Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata


--Very knowledgeable participants
--Well-known and well-used Standards

- Weaknesses

--Lack of regular participation
--Lack of resourcing to work with other groups or new work items
--Scope of WG is narrow
--Need for a new standard is not uniform.  There are a couple of efforts in other HL7 WGs which will need either modified or new INM standards which have not been resourced.  One project needs additional work with batch.  Another project(s) are working on services (which will also affect the current INM standards).

- Opportunities

--FHIR focus overlaps InM traditional focus.

- Threats

--Limited participation
--Limited Scope
--There is limited interest in V3 in general.
--FHIR is taking many of the resources.

--InM and OO are the last bastions of version 2.

-Discussion points:

- Real focus is message transport over wire.
- Much of the core work has been moved elsewhere.
- We need to answer the model of a SOA sender sending a message where one of the recipients is a repository which receives messages.
- Our responsibility/value added is to ensure that V3 FHIR communications will support at a minimum V2 use cases in the newer technologies.
- We will define and make visible and put on paper the V2 use cases for reference.  
- We need to make sure that the payload will get from the sender to the receiver.
- If blue classes (MCAI/MCCI) are removed, we have yet another form of loosely coupled communication.  
- There are few established V3 ‘legacy’ applications.  We should ask the community to help expand the set of use cases. 

Approved 2022-01-18 InM January WGM Q1 Minutes

  • No labels