Page tree
Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

1a. Project Name

Marketplace Product Packaging and Metadata

1b. Project ID


1c. Is Your Project an Investigative Project (aka PSS-Lite)?


1d. Is your Project Artifact being Reaffirmed or proceeding to Normative directly after being either Informative or STU?


1e. Today's Date

1f. Name of standard being reaffirmed

1g. Project Artifact Information

1h. ISO/IEC Standard to Adopt

1i. Does the standard include excerpted text from one or more ISO, IEC or ISO/IEC standards, but is not an identical or modified adoption?

1j. Unit of Measure

2a. Primary/Sponsor WG

Cross-Group Projects

2b. Co-Sponsor WG

Clinical Decision Support

2c. Co-Sponsor Level of Involvement

Request formal content review prior to ballotRequest periodic project updates; specify period in text box below (e.g. 'Monthly', 'At WGMs', etc.)Other Involvement. Specify details in text box below

2c. Co-Sponsor Involvement

Wants active involvement, at least for aspects relevant to CDS concerns.

2b. Co-Sponsor WG 2

Clinical Quality Information

2c. Co-Sponsor Level of Involvement

Request periodic project updates; specify period in text box below (e.g. 'Monthly', 'At WGMs', etc.)

2b. Co-Sponsor WG 3

Service Oriented Architecture

2d. Project Facilitator

Preston Lee

2e. Other Interested Parties (and roles)

2f. Modeling Facilitator

2g. Publishing Facilitator

2h. Vocabulary Facilitator

2i. Domain Expert Representative

Preston Lee, Bryn Rhodes

2j. Business Requirements Analyst

2k. Conformance Facilitator

Bryn Rhodes

2l. Other Facilitators

2m. Implementers

Logica Health, AHRQ

3a. Project Scope

The project goal is to develop a metadata standard that can address how to exchange any standards-based app or clinical content package by any organization (e.g., IHE, HL7, Logica, etc.). Standard metadata modeling is significant to clinical decision support, clinical quality measures, clinical smart apps to manage information for orders, laboratory studies, imaging studies, social determinants of health, patient empowerment calculations, clinical observations, military history, clinical exposures to determine patient risk for disease or injury, insurance benefits, clinical trial candidates, etc. Possible metadata concepts include items such as author / steward of the content, date(s) applicable, inclusion criteria, exclusion criteria, references, supporting evidence, strength of evidence and recommendation, expected users, etc, with actual concepts to be developed as part of the project.
As metadata elements need to address and accommodate resources owned and managed across HL7's product families, i.e. FHIR, CDA, V2, as well as resources that are found outside of the HL7 (i.e. BPM+), the project should be managed in Cross-Group Projects rather than a single area/domain. There is some existing work in CDS and CQI that will represent a good start and therefore, those WGs have signed on as co-sponsors, but to scope is to generalize those metadata for all concerns.

The Logica/HL7 Health Services Marketplace Release 2 (the "Specification" under SOA) provides a vendor-agnostic API for publication, curation, discovery, and distribution of interoperable service implementations. It is design to be agnostic to programming language, development framework, database, and I/O technologies, as well as account for client-side applications that require on-site deployment, such as SMART-on-FHIR.

This implementation guide defines the product metadata for products implementing several prominent or emerging HIT standards. That is, marketplace implementors intending to support curation and exchange of standardized product types should follow the guidance provided here to optimally support exchange of of product listings across implementations. Once implemented, marketplace operators should be able to:

* Accept manual and automated product build submissions from developers compliant with the standards supported under this IG.
* Post-product submission, provide:
** Automated "smoke test"-level regression testing against standard-specific compliance validations.
** Manual review by non-technical SMEs.
* Allow users to search for relevant products based on standard- and artifact-specific metadata, such as via free text search.


3b. Project Need

The Marketplace API STU does not define "product metadata" structures for asset submissions, as it is assumed the implementor will select schemas specific to and specialized for each supported standard relevant to the purpose of the implementation and content types.

3c. Security Risk


3d. External Drivers

3e. Objectives/Deliverables and Target Dates

2020 May Connectathon
2020 September ballot cycle; will attempt to keep dates aligned with external stakeholder organizations and events such as AHRQ roadmap, HIMSS, MCBK etc.

3f. Common Names / Keywords / Aliases:

Marketplace Product Packaging and Metadata

3g. Lineage

3h. Project Dependencies

HSP Marketplace 2 STU1 (under SOA WG)
Collaboration with external communities concerns with computable HIT metadata structures.

3i. HL7-Managed Project Document Repository URL:

3j. Backwards Compatibility


3k. Additional Backwards Compatibility Information (if applicable)

3l. Using Current V3 Data Types?


3l. Reason for not using current V3 data types?


3m. External Vocabularies


3n. List of Vocabularies

3o. Earliest prior release and/or version to which the compatibility applies

4a. Products

Guidance (e.g. Companion Guide, Cookbook, etc)

4b. For FHIR IGs and FHIR Profiles, what product version(s) will the profiles apply to?

4c. FHIR Profiles Version

4d. Please define your New Product Definition

4d. Please define your New Product Family

5a. Project Intent

Implementation Guide (IG) will be created/modified

5a. White Paper Type

5a. Is the project adopting/endorsing an externally developed IG?


5a. Externally developed IG is to be (select one)

5a. Specify external organization

5a. Revising Current Standard Info

5b. Project Ballot Type

STU to Normative

5c. Additional Ballot Info

5d. Joint Copyright


5e. I understand I must submit a Joint Copyright Letter of Agreement to the TSC in order for the PSS to receive TSC approval.


6a. External Project Collaboration

Will be under the same Joint Project Plan and MOU with Logica Health as the Marketplace STU. Should not require changes to those agreements.

6b. Content Already Developed


6c. Content externally developed?


6d. List Developers of Externally Developed Content

6e. Is this a hosted (externally funded) project?


6f. Stakeholders

Clinical and Public Health Laboratories, Regulatory Agency, Standards Development Organizations (SDOs), Payors, Other

6f. Other Stakeholders

6g. Vendors

EHR, PHR, Health Care IT, HIS

6g. Other Vendors

6h. Providers

Local and State Departments of Health, Healthcare Institutions (hospitals, long term care, home care, mental health)

6h. Other Providers

6i. Realm


7d. US Realm Approval Date

7a. Management Group(s) to Review PSS

7b. Sponsoring WG Approval Date

Feb 20, 2020

7c. Co-Sponsor Approval Date

Feb 06, 2020

7c. Co-Sponsor 2 Approval Date

Feb 06, 2020

7c. Co-Sponsor 3 Approval Date

7c. Co-Sponsor 4 Approval Date

7c. Co-Sponsor 5 Approval Date

7c. Co-Sponsor 6 Approval Date

7c. Co-Sponsor 7 Approval Date

7c. Co-Sponsor 8 Approval Date

7c. Co-Sponsor 9 Approval Date

7c. Co-Sponsor 10 Approval Date

7e. CDA MG Approval Date

7f. FMG Approval Date

7g. V2 MG Approval Date

7h. Architecture Review Board Approval Date

7i. Steering Division Approval Date

Feb 25, 2020

7j. TSC Approval Date

Mar 30, 2020

 Show Changes

1 Comment

  1. Preston Lee Bryn Rhodes I am sending this to TSC e-vote today, but I believe this will need a publishing facilitator added to receive approval.