ITI Change Proposals 2011

From IHE Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Introduction

The ITI CP process follows the general IHE CP process described on the Change Proposal process page. The following sections give more detail on the general process for ITI participants involved in the CP process.

The ITI specific CP Process

The following text explains what the process used by the ITI commitee in processing submitted CPs. It is consistent with the general IHE CP process and is informative only.

  1. Submission into the Incoming directory. This is typically done via an email to the ITI Technical Committee co-chair in charge of CPs (currently Rob Horn) or by directly updating the directory.
  2. First consideration by the committee. If CP is accepted it is given a CP #, assigned an editor, renamed to CP-ITI-xxx-00.doc and placed in Assigned. If CP is rejected it is moved to Rejected and submitter is informed of explanation for rejection. Likely reasons for rejection are: duplicate, merged, withdrawn or not enough information to understand the request. Rejected CPs can be resubmitted with more information for reconsideration.
  3. Committee works with editor to draft the CP. Versions are kept in Assigned directory and numbered -00, -01, -02, etc.
  4. Committee decides CP is ready for ballot. Latest version of CP is moved to Completed diretory and old versions are moved to old_versions.
  5. Co-chair collects Completed CPs into a ballot. The Ballot directory will be used for this.
  6. Ballot is released to the general community for voting
  7. Votes and comments are collected. All yes votes means the CP passed ballot and moved to FinalText. No votes are resolved by the committee. Sometimes CP is withdrawn, sometimes NO voter changes to yes vote after explanations. CP may be updated in this process. If updates are insignificant (clarification only) the CP is considered passed. If updates are significant the CP is submitted for another ballot.
  8. CP approved in ballot are put in FinalText and scheduled to be integrated into the Technical Framework or Supplement.

Directory Structure

As CPs are processed through various statuses they move from one directory to another. The directories invoved are:

Assigned
contains CPs that have been assigned an editor and are being actively worked on by the committee, i.e. Assigned status
Ballots
contains Ballots that have been released for voting by the general community
Canceled
contains CPs that have been canceled, i.e. Canceled status
Completed
contains the last version of a CP that is in Completed status. It is waiting to be put in a ballot
FinalText
contains the last version of a CP that is in FinalText status. It is has been approved by ballot and is waiting to be integrated into the TF.
FinalText/Integrated
contains the version of the CP that was integrated into the TF.
Incoming
contains CPs which have been submitted but have not been assigned a CP number or an editor. This is the place that new incoming CPs are placed prior to the first stage of processing by the committee.
old_versions
Contains old versions of Completed and FinalText CPs
Rejected
CPs that have been submitted by rejected by the committee
Status
contains spreadsheets describing the status of CPs.

Archived Change Proposal pages

Ongoing work on CPs is placed on the current year CP page. Prior years work can be accessed at:

ITI CP Tracking

All Change Propoposal management is in ITI CP ftp site. The tracking spreadsheet can be accessed at Status directory. It is the file with the most recent date in that directory.

Integrated CPs

2011 Technical Framework

These CPs have been integrated into the Version 8.0 of the Technical Framework and the 2011 version of Supplements.

