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/

Schedule

The plan is to be ready to release a public comment document by October. Some detail for a tentative plan:

• 10/1/2015: Small team development and editorial work completes
• 10/31/2015: Completion of full committee review of recommendations from small team
• 11/6/2015: Release for public comment
• 12/6/2015: Public comment completes
• 1/15/2015: Resolve public comments
• 2/1/2015: Integrate into TF and release new version of TF documents

Meetings

August 19, 2015

• 3.42.4.1.4 Jeremy H.
  • 3.42 duplication content review. (just ahead of XDS Atomicy of Submissions)
  • XDS Registry Enforcement of Attributes
• Appendix V SOAP/XOP documentation - Jeremy
• 4.2.1.4 Review updates from Elliott L.
• BPPC - review notes from f2f in separate doc
• CP integration
• namespace consistency check

July 29, 2015

• 3.42.4.1.4 Jeremy H. - Reviewed atomicity section
  • Discussed that repository does not need to remove docs if transaction to registry fails. Elliot S. to file CP on this.
  • Completed review Atomicity section
  • Started review of XDS REgistry Enforcement. Noted that ITI-61 says only "perform metadata validations" and this is vague. Elliott L. to follow up on this.
• Appendix V SOAP documentation Elliott L
  • Noted the the sections need to be checked for consistency with namespace tables. Changed xdsb: to xds: and this needs to be changed among all sections.
• Began reviewing CP 846. Jeremy notes that this is a prefered approach for the XOP content that he had started. Jeremy will take what Elliott did in this CP and write as V.8. The samples section will become V.9. Elliott L. will take the SOAP samples section and send to Karen for integration into the full document.
• 4.3.1.2.1.X Document Duplication - Elliot S. integrated this content into 41 & 42 expected actions sections
  • 3.41.1.3.2 duplication content reviewed and approved, done.
  • 3.42 duplciation content still needs review. It has been placed in the Redoc-organization-07-29-42-ExpectedActions.docx file (just ahead of XDS Atomicy of Submissions)
  • Deleted section from 4.3.1.2.1.X
• 4.2.1.4 Review updates from Elliott L. - ran out of time
• Develop documentation on XOP Jeremy H. - discussed as part of Appendix V SOAP work.
• BPPC - John was not present

Next Steps

• Elliot S. to file CP that repository does not need to remove docs if transaction to registry fails.
• Check for consistency of all sections with namespace tables. Example: changed xdsb: to xds:
• Elliott L. to follow up on concern that ITI-61 says only "perform metadata validations" and this is vague.
• Jeremy will take what Elliott did in CP 846 and write as V.8. The samples section will become V.9. * Elliott L. will send the SOAP samples section to Karen for integration into the full document as V.9 (done)
• 4.2.4 Karen to update two examples (done)

July 23, 2015

• BPPC - review proposed updates
  • Reviewed in Redoc-organization-05-07-JohnM.docx and needs some further discussion
• 4.3.1.2.1.X Document Duplication - Elliot S. to integration into expected actions sections
  • Reviewed in Redoc-organization-07-23.docx and needs some further discussion
• 3.42.4.1.4 Jeremy H. - continue after atomicity section
  • Reviewed in Redoc-organization-07-23-42-ExpectedActions.docx and made some changes, continued review needed.
• 4.2.1.4 Review updates from Elliott L.
  • Reviewed Redoc-organization-07-23-Section-4.2.1.4.docx and needs continued review
• Deferred due to lack of time
  • Appendix V SOAP documentation Elliott L
  • Develop documentation on XOP Jeremy H.

