinking that we may need to have a quality of service built into the request to indicate if this is an emergency/interactive user or is a background task.
    • We want to keep close to current transactions, thus we may need to use synchronous.
    • Still not clear how and to what extent we should need/have/offer asynchronous transactions.
  • Discussion around non-patient-specific queries....
  • Retrieve - pulls in one transaction all documents requested.
    • Bridge does need to handle one request for documents living in many repositories and affinity domains
    • This is may be an async call
  • Security
    • This should include the XUA discussion. Not clear that XUA will function federation-to-federation, through multiple bridges.
  • Connection with other IHE profiles (XDS, etc)
    • Update picture to be UML based diagram for end to end interation
    • Discussed approaches to integration with XDS
  • Document will be converted to supplement form and discussed at the face-to-face.

Minutes February 6


Karen Witting, Larry Wolf, Vassil, Laurie Williams, Goerge Cole, Yongjian Bao, John Carney, Yonaton Maman, Charles Parisot, Kevin Kelly, Don Jorgenson, Lynn, Glen Marshall, Lori, Mark Sinke

Cross Community Access Profile

Reviewed XCATechnicalApproach

Karen will update the document based on the review. Second discussion at next tcon.

Discuss Change Proposals Reviewed CPs can be found at: Assigned

  • CP203 Will be discussed at March f2f
  • CP212 Charles will write a draft for review
  • CP30_06 Charles updated this, we reviewed and it is ready for ballot
  • CP227_01 Glen updated this, we reviewed and it is ready for ballot
  • CP130_03 We reviewed and is ready for ballot
  • CP145_01 We reviewed and is ready for ballot
  • CP164 Mark will update and we will review at March f2f
  • CP114 Reject
  • CP213 First review planned for early April

Incoming Change Proposals

  • XDSAuditIssues duplicate of 164
  • xds_auto_registration.doc - reject. This CP requested that the registry could support automatic registration of a patient. The group felt that although this is a nice feature to allow it should be configurable and that the testing of XDS would require it be turned off so XDS register transactions specifying an unregistered patient would be rejected. It was stated that some installations would not want this feature so it is imperitive that it be able to be turned off. The request to add support for this into the XDS profile is denied for these reasons.
  • rfd_needs_transaction_numbers.doc - assigned 229 and integrate into other RFD changes
  • IHE_TF_Change_Proposal-XDS-FindDocumentQuery-eventCode-problem.doc - assigned 228 assigned to Mark
  • IHE_TF_Change_Proposal-XDS_SD-softwareName-clarification.doc - assigned 230 consult with Sarah regarding owner

Minutes January 29


Karen Witting, Lori, LaVerne, Phillip, Adrian, Roberto, Brad, Kevin, Chad, Lajoie, Yossi, Yonaton, Bill, Rob, Lynn, John, Eli, DAve, Vassil

XDS Web Services


XUA Reviewed IHE-Profile-Proposal-Detailed-XUA-20070105.doc

The notes can be found on the XUA page -- meeting notes

Configuration Management Whitepaper

Reviewed Config-Whitepaper-Outline.doc

A google group was created to discuss this white paper. To join go to IHE Configuration Management Whitepaper

Meeting December 5-6, 2006

Agenda December 5-6

  1. Review New Proposals from Planning Committee
    • Cross Community location service (Karen W.) (Profile)
    • Cross-Enterprise User Authentication (XUA)(John M.) (Profile)
    • MTOM (Vassil/Roberto) (Profile)
    • Non-Patient Document Sharing (???) (Profile)
    • Web Services specialized bindings (Vassil) (Appendix(s))
      • PIX/PDQ V3
      • EMR Query
    • Configuration Management (Rob) (White Paper)
    • Aggregate Data (Charles, Floyd) (White Paper/Profile???)
  2. Carry-over from last season
    • RFD (George) - PCC work dependent on new ITI Profile Proposal 'Investigator Identity and Authentication' which did not get forwarded to tech from planning
    • PIX/PDQ V3 (???)
      • Web service bindings (see above)
      • Other????
  3. Cardiology/Patient Care Devices Presentation
    • Tue 1-2
    • IHE Cardiology and IHE PCD Profiles presentation - requesting ITI vendor implementations
    • Feedback on the IDCO Profile (use HLv2 or XML payload?)
  4. Discuss use of new IHE wiki
  5. Discuss CPs

