ITI Planning 3Dec07 Notes

IHE IT Infrastructure

Joint Meeting of Planning and Technical Committees

December 3rd, 2007 • 9:00-11:00am Central

Purpose: Response to ITI Planning Committee from ITI Technical Committee – November 2007

2. Scope of work for 2007/2008:

Challenges [Charles Parisot]:

• Have made great progress on RHIO’s, and there are approximately 10 profiles in trial implementation from several years’ development work. Lots of uptake, as illustrated by published references, Connectathon, etc. There are 15-20 projects worldwide using the new ITI profiles in 2008.
• ITI Domain will need to take this backlog into final text profiles and merge to technical framework (likely 4-6 profiles out of the 10 in trial implementation). This will require significant maintenance effort.
• The ITI Domain, despite it's success, is running into problems mobilizing ITI committees to ensure quality of the profiles. It is suggested that a broader review on profiles under development will go a long way towards ensuring quality.
• Proposed that 5 new profiles for 2007/2008 will compromise quality.

Discussion:

• Rob Horn: Indicated that Bill Majurski had already raised the issue that there was a very large maintenance backlog.
• Charles Parisot: Suggested that, for 2008, a reasonable load might be 4 profiles, plus 2 white papers, plus maintenance.
• Didi Davis: Take into account size of development effort, to ensure a reasonable balance.
• Vassil Peytchev: Some of this work is designed to assist getting other profiles from trial implementation to final text (ie. Asynch XDS.b, Referral Request), and therefore should be maintained.
• Rob Horn: Disagreed, regarding Referral Request.

Proposed Actions:

• Trim one profile. ITI Tech saw lowest priority as Referral Request, however it was pointed out that this was around technical considerations only. ITI Planning needs to assess from a perspective of importance from an implementation perspective.
• Webex Polling was used to cast votes on the top 3 profiles for 2008. The intent was to select the top 4 of 5. Votes were registered as follows:

• Emergency Contact Registry Query (ECON) 5 yes, 6 no, 5 novote
• Sharing Value Sets (scoped from original) 10 yes, 2 no, 4 novote
• Asynchronous XDS.b (scoped from original) 8 yes, 2 no, 6 novote
• Referral Request (scoped from original) 7 yes, 5 no, 4 novote
• Extended PDQ 7 yes, 4 no, 5 novote

Proposal: Based on the results of the polling vote, ECON Profile to be dropped for this year.

Discussion: [Larry Williams] ECON is at a disadvantage to other profiles, re likelihood of implementation. Support behind and need for ECON is very high. Rated at the top before this vote. [Lori F]: Recognize that we have a different kind of uptake from industry vendors outside of our traditional domain. [Karen W]: ECON was very high at ITI Tech. [John D]: Planning concerned with need in industry, not technical viability. Why is there a change in Planning Committee’s priority from earlier priority established. [Karen W]: Challenge is that we’ve brought in a new market, and people on this call are from the traditional market. [Rob Horn]: PC wants everything on this list, so the question is changed to “what can we live without”. [Didi]: Can we merge white papers with profiles and vote on all together? [Larry W]: Suggests that we use the original ranking, rather than use the ranking from today’s call. [Mike N]: Pointed out that ECON was not at the top of the list at the f2f, and was in fact tied with 5 other proposals. [Larry W]: Very critical within a number of initiatives in the US (CalRHIO, HITSP) [Manuel]: This is a US need, not an international need. Should be done as a national extension. [Mick Talley]: Support from Financial sector. [Vassil]: This could be a PDQ or PDQ/v3 extension, as originally proposed. [John M]: PDQ data model was different, and not appropriate to handle ECON requirements. [Larry W]: Would agree with Vassil, as a national extension. [Karen W]: ITI Tech cannot handle this as a national extension. [Lori]: How can we rally resources within IHE US. [Glen]: Example of PIX/PDQ/v3 as a successful implementation of a Canadian-led initiative. [John M]: HITSP shouldn’t drive IHE’s work. Example of a Security/Privacy initiative from HITSP that was rejected from IHE, and is being dealt with elsewhere.

Table for now.

3. White Papers: • Publish/Subscribe Infrastructure for XDS (with New Directions demonstration) – 7 [large effort] – Vassil, Floyd • Policy-Driven Security and Privacy – 4 [small effort] – Don Jorgenson, Manuel, Lori, Glen. • Terminology Sharing - 1 [larger effort] -

[Karen]: Assumed that white papers would be done by separate group and reviewed by committee. [Karen]: Publish/Subscribe needs strong leadership. Suggests having 2 leaders (Charles agrees).

Propose we drop Terminology Sharing.

Motion: [MN, seconded KW]: Drop ECON and take on Publish/Subscribe and Policy-Driven Security/Privacy.

Vote: 8 yes, 6 no, 5 abstain

Not a 2/3 majority.

Propose: Keep ECON, drop 2 white papers [Rob Horn, second Glen Marshall].

Vote: 11 yes, 4 no, 5 abstain Carried.

Adjourn.