Document Sharing Re-documentation: Phase 2

From IHE Wiki
Revision as of 12:38, 23 March 2015 by Esilver (talk | contribs)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Profile Documents

This project is ongoing in 2015 cycle. Current drafts can be found on the FTP site in this directory.


April 22, 2015

April 8, 2015

March 25, 2015

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 (for Document Source) seem to match the 3 in (for Integrated Document Source/Repository). (Haven't done a word-by-word check yet.) 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 (Done)