Schedule December 5-6

Day Time Topic
Tues 930 Organize/Breakfast/wiki discussion
1000 XUA (John M)
1100 Non-Patient Doc Sharing (??)
1200 Lunch
100 Cardiology/Patient Care Devices (?)
200 Aggregate Data (Charles)
300 XC Location Service (Karen)
400 Web Services Bindings (Vassil)
430 CP Discussion
530 Adjourn
Wed 830 Breakfast
900 RFD (George)
930 PIX/PDQ V3 (????)
1000 MTOM (Vassil/Roberto)
1100 Config Mgmt White Paper (Rob)
1200 Lunch
100 Overflow
200 Review Plans/Assignments
230 Adjourn

Minutes December 5-6

Attendance Randy Fusco Microsoft
David Heaney McKesson
Rob Horn Agfa
Don Jorgensen Inpriva
Bill Majurski NIST
Glen Marshall Siemens
John Moehrke GE Healthcare
Vassil Paeytchev Epic
LaVerne Palmer HIMSS Staff
Charles Parisot GE Healthcare
Lori Reed-Fourquet eHealthSign
Roberto Ruggeri Microsoft
Harry Soloman GE
Nicholas Steblay Boston Scientific
Karen Witting IBM

General Discussion

Discussion of developing an active member list Proposal was made regarding process for creating and maintaining an active member list. Includes tracking attendance at every face-to-face and teleconference. Members would be considered active if within the prior 12 months they a) attended a face-to-face b) authored a change proposal c) authored a profile. A first draft of the list will be published on the wiki for review.

Encryption ciphers (ATNA) for Connectathon - 3des is required for all servers at Connectathon. Rob will open a CP to initiate discussion of a final solution to this yearly problem.

Discussion of Profiles sent from Planning

XUA - Look at XDS Query first year, XDS Retrieve second year. Does query need to be field-able after 1 year? For ATNA purposes, document patient ID can be retrieved by looking up URI in registry. With ATNA there may be an issue with automated pre-fetch. Handle ED differently - different cert per service with different policies. Would MTOM force f-bit encoding (data expansion)?

May want to look at 3 different environments: high, medium, low policy scopes. Should include Roles and Affinity Domain type information. Do not include authentication. What are the interoperability issues? Assertions?

IBM implementation for NHIN - Since Repository doesn't know patient ID, Registry issues timed token for retrieval (illegal in XDS). Thus the Registry acts like an intermediary for repositories. Registry controls access. -- This is not a recommended solution for IHE as the URIs returned by the registry can not be used in documents or in the future. The IHE design is such that the URIs returned can be embedded in documents or used as references in the future (likely by other people).

Discussion on the priority of our transactions to use XUA to help scope the amount of work to do this year (both profile development and product engineering). This discussion focused around using the AHIC Emergency usecase, and recognizing that data use is more important than data export. Thus the query and retrieve are the focus. The query is already a web-service, and thus should be the top priority. But it is recognized that the Retrieve is the more interesting one for two reasons. First it is the one that exposes the high-fidelity data (document vs metadata), second it is the one where the original-enterprise would still be in control as they could be using a local repository. Thus they want to know to whom they are sending the document.

The query is more likely to be automated (pre-fetch) based on an ADT, Order, or Schedule and thus less likely to be able to provide a human user identity. The Retrieve however is more likley to be a human selecting from previously pre-fetched query.

If we update the XDS-Retrieve transaction to a Web-Service, then the XUA work should include both the query and the retrieve.

