Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

Attendance can be found Here

Co-Chair and Key Participant information can be found on the Agenda found Here

Discussion items


UTG Policy and Implementation implications

  • We do have provenance history for V3 content going back 14 years - not currently published, but internal in old V3 maintenance tools and for V2 history going back 27/28 years.
  • Going forward, once we go live with UTG, every change to a collection object (code system or value set) is audited in history tracking. Right now for V2 code system resources, we've added a UTG extension to track concept history changes. These are tracked in V2 artefacts on a concept by concept level.
  • We have never tracked things at a finer granularity than at the collection product/level for V2 and V3. Not ideal, so UTG will track things at a code system and value set granularity.
  • Concept level auditing required, but will not be available soon.
  • Confirmed that SNOMED CT supports concept level auditing
  • Group broadly supports the addition of concept level tracking for code systems
  • Ted to bring up standing up a terminology service at SGB
  • We have two option regarding expansions:
    • Generate, store, publish the expansions;
    • Stand up a terminology service
  • Ted moves that Vocabulary and MnM recommend that as part of the unified terminology strategy that HL7 International stands up a terminology service. that supplies the terminology functions necessary for the access to the content that HL7 refers to in published standards. Lloyds seconds. 10-0-0. Motion carries unanimously
  • Agreed that the proposal needs to be put to TSC.
  • Implication if service is provided: expansion element will not be provided in UTG.
12:01V3 UTG updateTed Klein
  • Lloyd has analysed generated content and found issues.
  • Of the 52 issues identified on the UTG resources representing V3 content and 41 have been addressed. More are being discovered.
  • Lloyd confirms in February the next tranche of issues will be provided. Ted thinks this may be concerning for timelines. Lloyd will try to get it in sooner.
  • Ted to talk to Dave Hamill
  • V3 has a lot of external code system references that are published. The vast majority of these (all but 1 or 2) does not enumerate the content. Just a reference. In moving to UTG, much of this has not been done.
  • Issue of context binding needs to be addressed.
  • Ted expects all remaining items to be addressed in the next few weeks before February.
  • We want to close all open items before Lloyds re-assesses.
  • Structural codes: the notion of ballot bound codes in FHIR, and the same notion in V2 - most are HL7 tables. Changes cannot happen separately to the ballot. In V3, no auto generation, but is simple code simple structural codes. Some of these are maintained outside the RIM ballot process. Ted to go through and make the short list for V3 content. Some things only change when we publish a new RIM.
  • The current plan is to treat this as non-UTG. Maintained in the ballot process.
  • Lloyds expectation is that MIF is frozen and things will be migrated to UTG.
  • For CDA: over one hundred value sets, possibly over 400 . Would like to move these to UTG. Many are not CCDA - come from other CDA and CCDDA implementation guides.
  • Some programming work required. Ultimately, we may need to process the resources from Lantana to migrate them to UTG.
  • A plan exists for bringing these in and ready for a decision in Montreal.
  • Good news: no code systems defined. All based on external or HL7 V3 code systems.
  • Ted told that some FHIR value sets exist, but not confirmed yet.
  • On CDA 2.1, request was made to harmonzation for changes to the RIM to support 2.1 due to conflicts with the RIM. A fork of the RIM was proposed. Tooling and maintenance process could not facilitate that. So, the ones that we non-conflicting were added. Austin to come back with alternative proposals which did not require a fork. Ted not received further updates. No further UTG action for now.

Action items

  • Russell Hamm to talk to Austin to work out the correct path for the terminology service proposal.
  • Ted Klein to talk to Dave Hamill regarding timeframes.
  • Ted Klein to identifier different outliers in V3 space in the MIF. For each, we need to identify whether we will freeze them and not maintain them; or to continue maintaining them going forward. Also, will we transition them to UTG. If no, we need to document the maintenance publication process.
  • No labels