Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

Chair:  

Scribe: 


NOTE: This attendance applies if you are present at the related meeting/call, regardless if you have signed a different attendance for your WG. 

Attendees

Present

Name

Affiliation

x

Craig Newman

v2MG
xFrank Oemigv2MG

Tony Julianv2MG
xRiki Merrickv2MG

Elizabeth Newtonv2MG

Amit Popat

v2MG
xNick Radovv2MG
xRob Snelickv2MG
xLynn LaaksoHL7
xBrian Pech
xMike Faughn

This is a Friday afternoon call


Agenda Topics

Agenda Item

Meeting Minutes from Discussion

Ack Choreography
  • There are 4 ACK messages defined in Ch 5 that differ only from the General ACK message by not allowing repeats of ERR segment.  Is this an error?:
    • ACK^Q16^ACK
    • ACK^Q17^ACK
    • ACK^J01^ACK
    • ACK^J02^ACK
    • ANSWER: Not allowing ERR repeats is definetly and error, but it would be a substantial change, so this is CR for next version Craig Newman to create gForge entry
  • There are 19 ACK messages that differ only from the General ACK by allowing repeats of the UAC segment.  Why are they different?
    • ACK^S12^ACK: General Acknowledgment: General Acknowledgment, Ch. 10
    • ACK^S13^ACK: General Acknowledgment: General Acknowledgment, Ch. 10
    • ACK^S14^ACK: General Acknowledgment: General Acknowledgment, Ch. 10
    • ACK^S15^ACK: General Acknowledgment: General Acknowledgment, Ch. 10
    • ACK^S16^ACK: General Acknowledgment: General Acknowledgment, Ch. 10
    • ACK^S17^ACK: General Acknowledgment: General Acknowledgment, Ch. 10
    • ACK^S18^ACK: General Acknowledgment: General Acknowledgment, Ch. 10
    • ACK^S19^ACK: General Acknowledgment: General Acknowledgment, Ch. 10
    • ACK^S20^ACK: General Acknowledgment: General Acknowledgment, Ch. 10
    • ACK^S21^ACK: General Acknowledgment: General Acknowledgment, Ch. 10
    • ACK^S22^ACK: General Acknowledgment: General Acknowledgment, Ch. 10
    • ACK^S23^ACK: General Acknowledgment: General Acknowledgment, Ch. 10
    • ACK^S24^ACK: General Acknowledgment: General Acknowledgment, Ch. 10
    • ACK^S26^ACK: General Acknowledgment: General Acknowledgment, Ch. 10
    • ACK^S27^ACK: General Acknowledgment: General Acknowledgment, Ch. 10
    • RSP^E03^RSP_E03: HealthCare Services Invoice Query Response, Ch. 16
    • EHC^E10^EHC_E10: Edit/Adjudication Results, Ch. 16
    • RSP^E22^RSP_E22: Authorization Request Query Response, Ch. 16
    • EHC^E24^EHC_E24: Authorization Response, Ch. 16
    • ANSWER: 
      • UAC provides authentication information
      • use case for sending everything you have, and let receiver review them all to determine if any one of those is applicable
      • changing repeatability would be a breaking change
      • no reason to not allow it
      • should update the generic ACK message to allow repetition as well
      • Send to INM Craig Newman to make gForge ticket and assign to INM
  • Michael's email:

  • I checked and that one AC table that we have already reviewed that had no Application ACK row is the only one that seems to be missing a row

    I did a little bit more exploration with regard to acknowledgment choreography.

    I collected all of the messages that are used as application acks. I then removed those that look like the general ack message, which should leave only messages that could be sending back information (i.e. response messages). I then checked all of those response messages to see which ones specified the possibility of responding to said response message with an application ack in enhanced mode. I can't guarantee that my scripts are perfect but here's what I got: Only Ch. 13 appears to have response messages that you may send an application ack to in enhanced mode. They are all sending general ack messages as application acks.

    13 - EAR^U08^EAR_U08: Equipment Command Message --> ["ACK^U08^ACK: General Acknowledgment"]

    13 - ESU^U01^ESU_U01: Equipment Status Message --> ["ACK^U01^ACK: General Acknowledgement"]

    13 - INU^U05^INU_U05: Inventory Update Message --> ["ACK^U05^ACK: General Acknowledgment"]

    13 - LSU^U12^LSU_U12: Equipment Log/Service Message --> ["ACK^U12^ACK: General Acknowledgment"]

    13 - SSU^U03^SSU_U03: Specimen Status Message --> ["ACK^U03^ACK: General Acknowledgment"]

    13 - TCU^U10^TCU_U10: Test Code Settings Update --> ["ACK^U10^ACK: General Acknowledgment"]

    These Ch.13 messages also specify the sending of an application ack in original mode. I think that there is only one other response message that specifies an application ack in original mode. It is ORA^R41^ORA_R41 in Ch. 7,

    checked all messages that are ever sent as application ACKs and are requesting application ACKs back

    • What are the cases in which response message specifies, when you can send application ACK to Application ACK?

      • Found several in Chapter 13 (Lab Automation) and Chapter 7
      • Ulrike Merrick to review LCC for that scenario

        • this is the filler placing an order on hold and suggesting a replacement order instead - need to check if LCC does that with OML or ORL
      • If Filler sends the reflex order to request the assigned placer order number back but that cannot be used for some reason

      • In more general terms:

        • if the filler application cannot do the work requested in the order, that might happen

    • Send to InM and Ulrike Merrick to ask Ralf Herzog what he thinks about that

v2 Conformance Publication Request
  • Rob is preparing the publication request but is encountering a few issues that Lynn will follow up on
  • some notes:
    • Use verbs at the beginning of the sentence to describe benefits

    • add in that the NIST IGAMT tool should be used to create IGs

    • the form hides form elements that are not applicable to the selected type of document (for example for normative, no fields to identify desired STU period etc)
  • When complete, the form should be sent to Anne and Lynn
  • The Conformance WG is expected to look at this next week
Update from the Co-Chair call
  • reminded folks that we still want to us to review the status of the work products / base standards in the product grid
  • Adding a pre-approval step for PSS submission - to help folks find a place for their projects in a more reasonable timeline
  • Next Co-Chair call on May 18 is at 3PM ET

Agenda for next call
  • Melva's 2 emails:
    • Review the V2 artifacts we want to have comments on (for Jira migration)
    • Review the suggested statuses of the standards and IGs in the product grid

Supporting Documents

Outline Reference

Supporting Document

Minute Approval


Tasks

  •