For development notes and plan see Cross-Enterprise User Authentication (XUA)

Non-Patient Documents - Need to define OID - URN format. For style sheets and schemas, URL is good enough. TLS needed for spoofing. Overall needs are:

  1. URN to URL mapping
  2. Retrieval of Policy Documents

Should be defined as a web services in case it is needed that way in the future. General agreement that all services defined by ITI in the future should be based on Web Services unless there is a reason not to. Where should WSDL be published? Is the wiki/web site stable enough. General assumption is that it will be there a very long time.

Decided to use RID to support this proposal. Volume 1 will need new use cases. Volume 2 will need discussion on schema location issues. Don agreed to author.

Presentation by ACC members (Harry Soloman and ...) - There prime focus is on inter-departmental profiles. General concern about uptake. Looking for assistance from other domains.

Displayable Reports - contains a PDF document carried with a HL7 v2 MDM message. Does this work belong in ITI instead of CARD? This is an intra-enterprise/cross-departmental report. It has not been shown at HIMSS. Published as TI last year and withdrawn this year. There is a possibility that it is based on the wrong HL7 message. Should this be architected as a transfer of a report or as a pointer to a report? It should feed XDS for Cross Enterprise work. Transaction [CARD-8] - Report Notification should be transfered to ITI. This is PDF specific now and could be content neutral. Looking for guidance on how to proceed with this profile.

It was proposed that ITI should maintain a list, similar to Content Profiles, of profiles from other domains that define document formats that could feed XDS.

It was generally agreed that more liaison effort is needed with PCD.

Implantable Cardiac Devices (IDCO Profile) - This profile is labeled as IT and has gotten very little EMR/EHR or device attention from industry. Devices in this category include pace makers, defibrillators, and cardiac resynchronization. The issue is getting results into the patient record.

Is this defining a common capability with Lab? Note that Lab is also transitioning from HL7 V2 to V3

Cross-Community (XC) Access - The Federation White Paper from last season is being moved forward as a pair of profile proposals this season: Cross-Community Access and Cross-Community Location.


  • will too much data be transfered? Do we need a filtering capability? summaries? How will requests from ED be handled?
  • Latency, impact on audit, transport, asynchrony
  • Trust mitigation - inter Affinity Domain trust
  • Should cause minimum impact to Doc Consumers. Query and XC (Cross-Community) query should be very similar.
  • Look into Grid Services
  • Responses should be screened for privacy concerns - distributed authentication issues. Should provide minimal information until I know why I should provide more.
  • Managing controlled vocabularies across Affinity Domains
  • Patient ID management - use merge or link? How should demographics be managed?

It was generally agreed that the XC Access profile should be written before the XC Location profile.

Cross-Community (XC) Location - May need to keep this profile as a white paper another year until XC-Access is written and understood. There is good technical work in this area that is not standards-based. One approach is to merge location information into PIX. How often would information be updated? What are the important security/privacy issues?

Aggregate - There are several possible technical approaches available: subscription/notification in ebXML Registry v3, capture the Register Document transaction, MEP - message exchange patterns in HL7. Are the XPath and/or XQuery standards useful? If accepted, this would be a multi-year effort. One global organizing prinicple that could be applied is to specify the rules to be implemented globally but implement them locally. This would put off the need for a query/rule language. A possible schedule would be: year 1 - define overall structure; year 2 - deal with rule specification issues.

Problem is bigger than �XDS. XDS only sees documents that are published in cross enterprise environment. Another attach point is needed especiallly considering that labs might not be archived. Part of this overall effort may belong in PCC or Lab.

No editor has been identified.

Web Services - Need WSDL for PIX/PDQ V3 (this was written last season but not reviewed or published). The general appendix applies to PIX/PDQ V3. PCC will be producing WSDL for EMR Query.

Is the IHE web site the right place to publish WSDL? Is it/will it be stable enough? Since we do not write schemas, we should point to SDO web sites for the schemas when possible.

