Teleconference 2019-05-28

Update inc. email from Jane

Email from Jane to WK and Julie 20190516; "Your point was helpful and there has been decision to add the FSN to the format of the list – along with identifier and preferred term. By adding the FSN, the meaning of the concept is clear, with a clinically meaningful description as well."

The HTA is very grateful for this change and Julie will respond to Jane.

The HTA will now consider how to promote the use of the GPS when it is issued on 1st September 2019.

Joint TC:

Email from Lorraine Constable:

As we discussed briefly in Montreal, ArB would like to schedule some joint time with HTA to discuss the terminology related aspects of the RTSS paper. We would be happy to join an upcoming HTA call when it is convenient for your schedule. Once we know the date, we will distribute updated content, but the current version can be found on Confluence at:

https://confluence.hl7.org/display/ARB/Realm+Transferable+Standards+Specifications+Design+Documents

If HTA prefers, we can also use ArB call time, which, beginning next week, is at 5 ET on Thursdays.

HTA prefers that that ArB join the HTA call on 25 June, as 5 ET is too late for our European members.

HTA will review the work so far and discuss on our next call.  One key principle would be that this document is about "standards specifications" and for a standard, the terminology value sets should be exemplar for domain specific terminology; it does not have to be a fixed binding.

The general understanding of "binding" for terminology is very poor and is different for the different product families.  There has been a very long running (over a decade) project in Vocab to try to describe the binding process, but has not been successful for various reasons.   Information from the project is on Confluence at Vocabulary Binding Semantics (VBS) Project - INACTIVE

The difference or otherwise between a specification, a FHIR Profile and/or a FHIR Implementation Guide needs to be clear, particularly with reference to terminology binding.

How should we go about effecting an update to the GOM?  The GOM is owned by the "Executive Committee" which is the HL7 Board, but managed by the TSC.   How should we practically work out liaison with the TSC?

Rob: Is the HTA going to be a "WG for external terminologies"?  No - it's going to concentrate on policies for terminology management in HL7, so the GOM will need some change.  Plan: Julie will make a start on changes then discuss on the next call.  Then we will request a joint meeting with TSC to seek their approval before Board.  HTA can also start a conversation with TSC regarding the policies we have to work on and if they have any comments to make on that, to get some dialogue going.  Rob is now on TSC as one of the Infrastructure Steering Division chairs and is finding his way in how it functions.

Identification of code systems - OIDs, URLs, URIs

The policy is how to deal with identification - NOT to implement it - that should be UTG or the Work Groups (who is responsible may be part of the policy).

Step 1 should be "go back to the code system authority".  But in many cases the authority either won't or can't respond. So what should the pattern for the next steps be - that's the policy.  DICOM make their FHIR value sets available on the website; the canonical URL ends .html - which is probably not what the policy for a canonical URL should look like (why not?).  Rob will send the Zulip links that relate to this for the group to look at. 

https://chat.fhir.org/#narrow/stream/179202-terminology/topic/DICOM.20providing.20FHIR.20CodeSystems.20and.20ValueSets

FHIR tracker items in H Group for HTA consideration - they are all external code system use requests