CP Title Profiles Affected
368 SMTP clarifications for XDS.a and XDM ATNA
376 extend PIXV3/PDQV3 R-MIM PIX/PDQ
454 Patient Name in V3 PIX Get Corresponding Query Should Match V2 PIXV3
455 PIX/PDQ V3 - ControlActProcess moodCode should be EVN PIX/PDQV3
459 Retrieve example is wrong XDS
460 SourcePatientId example wrong XDS
474 The PIX/PDQv3 supplement does not document Audit Record Rqmts in Security Considerations PIX/PDQv3
479 Improve error reporting for XDS,XCA,XDR "XCA,XDS,XDR"
481 Section references in table without a table title are incorrect PWP
485 RFD urn values are defined incorrectly based on V.3.2.1.1 IHE-WSP201 RFD
494 Permit Secure App in XCA XCA
505 Improve examples PIX/PDQV3
506 Profile Use Of Coding Systems PIX/PDQV3
509 XDS Stored Query which associations to return XDS.b
510 soapAction deprecation Appendix V
512 XDSDocumentSet.intendedRecipient XD*
518 XCPD comments XCPD
521 ExternalIdentifier Clarification X*
531 XCA specify passthru of query request/response content XCA
534 Wrong wrappers for ITI-55 XCPD
535 XCPD: one and only one actOrderRequired element XCOD
539 Allow wildcards in PDQv3 PDQ
542 Introduction section is missing for PDQ v3 PDQ
544 Correct type for On-Demand Document Entries object type XDS
546 Delete reference to ITI-16 XDS
547 On-Demand Document Source replaces persisted documents XDS
548 Document Registry or Document Recipient audit message XDS
549 HPD Duplicate OID HPD
555 BPPC code BPPC
556 HPD Corrections HPD
557 Wrong wrappers for ITI-55 XCPD
558 Case of arguments in XCA Retrieve examples not correct XCA
561 XUA++ PurposeOfUse example lists wrong child element XUA
563 Specify use of IHE Profile in MSH-21 all
564 Clarify IHE Profiling of Field Delimiters all
565 HPD - Attribute Name Wrong HPD
566 HPD - typos in attribute names HPD
567 XCA FindDocuments specifiation of homeCommunityId XCA
568 Typo in ISO standard number HPD
569 Both HTTP-POSTand SOAP allowed for Archive Form RFD
571 Use of CDATA in XDS-SD Content XDS-SD
572 Typo in XCPD example of homeCommunityId XCPD
574 Correct Optionality Typo HPD
577 Is SourcePatientID single or multi-valued XDS
578 XCA needs to more clearly call out the need for patient ID translation XDS
583 Fix incorrect reference XCA
585 Leading Zero in Transaction ID ITI-30, ITI-31
591 Error in 3rd component in PDQ Query Response PDQ
592 Fix section labelling in DSUB DSUB
593 Editorial change of CDA R1 into CDA R2 XDS
597 ATNA Reference in XUA XUA

Assigned CPs

CP assignment

For a list of CPs as they are currently assigned see the latest CP-ITI-Tracking-2011-nn-nn.xls file in the Status directory.

Agenda and Minutes from CP discussions

December 09, 2011

0900h Central

Agenda

  • Ballot-13 Results

Minutes

November 4, 2011

0900h Central

Agenda

Minutes

September 30, 2011

0900h Central

Agenda

  • Assigned CP Discussions
    • CP-ITI-573
    • CP-ITI-498
    • CP-ITI-562
    • CP-ITI-594/599 understand split/duplication?
    • CP-ITI-600
  • Incoming CPs
    • CP-ITI-ESL_Error_message_on_size_mismatch [1] (Assigned, CP-ITI-605)
  • CPs ready for Ballot 13 (Prior Meetings)
    • CP-ITI-493
    • CP-ITI-536
    • CP-ITI-575
    • CP-ITI-602
    • CP-ITI-603
    • CP-ITI-604
  • CPs ready for Ballot 13 (This Meeting)
    • CP-ITI-493
    • CP-ITI-536
    • CP-ITI-573
    • CP-ITI-575
    • CP-ITI-600
    • CP-ITI-602
    • CP-ITI-603
    • CP-ITI-604
    • CP-ITI-605
  • CPs cancelled as duplicate
    • CP-ITI-498 duplicate of earlier CP already integrated into final text TF.
    • CP-ITI-594 duplicate of CP-ITI-599. 594 cancelled.
  • Decide whether to issue a Ballot 13

Minutes

September 16, 2011

0900h Central

Agenda

  • Assigned CP Discussions
  • Incoming CPs
    • CP-ITI-PAS-WrongAuditSchemaReference
  • CPs ready for Ballot 13 (Prior Meetings)
    • CP-ITI-493
    • CP-ITI-536
    • CP-ITI-602
    • CP-ITI-603
  • CPs ready for Ballot 13 (This Meeting)
    • CP-ITI-575
    • CP-ITI-604 (The incoming Wrong AuditSchemaReference)
  • CPs to cancel and move into XD* effort
    • CP-ITI-437
    • CP-ITI-515
  • Decide whether to issue a Ballot 13