How important is WSDL style? Should all WSDL be produced by a single committee to guarantee a similar style? No general agreement.

MTOM - We agreed that the introduction of MTOM should be handled as a new collection of optional transactions. The new transactions would specify a new MTOM binding but carry the existing content. The following specifics are proposed:

  • Upgrade from SOAP 1.1 to SOAP 1.2
  • Use MTOM instead of SOAP with Attachments on Provide and Register transaction
  • Introduce ebRIM 3.0 encoding on all transactions (currently used in Stored Query only): Provide and Register, Register and Query.
  • Define a Web Services based Retrieve transaction that would use SOAP 1.2 and MTOM. This has a slightly larger scope than the other parts since a document would not be referred to by URI but instead by uniqueId. Document Repository actor, as defined today, does not manage this attribute.
  • PIX/PDQ V3 already is already bound to Web Services
  • Should the Audit Trail portion of ATNA have a Web Services binding?

It is a big plus that WS-I already performs the profiling of Web Services and conducts their own interoperability testing events.

Web-Service version of XDS Retrieve This project fell out of the MTOM proposal. Simply stated this is a new transaction that functionally is the same as the current XDS Retrieve but uses web-services (SOAP) rather than simple HTTP GET. This new flavor would be very useful for XUA, and would likely be the only form of XDS Retrieve for which XUA would be applied. The result would be the old HTTP GET that would not provide a user identity, while the new web-services one would provide a user identity.

Doing this now would have less impact on installed base than if we delayed this into the future. BUT there is now installed base (Rob).

This work is linked to MTOM and XUA.

Configuration White Paper Organized into sections: DICOM, Web Services, HL7 V2, Hl7 V3, 1073. Locating editors for each section. Agreed that other domains should review this white paper as part of the development process. Karen to discuss in co-chair committee.

Other Business

Change Proposals - Discussed new Change Proposals that have been submitted in the last few months. Karen has taken over the task of managing change proposals.

PIX/PDQ V3 - No feedback yet from the testing effort to know how much effort this will take in the next year. No other effort has been requested in this area.

National Extensions of XDS for metadata Scheduled April 2 teleconference to review any received submissions. Submissions required by March 20. Charles to contact appropriate parties about submitting documents for review. Expectation is that approved versions would be available July timeframe.

Scheduled t-cons for future discussions Scheduled t-cons for Jan. 29, Feb. 6, Feb. 15 which will be used for discussion of profiles selected for development this year (and possibly CPs). Scheduling of which profile to address on which call will be done by co-chairs once final decision is made by planning committee.

Response to Planning Committee

A letter will be sent to the Planning Committee detailing the Technical Committee's response to the new profile proposals.

Profile Selection Recommendations

Detailed Profile Proposals were discussed at the Dec 5-6 meeting. Based on technical evaluation we recommend the following projects for this season. A more detailed discussion supporting our recommendations is available in the [ITI_Tech_2006_2007_Meetings#Minutes_.28DRAFT.29_December_5-6 | ITI Tech meeting minutes]

