ITI Tech 2006 2007 Meetings
Meeting December 5-6, 2006
Agenda December 5-6
- Review New Proposals from Planning Committee
- Cross Community location service (Karen W.) (Profile)
- 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???)
- 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????
- 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?)
- Discuss use of new IHE wiki
- 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 (DRAFT) December 5-6
Attendance
tbd
Discussion of Profiles sent from Planning
Encryption ciphers (ATNA) for Connectathon - 3des is required for all servers at Connectathon. Rob will start CP to solve for good.
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?
NHIN issues - Repository doesn't know patient ID so Registry issues timed token for retrieval (illegal in XDS). SOAP would fix (not sure what this means). Registry is intermediary for repositories. Registry controls access.
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:
- URN to URL mapping
- 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.
Issues/concerns:
- 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.
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.
Response to Planning Committee
A letter will be sent to the Planning Committee detailing the Technical Committee's response to the new profile proposals.
Change Proposal TCON November 15, 2006
Minutes November 15
Attendees Rob Horn - AGFA Karen Witting - IBM Bill Majurski – NIST Glen Deen – IBM Yongjian Bao – GE Josh – Misys Mark Sinke – ForeCare Vassil Peytchev - Epic John Moerke – GE Laurie Williams – IBM George Cole - Allscripts
pixpdq_170_09
item #4 became new CP 204
- 5 no change - added example
- 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