Minutes

September 2, 2011

0900h Central

Agenda

  • Assigned CP Discussions
    • CP-ITI-493 (ready for ballot?)
    • CP-ITI-536 (ready for ballot?)
  • Incoming CPs
    • none
  • CPs ready for Ballot 13 (Prior Meetings)
    • CP-ITI-603
    • CP-ITI-602
  • CPs ready for Ballot 13 (This Meeting)(With changes discussed.)
    • CP-ITI-493
    • CP-ITI-536
  • Decide whether to issue a Ballot 13

Minutes

August 19, 2011

0900h Central

Agenda

  • Assigned CP Discussions
    • CP-ITI-602 (ready for ballot?)
  • Incoming CPs
    • CP-ITI-NJ-HPD-extend-memberOf [2]
    • CP-ITI-XUA+_subject_role_version [3]
  • CPs ready for Ballot 13 (Prior Meetings)
    • CP-ITI-603
  • CPs ready for Ballot 13 (This Meeting)
    • CP-ITI-602
  • Decide whether to issue a Ballot 13
    • Not now. Make sure these are finished by November. So ballot in September.

Minutes

We need an HL7 capable editor for 211. Try Forecare and Philips based on their comments. CP-307 perhaps Forecare. CP-356 should be ready for Sept. Remind bill 437, 458, 515. Ask bill whether any of these can be removed and put into his supplement work. 575 remains urgent. Rob 493, 498, 536, 562, 587. John, prep the issues and discuss 496 in Sept. Advance notice and info needed before meeting. Check whether 514 is still needed. Look at final text. CP-580 Reassigned 504 to Karen. CP 516 likely handled by Mary, confirm. CP 523, ask eliot to make fixes to TF 8. Nag vasil on 524 George 576 ready to discuss in Sept. Remind Manuel about 600

Make list of XDS outstanding for prioritization recommendations.

August 5, 2011

0900h Central

Agenda

  • Assigned CP Discussions
  • Incoming CPs
    • CP-ITI-KW-XDR-metadataerror [4]
    • ITI-NJ-HPD-extend-memberOf [5]
    • ITI-XUA+_subject_role_version [6]

Minutes

For CP-211, can Forecare or Philips act as editor to deal with the needed english clarifications.

July 8, 2011

0900h Central

Agenda

  • Ballot-11 Discussion
    • Ballot results (combined spreadsheets and full slate ballots) [7]
    • CP's not unanimously approved
      • CP 573 Remove XForms Option (Tiani response):

We see a problem in the rationale this CP was proposed:
“With the use of XHTML forms, and with HTML 5 the replaising XHTML 2.0 (which was supposed to incorporate XForms, thus providing wide support for the technology) as the next version of HTML, there are practically no implementations of XForms. Leaving XHTML forms as the only option will signifficantly improve interoperability.“
Since we have implemented RFD (with XForms) and are testing it successfully since many years I have talked to one of the W3C/XForms group to verify if this rationale is right and he is very worried about it. It seems that HTML5 is NOT a replacement for XForms and what is even more alarming, that the HTML5 standard is not yet complete and well accepted! (see the whole message below).
This is the detailed message I got back from one of the W3C/XForms group:


HTML5 forms are not a replacement nor functionally equivalent to XForms. This is best documented by the fact that the W3C has re-chartered the XForms working group to develop the next version of the XForms recommendation (XForms 1.2).
Further architecturally HTML5 forms and XForms are quite different. While XForms has a MVC architecture to separate model and views HTML5 does not have such an architecture. But this is important to develop more complex form applications. Further XForms has a strong submission module and repeat module - both not being present in this form in the current HTML5 paper. XForms has strong capabilities with regard to XML - it uses XML as its data format and handles all the details (like namespace handling and XSD datatypes) while HTML5 forms has no special support for XML.
While HTML5 is already partly implemented in browsers it is far from being a finalized standard. In contrast - there are currently two different versions one hosted by the WHATWG and another developed at the W3C. There are a lot of conflicts between the HTML5 work and the other W3C groups and standards. A good writeup that describes the situation can be found at cnet - http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-20008935-264.html Even the authors of the specification do not expect a full HTML5 implementation for several years from now. The unlucky situation between the participants of the HTML5 work currently lead to a very unstable spec that changes all the time. It cannot be expected that the specification will settle in the foreseeable future.
With regard to interoperability HTML5 is a step back into the times of the browsers wars when developers have to test their code on many browsers at the same time to make sure that the code works. Currently the status of the HTML5 feature implementation is varying a lot from browser to browser which is quite the opposite of interoperability.
It is not right that there are 'practically no XForms implementations'. In contrast there a quite a few very stable and complete implementations on the server which leverage details in clients. In fact all modern browser are supported AND in addition further device like tablets and mobiles can also easily be integrated into the infrastructure without a re-write to the forms. Vendors are for instance IBM, betterFORM, Orbeon, EMC, XSLTForms, ODK to name just a few.
XForms has proven himself in very complex environments like eHealth, eGovernment, Air traffic control, insurance, Portals, Science, CMS + ECM etc. etc. Industries are too numerous to be spelled out here.

