Difference between revisions of "Domain Coord - Future Agenda Topics"

From IHE Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Near Term)
Line 10: Line 10:
 
== Near Term ==
 
== Near Term ==
 
''When the Committee has assigned an item to an upcoming call the [date is shown]''  
 
''When the Committee has assigned an item to an upcoming call the [date is shown]''  
 +
 +
*The ftp site is currently being used as a repository for Technical Framework documents. Where should folks place finalized WSDL/XSD XML artifacts that the document references?
 +
[ftp://ftp.ihe.net/DocumentPublication/ DocumentPublication ftp site]
 +
 +
--[[User:Mjungers|Mjungers]] 19:27, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
  
 
* Barcode / RFID Usage in Transactions Involving Patient IDs
 
* Barcode / RFID Usage in Transactions Involving Patient IDs

Revision as of 13:27, 16 November 2010

Feel free to add proposed agenda items here.


Urgent: For Next Meeting

Try to indicate why it's urgent

  • The HL7 subgroup is making little progress and it is critical that this group begin deliverying results
    • This is urgent because the group was formed a long time ago yet is not solving the problems it was charged with. A new model should be considered.

Near Term

When the Committee has assigned an item to an upcoming call the [date is shown]

  • The ftp site is currently being used as a repository for Technical Framework documents. Where should folks place finalized WSDL/XSD XML artifacts that the document references?

DocumentPublication ftp site

--Mjungers 19:27, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Barcode / RFID Usage in Transactions Involving Patient IDs
    • A number of PCD transactions are predicated on the point-of-care identification of a patient, as well as clinicians, devices, medications, etc. There have been a number of requests for profiling the information and format per technology used.
    • Which domain(s) should collaborate on this activity?



  • IHE "Namespace" Management [Rob Horn: ???]
    • Different domains choose names for profiles, transactions and actors.
    • IHE profiles from different domains should be complementary (or at least non-conflicting)
    • Need to make sure the names and abbreviations are literally/semantically aligned
    • Should discuss/agree on principles and mechanisms
    • Do we need a librarian for this item?
    • URN Name space registration needed- Rob Horn


  • Non-participating Domains - [Aug 19 TCon]
    • need action plan to pull missing co-chairs into this Cmte
    • May be able to springboard from Domain Applications
    • E.g. "Welcome to IHE" email to cochairs of Approved domains outlining responsibilities, linkups


  • New Committee Member Welcoming Process [2009-11-24]
    • Form letter
    • How to get on the mailing list
    • How the Committee Page works
    • Pointer to Domain Timeline and current meeting schedule
    • Pointer to policies, procedures and processes



  • Coordination of CPs with Translated TFs
    • National Committees submit National Extensions which may include translations to local language
    • National Committees may translate TFs
    • We should discuss procedures/mechanisms for keeping translated text up to date with the National groups
    • What translated text currently exists?
  • How should ITI assess other domain requests for work? Consider developing a cheatsheet for how to solicit feedback. Other domains would be encouraged to do some homework prior to submission, especially in regards to priority (nice to have vs. very very urgent) and impact on their own and other domains (significant immediate impact vs. no impact expected for several years)

"Parking Lot"

Review these from time to time for activation

  • IHE Review Committees - Revisit after "HL7 Review Taskforce" pilot has made some progress
    • Previously tried to do a single Review Cmte and the volume is intractable
    • Consider Standard oriented cross-domain review committees
    • E.g. IHE HL7 Review Cmte, IHE DICOM Review Cmte, IHE WebServices Review Cmte, IHE CDA Review Cmte
    • Basically for any standard that is used across more than one domain
    • Any transaction created in any Domain using a certain standard, must be sent to the relevant Review Cmte.
    • Transaction authors must participate in the review
  • Supplement Template - [Nov 2008]
    • Consider if it would help to add more explanatory material
    • See HITSP Templates for example
    • Consider copying in material from Process pages on editing Supplements

Completed

If you think we've covered it, but aren't comfortable deleting it yet (it remains in History), then move it here

  • Board Representative Selection for Domains
    • Deadlines in March
    • Learnings from domain representative elections:
      • Lack of update-to-date roster (see ITI Plan Roster which lists Keith Boone as a representative of Dictophone) means that it is not clear what organizations are eligible. Led to 40-50% ineligible votes in ITI, PCC, PCD and QRPH. All future votes should only be conducted with an up-to-date roster available to all participants. Roster should be referenced in every email ballot.
      • Should elections for board representative count toward maintaining or acquiring voting rights? Alternatively, is the fact that an organizations submitted a vote (not the contents of a vote, just the submission) be public or private? Should ineligible votes lead to eligible voting in the next meeting/vote? I propose that every email ballot explain the handling of ineligible votes.
      • When an organizations submits a vote that is not counted should that organization be notified?
  • HL7 2.x Versioning (delegated to HL7 Review Taskforce)
    • Strategies
    • Backward compatibilities or not
    • ...
  • Cross-Domain TF References
    • How to cross reference across domains given that PCC supports wiki management of their Technical Framework. How can other domains interact most effectively as they build off of the PCC framework. Effects ITI and Lab so far.
    • Completed: PCC now used MS-Word and PDF like other domains
  • Technical Framework section numbering (Karen Witting: 2009-11-10)
    • Some domains use static section numbering so that section numbers, at least the two or three top levels, don't change. i.e. a profile is always section x and a transaction is always section y. Some domains (ex. PCC) are not maintaining static section numbering so this has caused ITI has to update their section references each year as sections are moved. Should domains use consistent section numbering to support consistent cross-referencing.
  • Change Supplement Template title page to say "DRAFT in preparation for Public Comment". (2009-11-10)
    • Rationale: those outside IHE often find or are sent these documents prior to public comment and assume they are the public comment version. This leads to confusion. Sponsor would change title page when the supplement is released officially for public comment.

Domain Coordination Committee