July 20, 2015

• 4.2.2 Association Types last sentence of section
  • Determined that this sentence belonged in 4.2.1.4 after that section is re-organized to keep the original top level and make discussion of submit & query a subtopic. Elliott L. agreed to take over this task.
• 4.2.4 - reviewed examples and made revisions. Karen to complete documentation of examples as described in comments
• 4.3.1.2.1.X Document Duplication - move all this content to ITI 41/42 request expected actions as noted in text. Elliot S. to take a clean document and make this changes, including integration of CP 802 into this section.
• BPPC - the text in these sections better belongs in Volume 1. John to provide markup language for adding content to Volume 1 for this content and delete it from Vol. 2 transactions.

Next Steps

• 4.2.1.4 Revise this based on review. Elliott L. to do this revision (done)
• 4.2.4 Karen to update two examples
• 4.3.1.2.1.X Document Duplication - Elliot S. to integration into expected actions sections (done)
• BPPC - John to provide updates
• Develop documentation on XOP Jeremy H. (done)
• Karen to email Jeremy to get his status (done)

July 15, 2015

Review:

• 3.42.4.1.4 Jeremy H. - continue after atomicity section
  • Jeremy did not attend the call so we deferred this
• Message Semantics Options Karen (Redoc-organization-06-26-ElliottL+kw.docx)
  • Reviewed this and made changes. Karen to complete the changes recommended and then integrated into larger document for general review
• 4.1.4 Submission Request (group review)
  • Reviewed with substantial changes. Karen to complete changes.
• 4.2.2 Association Types (group review)
  • Started review but did not finish, continue with work to determine how to integrate the last section.
• 4.2.4.1 Karen : update Vol. 3 error section to include examples of all types of responses
  • Did not have time to review this
• 4.3.1.2.1.X Document Duplication (group review)
  • Did not have time to review this
• Appendix V SOAP documentation Elliott L - ready for first review
  • Did not have time to review this

Next Steps

• 4.2.1.4 Jeremy H.
• Develop documentation on XOP Jeremy H.
• BPPC section John M
• Karen to complete edits on sections reviewed today and integrate within one document that work plus the following:
  • Message Semantics from Elliott L
  • Expected Actions 3.41.4.1.3 from Elliot S.

July 8, 2015

Note moved normal July 1 call to be held on July 8 due to availability.

Review:

• 3.41.4.2.1.1. Karen
  • edits made in document
  • added text to error reporting, message semantics and 3.42.4.2.3 in main document
  • Noted that "All things worth doing are worth re-doing" and "All things worth saying are NOT worth re-saying"
• 3.42.4.1.4 Jeremy H.
  • edits made in document
  • review of atomicity identified multiple complex issues and will be deferred until f2f. comment in doc reflects issues identified
  • did not review beyond atomicity so start after that section on next call
• Stopped because time ran out
• Message Semantics Options Karen (Redoc-organization-06-26-ElliottL+kw.docx)
• 4.1.4 Submission Request (group review)
• 4.2.2 Association Types (group review)
• 4.2.4.1 Karen : update Vol. 3 error section to include examples of all types of responses
• 4.3.1.2.1.X Document Duplication (group review)

Next Steps

• 4.2.1.4 Jeremy H.
• Appendix V SOAP documentation Elliott L
• Develop documentation on XOP Jeremy H.
• BPPC section John M

Out for email review

• Message Semantics from Elliott L
• Expected Actions 3.41.4.1.3 from Elliot S.

June 17, 2015

Review status of assignments:

• Elliott L
  • finalize message semantics work
    • Agreed that Elliott L will finish the work from the review and send by email to ITItech for review by group. Will discuss after sent to ITItech whether further review on call is needed.
  • Appendix V SOAP documentation
    • Elliott L to take what is in the 5/7 Appendix V content and flesh it out to explain the SOAP wrapper for SOAP messages.
• Jeremy H
  • to continue work on 3.42.4.1.4
    • a version of this was provided and could be reviewed on the call if time is available
  • develop documentation on XOP
  • section 4.2.1.4
• Karen W
  • create section in message semantics on Actor options
  • update Vol. 3 error section to include examples of all types of responses
• John M update of BPPC section

Review assigned sections:

• 3.41.4.1.3 Elliot Silver
  • Reviewed the document and made many editorial changes. Finalized document will be sent to ITItech for group review.
• 4.3.1.2.1.X Document Duplication (group review only)
• 3.41.4.2.1.1. Karen
• 4.1.4 Submission Request (group review only)
• 4.2.2 Association Types (group review only)
• 3.42.4.1.4 Jeremy H.

