Teleconference 2020-04-15

Carol and Suzy Roy 

and Sara Armson

Any comments on the Web-RADR2 mapping?

Vital Signs Content in the SOLOR extension.  The correct process is to use the US content request process via the NLM.  One person per project should be responsible for submission.

The Social Determinants of Health concepts should also go to the US content request process via the NLM.  Susan will reach out to Lisa/Monique to ensure the correct process is followed

Has sent JIRA ticket to Ken McCaslin for the FHIR Accelerator page and also reached out to PIC for the Co-Chair handbook.

Question from the Clinical Practice Guidelines IG

https://jira.hl7.org/browse/FHIR-24233

http://www.ilo.org/public/english/bureau/stat/isco/index.htm

This is a "crank the handle" for the URI process Reuben Daniels

What to do when a code system is really version sensitive

This is also "crank the handle" for the URI process Julie James

FHIR generally needs a single non-version specific URI for the code system.  Can also ask for version identification information.   

Many of the codesystems defined in FHIR have HL7 based URIs because collaboration with the source was not successful in the past. See history of issue here: https://chat.fhir.org/#narrow/stream/179175-argonaut/topic/ICD-9.20and.20ICD-10.20system.20URIs/near/192666104

This is a "crank the handle" for the URI process Caroline Macumber

Look at PHIN Vads as another example of external codeystems for which the owners need to be contacted https://phinvads.cdc.gov/vads/ViewCodeSystem.action?id=2.16.840.1.113883.12.292#

The current URL is possibly "not resolvable" and therefore not suitable Caroline Macumberand Reuben Danielswith Ted Klein

URI syntax https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3986.txt

STILL OPEN: Other ISO standards to check

 The current ask within BCP47 is

• Davera Gabriel will look up more information about BCP-47 (a document authored by the IETF trust) for language codes in the US Core FHIR IG.  Davera will check if this is actually a "nested reference" and is actually a syntax using ISO

It still unclear what the implications of the difference are. The applicable section to review is "2.2 Language Subtag Sources and Interpretation" in https://tools.ietf.org/html/bcp47. Davera will look at the US Core FHIR IG to determine if they are referencing the ISO set for Language Codes and/or another set or a syntax

Previous commentary is shown below:

Process comment: Meeting minutes from meeting in which these items were originally discussed were updated after the fact. Requesting that assignments are tagged with a user name so users can be notified. 

• FHIR also uses the IANA Time Zones https://www.iana.org/time-zones
• Davera Gabriel will look up more information about BCP-47 (a document authored by the IETF trust) for language codes in the US Core FHIR IG.  Davera will check if this is actually a "nested reference" and is actually a syntax using ISO codes https://tools.ietf.org/html/bcp47
• (follow-up from Davera) Appologies for needing to step away & then not getting back to this in the meeting.  In the document linked above is the answer to the question.  On Page 8, under the section: "2.2. Language Subtag Sources and Interpretation" there is an explanation of the name spacing used to construct the BCP-47 "tags."  It is my read that the answer to the question as posited is a hybrid of the two options you propose in your question.  There is structure within the tags, but Im not sure that includes your posited definition of "syntax."  One would have to parse the tags to derive syntax, but as this is standard it could be done.  As such, what I intended to do in the meeting is discuss what was meant by question created the amended meeting minutes and NOT in the original meeting minutes: "Davera will check if this is actually a "nested reference" and is actually a syntax using ISO codes" to see if the tag / subtag structure fit your intended question definition of "syntax."  In practice, the subtags are intended to designate corollaries to portions of ISO 639.x designating spoken or written languages. 
• I would further suggest we consult with the folks that suggested the use of BCP-47 as to their intentions.  I'd be very interested to learn whether they are interested in capturing a written versus spoken language.  My hunch is that there's a much simpler explanation than that, in which case splitting the BCP-47 tags is not implied, nor necessary for their use case, and if so:  we are overthinking a bit

Report on the meeting with FMG

FHIR Vocabulary Binding for Authors