Profiles/White Papers to be developed this season
  • Web Services Infrastructure for HL7 V3 - this work, left over from last season, should be completed. This is not new profile work and should be submitted as a Change Proposal. Tech Editor: Vassil Paeytchev. Profile Development Effort: very small.
  • XUA (Detail Proposal) - should be promoted from White Paper to Profile. The scope for the effort this season should be to profile SAML bindings for XDS Stored Query and XDS Retrieve transactions. Tech Editor: John Moehrke. Profile Development Effort: medium.
  • MTOM (renamed to XDS Web Services) (Detailed Proposal) - should be profiled this year as a binding for the Provide & Register, Register and Retrieve transactions in XDS. This will introduce new versions of these transactions which will be published as Optional transactions. Tech Editor: Roberto Rugggieri. Profile Development Effort: medium.
  • Configuration Management White Paper - should be developed within Technical Committee. Tech Editor: Rob Horn. Development Effort: small/medium.
  • Cross-Community Access (Detailed Proposal) - This effort will be the first step of a two year profile. The Cross Community Access profile contains the first step and will be completed this year. The Cross Community Location profile (see below) will be the next step of the process and is deferred to next year. Because of this phased approach there may be limited connectathon testing since complete functionality will not be available this year. For a complete description of the direction see the 2006 White Paper on Cross Community at: (White Paper) Tech Editor: Karen Witting. Profile Development Effort: large.
Profiles/White Papers not chosen by the technical committee
  • Cross-Community Location Service - should be held back and started in one year so the initial efforts on Cross-Community Access are available.
  • Policy and Configuration Document Sharing (XDS for non-patient-centric data) - the committee agreed that a small update to the RID profile will accomplish the major elements required in this profile. Although this is a small effort it was judged least important when ranked against other work. Given the extensive other work the committee believes this should be defered to a future year.
  • Aggregate Data - this topic is not ready for profiling in Technical Committee. We recommend the following options:
  1. Planning Committee take on the task of refining the Use Cases and re-submit to Technical Committee next season
  2. If the New Directions style of profile development is approved by the Co-Chairs Committee, we would consider taking on this profile as a New Directions effort. This would mean that Technical Committee would commit meeting time to discuss Use Cases and technology to meet them. At the end of year 1 (of a two year effort) we would anticipate a demonstration at HIMSS but no Connectathon testing. Detailed management of this effort would come from a separate project manager (not the Committee Co-Chairs) and involve a separate TCON/development tract much in the style of RFD and PIX/PDQ V3 last season. The project manager would take on the effort of identifying interested parties to participate in the development effort, manage the TCONs (with ITI Co-Chair support), and promote the development of demonstration implementations for HIMSS. Project Manager: none

Minutes November 15 2006


  • Rob Horn - AGFA
  • Karen Witting - IBM
  • Bill Majurski – NIST
  • Glen Deen – IBM
  • Yongjian Bao – GE
  • Josh – Misys
  • Mark Sinke – ForeCare
  • Vassil Peytchev - Epic
  • John Moehrke – GE
  • Laurie Williams – IBM
  • George Cole - Allscripts


item #4 became new CP 204

  1. 5 no change - added example
  2. 6 fixed

ask for response from Isabelle

xds_164_05- atna and xds - rob, mark

Emmanuel offered the following:

1) We effectively decided not to create an "import" event on a consumer side for a retrieve document, because the nature of the protocol (HTTP Get) making probable that the retrieve itself is directly performed by the Web browser. When we evolve this protocol (WS...) it must be reconsidered. 2) The name of the Studies / DICOM Studies is not consistent for Import/Export events. We have definitly to tell to people what is the corresponding "study" for the XDS/XDR/XDM profiles. I would recommend that it is the XDSSubmissionSet (referenced by its uniqueId) for XDS Register, XDS/XDR Provide&Register and XDM Distribute, and the XDSDocumentEntry for the XDS Retrieve. 3) Similarly, we have to precise the ParticipantObjectID in the Query event to be set to the UUID of the type of XDS object queried (document, submission set or folder) 4) There are some typos in the CP. For example you did not end the Query section, or errors in parentheses.

Long discussion – Mark and Rob to merge their independent writings.

xds_136_02 - John M - No need to discuss

xds_144 - long URI - need status on ballot #3 from LaVerne - not present on call

Action items

CP 164 includes codes that need to be registered. Who does this?

Mark and Rob submitted updated at the same time. They are working to reconcile. Schedule next review.

Many questions have floated about this season regarding audit. Suggest creating an Implementers Guide on generating audit messages.

Ask for review and comments from Isabelle on CP 170

Long URI CP in Ballot #3 - Get in touch with LaVerne

Next call noon (central) on Dec 19

Return to ITI Technical Committee