Next Steps

• Elliott L
  • finalize message semantics work
  • Appendix V SOAP documentation
• Jeremy H
  • complete work on 3.42.4.1.4 (version available for review)
  • develop documentation on XOP
  • section 4.2.1.4
• Karen W
  • create section in message semantics on Actor options
  • update Vol. 3 error section to include examples of all types of responses
• John M update of BPPC section

June 3, 2015

Review sections:

• Message semantics sections Elliott Lavy
  • question of where the async option should be referred to in the transaction documentation. Agreed that it should be part of the message semantics, calling out as separate actor when appropriate - would be appropriate to have separate actors for 41 but not 42. Karen to do this in a similar way to other option descriptions
  • Reviewed other text and made small adjustments that Elliott noted in his version. Elliot to apply updates needed to all sections
  • Added reference to vol. 3 for all response examples. Ensure Vol. 3 has examples of success, success with a warning and success with errors. Also for each type of example, two examples are needed, one RegistryResponse and the other AdhocQueryREsponse. Karen to do this.
• 3.41.4.1.3 Elliot Silver
  • changes made, finish next time.
• 3.41.4.2.1.1. Karen
  • no time to review
• 3.42.4.1.4 Jeremy H.
  • no time to review
• BPPC sections John
  • John not present

Additional Sections to be reviewed by the group:

• 4.1.4 Submission Request
  • no time to review
• 4.2.2 Association Types
  • no time to review
• 4.3.1.2.1.X Document Duplication
  • no time to review

Next Steps

• Elliott L to finalize message semantics work
• Jeremy H to develop documentation on XOP
• Karen W to create section in message semantics on Actor options
• Jeremy H to continue work on 3.42.4.1.4
• John M update of BPPC section
• Elliott L Appendix V
• Jeremy H section 4.2.1.4
• Karen W to update Vol. 3 error section to include examples of all types of responses

May 20, 2015

Review the changes made by our crack editors:

• All 4 message semantics sections Elliott Lavy
  • Decided some documentation on XOP is needed - Jeremy to work on this.
  • Discussed whether to include descriptions of the options in this section (as well as Vol. 1). If in vol. 2 which section among trigger events, message semantics. Agreed to put it message semantics, as XDS Document Source semantics this will address the options. Karen to write this section.
  • Elliott to apply the same approach to the other message semantics sections
• 3.41.4.1.3 Elliot Silver
  • discussed with some updates made in the viewed version, sent to Elliot S.
  • debated the error table from Vol. 3. Came to a basic agreement on how we think it is interpretted. Agreed that redoc of error table was out of scope but CP requesting clarification would be appropriate.
• 3.41.4.2.1.1. Karen
  • no time to review
• 3.42.4.1.4 Jeremy H.
  • no time to review
• BPPC sections John
  • John not present

Additional Sections to be reviewed by the group:

• 4.1.4 Submission Request
  • no time to review
• 4.2.2 Association Types
  • no time to review
• 4.3.1.2.1.X Document Duplication
  • no time to review

Additional Sections to be assigned:

• 4.2.1.4 Submission Request
  • assigned to Jeremy
• Appendix V
  • SOAP documentation - assigned to Elliott Lavy

Next Steps

• Elliott L to continue message semantics work
• Jeremy H to develop documentation on XOP
• Karen W to create section in message semantics on Actor options
• Jeremy H to continue work on 3.42.4.1.4
• John M update of BPPC section
• Elliott L Appendix V
• Jeremy H section 4.2.1.4

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)