  • CP 505, 506 Issue and alternatives:
    • Issue: CP 505 and 506 do not change the text of the technical framework. How do we want to manage approving changes to non-framework material and notifying people about the change? Alternatives:
    • Introduce another path (other than CP) for tracking and notifying about changes to examples that are not in the Technical Framework
    • Introduce another state for CPs: "fix example" so that a decision meeting just approves the CP. This skips the ballot phase and just implements the change that is agreed on during a tcon or meeting. This would only apply to examples outside the technical framework.
    • Cancel CPs that just fix examples, together with a note that it was just a change to the example and will proceed to change the example without a CP.
    • Make it clear that we ballot CPs for separate examples, just like we do to examples that are part of the Technical Framework.
    • Don't track changes to ftp examples.
  • CPs ready for discussion
  • Add Ballot 8 to list
  • New CPs
    • ITI-NJ-HPD-extend-memberOf [8]
    • ITI-XUA+_subject_role_version [9]
  • CPs ready for Ballot 13 (Prior Meetings)
    • none
  • CPs ready for Ballot 13 (This Meeting)
    • determine during meeting
  • Other Business

Minutes

June 10, 2011

0900h Central

Agenda

  • CPs ready for discussion
    • CP-577
  • New CPs
    • CP-ITI-LF-ATNA-Encryption-Ref-in-XDS-Vol1.doc
    • CP-ITI-LF-ATNA-Reference-in-XUA.doc
    • CP-ITI-SC_TF_VOL1_HL7CDARelease.doc
    • CP-ITI-SSB-CaretInPatientID.doc
    • ITI-DJH-uniqueId_format_clarification.doc
    • CP-ITI-SC_TF_XDSMU_SUPPL_FolderAvailabilityStatus.doc
  • CPs ready for Ballot 12 (Prior Meetings)
    • none
  • CPs ready for Ballot 12 (This Meeting)
  • Other Business

Minutes

May 13, 2011

0900h Central

Agenda

  • Discussion of PIX/PDQ HL7v3 CPs
    • CP-ITI-474 The PIX/PDQv3 supplement does not document Audit Record Rqmts in Security Considerations
  • CPs ready for discussion
  • New CPs
    • SC_TF_VOL1_HL7CDARelease [10]
    • DJH-uniqueId_format_clarification [11]
    • SSB-CaretInPatientID [12]
    • LF-ATNA-Reference-in-XUA [13]
    • LF-ATNA-Encryption-Ref-in-XDS-Vol1 [14]
  • CPs ready for Ballot 11 (Prior Meetings)
    • CP-ITI-454 Patient Name in V3 PIX Get Corresponding Query Should Match V2
    • CP-ITI-481 Section references in table without a table title are incorrect
    • CP-ITI-485 RFD – urn values are defined incorrectly based on V.3.2.1.1 IHE-WSP201
    • CP-ITI-505 Improve examples
    • CP-ITI-506 Profile Use Of Coding Systems
    • CP-ITI-547 On-Demand Document Source replaces persisted documents
    • CP-ITI-569 Both HTTP-POSTand SOAP allowed for Archive Form
    • CP-ITI-573 Remove XForms Option
    • CP-ITI-578 XCA needs to more clearly call out the need for patient ID translation
    • CP-ITI-583 Fix incorrect reference
    • CP-ITI-585 Leading Zero in Transaction ID
    • CP-ITI-591 Error in 3rd component in PDQ Query Response
    • CP-ITI-592 Fix section labelling in DSUB
    • CP-ITI-593 Editorial change of CDA R1 into CDA R2
  • CPs ready for Ballot 11 (This Meeting)
    • CP-ITI-597 ATNA Reference in XUA
    • CP-ITI-474 The PIX/PDQv3 supplement does not document Audit Record Rqmts in Security Considerations
  • Other Business

