Document Sharing Re-documentation: Phase 2

Profile Documents

This project is ongoing in 2015 cycle. Current drafts can be found on the FTP site in this directory. ftp://ftp.ihe.net/IT_Infrastructure/iheitiyr13-2015-2016/Technical_Cmte/Workitems/Redocumentation%20of%20XD%20Profiles/

Plan

• April f2f:
  • review survey results
  • review where the content has been moved to.
• April – July fine tune the wording
• August: release as PC
• September: tcon to review PC input

Meetings

May 20, 2015

Additional Sections to be reviewed by the group:

• 4.1.4 Submission Request
• 4.2.2 Association Types
• 4.3.1.2.1.X Document Duplication

Additional Sections to be assigned:

• 4.2.1.4 Submission Request
• Appendix V - SOAP documentation

April 27 & 30, 2015

Reviewed the changes made by the work group, made some minor changes to referenced standards and a few other sections. Mostly the committee confirmed the decisions of the work group and supported moving forward. 4.30 version of the document contains all changes suggested by the group.

Discussion of release for public comment, Contact co-chairs when the group is a few weeks away from PC and they will discuss with Mary about good time for release.

Next Steps

• Karen to move sections tagged to be moved to the appropriate sections, break those sections into independent documents and send to elliot, elliott and ask Jeremy to do a section
• Section Assignments
  • All 4 message semantics sections Elliott Lavy
  • 3.41.4.1.3 Elliot Silver
  • 3.41.4.2.1.1. Karen
  • 3.42.4.1.4 Karen to ask Jeremy, if he can't Lynn can look for registry implementor towork on
  • BPPC sections John
• cancel the redoc tcon on the 6th. reconvene on 20th to review editorial work

April 22, 2015

• Reviewed the go forward plan
• Reviewed ITI-42 and agreed on movement of content
• Reviewed 4.3.1 and agreed on plan for content

Next Steps

• Dave to review the planned movement of data out of Vol. 3 and assess impact to transactions other than 41 & 42.
• John to get revised BPPC wording

April 8, 2015

• Reviewed Elliott’s work, agreed on a go-forward plan, Karen will integrate Elliott’s work into the larger doc.
• BPPC: John to take what Elliott has done and simplify/revise the content
• Completed review of ITI-41and agreed on movement of content
• Plan going forward:
  • Tcon 4/22 : review ITI-42 and 4.3 deciding only WHERE content should go
  • April f2f: review survey results and review where the content has been moved to.
  • April – July fine tune the wording
  • August: release PC with tcon review of PC intput

Next Steps

• Karen to integrate Elliott’s work (complete)
• Karen to move content agreed to be moved (complete)
• Karen to review ITI 42 and move things similar to ITI-41 (complete)
• John to get revised BPPC wording

March 25, 2015

• Discussed definition of Repository Submission Request. Elliott reviewed the places the term is used. Agreed that since it could go to a Recipient a new name should be used. Agreed to use the name "Document Submission Request". The term Registry Submission Request also exists and is felt to be a good name to continue with.
• Documentation of these submission requests is spread across several places and is not complete or well organized. Elliott will pull together the right content, including a definition for both terms. After review we will decide where the right place for the content is, probably within Vol. 3.
• Reviewed Referenced standards and use of generic SOAP standards (HTTP, XML, etc.). Agreed on an approach for reference to Appendix V.
• Reviewed Jeremy's approach to protocol requirements (provide_and_register_protocol_requirements.docx). Agreed to put namespace prefix's in Appendix V and refer to them from transactions. Agreed in theory to the approach, although need to integrate the approach with the definition and description Elliott is working on, logical representation vs. technical representation. Karen will integrate the content provided by Jeremy into the Message Semantics sections of request and response - breaking the one block of text into two places as discussed.
• Discussion of Repository Excepted Actions, especially hash/size validation.
• Reviewed Trigger events for response, did not come to conclusion, review again.

Next Steps

• John to revise proposed BPPC option wording
• Elliott Lavy to create definitions of Document Submission Request and Registry Submission Request and write a section that describes the requirements for building each of these, possibly referencing each other.
• Karen to integrate Jeremy's suggestions for protocol requirements descriptions into message semantics of request/response.
• Karen to make other updates based on suggestions from the call

March 11, 2015

Reviewed proposed changes through section 3.41.6.

• Noted that there is no place where a successful response is described. Considered adding it to Vol. 3 Section 4.2.4 and changing the name of the section to Success and Error Reporting.
• Discussion of how to address examples. Most useful examples include annotations which are best done on a wiki. Agreed that excerpt examples should be included throughout, but what about a complete example? Preliminary proposal is to consider an example of the outside gorp as part of Appendix V.

Next Steps

• Jeremy will have de-WSLDified content to review on March 25 call
• John to revise proposed BPPC option wording
• Elliott Lavy to propose definition of Repository Submission Request and text for a section to be referenced from transactions 3.41.1
• Dave will provider one line descriptions of the standards 3.41.3 (done)
• Karen to revise as discussed
• Dave to post the survey results

February 24 and 26, 2015

Review of current status. Changed Role names to Content Sender and Content Receiver. Review of survey. Review of comments on sections reviewed. Review BPPC proposal. John will take the next steps in developing the content for this section. Agreed to have a common section.

Next Steps

• John to revise proposed BPPC option wording.
• Karen to adjust trigger events, expected actions to align with proposed structure (Done)
• Follow-ups not completed from prior discussion
• Karen to Insert Bill’s comments into the document (Done)

February 11, 2015

Comments from Elliott: In my review of ITI-41 and ITI-42, I identified the following sections that might be moved to a central location:

• Basic Patient Privacy Enforcement Option – The first 3 points in 3.41.4.1.3.1 (for Document Source) seem to match the 3 in 3.42.4.1.4.1 (for Integrated Document Source/Repository). (Haven't done a word-by-word check yet.) 3.41.1.4.1.3.1 has 3 additional points talking about the Document Recipient, and there's nothing to match in 3.42. (I also note that point 6 says that a Document Recipient must abide by XDS Affinity Domain policies, but AFAIK that's not a concept in XDR.)
  • This area could use some improvement in context and explanation and moving to vol. 3 will aid in supporting those improvements. Agreed to consider this for movement to Vol. 3 and consolidation across multiple transactions
• The Protocol Requirements have some similarities, but I don't know if it's enough to centralize.
  • Look at a way of moving the generic parts of the explanations into 2x Appx V and move the specific transaction specific content into message semantics with the goal of getting rid of the protocol section.

Next Steps

• Karen Propagate generic role names into the transaction (Done)
• Dave working on questions (Done)
• Elliott to write transaction agnostic BPPC content (Done)
• Jeremy to take a stab at un-WSDLfying the protocol requirements. Also break into one for request message and one for response message.
• Karen to take action on notes from this call to clean up the sections where we have agreement about changes. (Done)

January 22, 2015

Next Steps

• Dave will put together some draft questions to be distributed to developers. (Done)
• Consider looking through 41&42 and find commonalities to be moved into vol. 3? Elliott Lavy volunteered to do this. (Done)
• Karen will look at template and make a list of changes. Make the changes in the doc with change tracking on. (Done)
• Karen to put in the use of Roles following Radiology example for review at the next call. For an example of an abstract "Role" that encompasses one or specific actors within a transaction see the Radiology Trial Implementation Supplement MRRT. Table 4.105.2-1 http://www.ihe.net/uploadedFiles/Documents/Radiology/IHE_RAD_Suppl_MRRT.pdf (Done)