Minutes

April 8, 2011

0900h Central

Agenda

  • Discussion of PIX/PDQ HL7v3 CPs
    • CP-ITI-505
    • CP-ITI-506
    • CP-ITI-454
  • CPs ready for discussion
    • CP-ITI-569-01
    • CP-ITI-573-00
    • CP-ITI-547-01
  • New CPs
    • CP-ITI-Forcare-XDSAssociationStatus-default-not-consistent.doc
    • CP-ITI-BM-MPQ-Update [15]
    • CP-ITI-Forecase-DSUBCorrectionForEvenIDInAuditMessage [16]
    • CP-ITI-Forcare-DSUBCorrectionForHomeCommunityIDInAuditMessage [17]
    • CP-ITI-MetadataUpdate-GetAllQueryShouldNotReturnDanglingAssocs [18]
    • CP-ITI-Forcare-XDSb-GetAllQueryIincludesXDSSubmissionSetStatusWhichIsIrrelevan [19]
    • CP-ITI-KW-XCA-section-reference-error [20]
    • CP-ITI-KW-MU-Delete-audit-msg [21]
  • Other Business
    • CP-ITI-578-00
    • CP-ITI-577-00

Minutes

March 11, 2011

0900h Central

Agenda

  • CPs ready for discussion
    • CP-ITI-545 (Bill and Sondra confirm this can be cancelled. Solution is by suitable affinity domain value set for healthcareFacilityCode)
    • CP-ITI-567-01
    • CP-ITI-376
    • CP-iti-454
    • CP-ITI-455
    • CP-ITI-505
    • CP-ITI-506
    • CP-ITI-539
  • New CPs
    • CP-ITI-KW-cardinality-of-sourcePatientId [22]
    • CP-ITI-SMM-clarify-BOM-rqts [23]
    • CP-ITI-MM-wrong-number-or-wrong-content-for-table-3.8-4 [24]
    • CP-ITI-KW-Merge-Supplement [25]
    • CP-ITI-KW-XCA-patientid-translation [26]
    • CP-ITI-KW-HPD-Optionality-Organization [27]
    • CP-ITI-Forcare-MetadataUpdateShouldSpecifyAuditForDelete [28]
    • CP-ITI-BM-Merge-Supplement [29]
  • Information
    • Radiology committee is working on their upgrade CP for HL7 V2.3.1 transition to V2.5. As part of that they are discussing ITI CP-211. (Same time as this tcon.)

Minutes

February 4, 2011

0830h Central

Agenda

  • CPs ready for discussion
  • New CPs
    • CP-ITI-BB-MU-applied-to-MQP [30]
    • cp-iti-bill-xfrm_submission [31]
    • CP-ITI-Forcare-XUApp-PurposeOfUse-example-corrected [32]
    • CP-ITI-HS-MSH21-ProfileID [33]
    • CP-ITI-HS-MSHfieldDelimiters [34]
    • CP-ITI-KW-HPD-AttriNameWrong [35]
    • CP-ITI-KW-HPD-typos-in-attributenames [36]
    • CP-ITI-KW-XCA-homeCommunitryID [37]
    • CP-ITI-LF-HPD-ISO-reference [38]
    • CP-ITI-LF-RFD-Archive-Form [39]
    • CP-ITI-sourcePatientId_shall_not_be_altered_through_versioning [40]
    • CP-ITI-SR-SVS-valueSetOid-attributename [41]
    • CP-ITI-TD-XDS-SD-CDATA-Req [42]
    • CP-ITI-VP-Typo-in-XCPD-example [43]
    • CP-ITI-VP_RFD_Remove_Xforms_Option [44]
    • Question on the intended recipient XON/XCN/XTN (email discussion, CP missing?)
  • Next Ballot List
    • 555
    • 556-01 (use ftp, not incoming)
    • 557-00 (use ftp, not incoming)
    • 558
    • 561
    • 563
    • 564
    • 565
    • 566
    • 568
    • 571
    • 572

Minutes

Retrieved from "http://wiki.ihe.net/index.php?title=ITI_Change_Proposals_2011&oldid=63026"