Sept 2020 - Virtual HL7 WGM - Friday 130PM Minutes

Vocab hosting HTA and FHIR-I

• Raffirmation of single UTG external code system repository motion wtih FHIR-I

"Vocab and HTA recommend that HL7 create a single maintained authoratative repository of information about external code systems and their use (e.g., copyright and identifiers) in HL7 artifacts at terminology.hl7.org. The authority for changes to the repository content rests solely with HTA. Only at the explicit request of a external terminology owner, will the external code system content be included in the respository."

Vocab and HTA recommend that HL7 create a single maintained authoritative repository of information about external code systems and their use (e.g., copyright and identifiers) in HL7 artifacts at terminology.hl7.org. The authority for changes to the repository content rests solely with HTA. Only at the explicit request of a external terminology owner, will the external code system content be included in the repository.

Rob McClure (RM) proposes that FHIR-I be added to the subject of the first sentence.

Vocab, FHIR-I and HTA recommend that HL7 create a single maintained authoritative repository of information about external code systems and their use (e.g., copyright and identifiers) in HL7 artifacts at terminology.hl7.org. The authority for changes to the repository content rests solely with HTA. Inclusion of external code system code content will follow HTA processes.

Usage in HL7 artifacts specific to product families will reside where product family management deem them to reside. 

Mary Kay Daniels: moves that the text directly above be adopted.

Ted Klein seconds.

Further discussion: 

Ted Klein (TK:) he has been telling people that we include content from external terminology owners only when there is an officially documented agreement to do so. 

RM: this point is part of the motion. 

Mover and seconder are ok with rewording the last sentence.

Grahame Grieve (GG) we agreed yesterday that we would leave using code system pages in the FHIR specification. This statement doesn't cover the "using code system" pages. 

Julie James (JJ): the information published by HTA comes from the code system owner. She is concerned about documented consent - there might be opportunity for more work. 

Lenel: we need to get onto the Mary Kay issues. 

Lloyd McKenzie (LM): Agrees with GG's point. What does this statement mean in terms of value set expansions?

Reuben Daniels (RD): value set expansions are not related to this statement. 

RM: suggests leaving this to another discussion.

LM: his concern is that this language will infer that value set expansions.

Motion above in bold italics

Vote: Abstain:  1    Against: 0   For:  26 

This will go to TSC next.

• Continuation of discussion re issues publishing external code systems with copyright issues (aka, "The MK Issue).

Scope of topic:

1. AMA = 1/1 new, existing needs revision
2. CMS = 3/3 (2 new, 1 needs correction across all implementations)
3. NCPDP = representing NDC 11
4. NUBC = 6/6 (4 new, 2 corrections)
   1. SOU with HTA signed
   2. AHA has spreadsheet in hand
5. X12 = 75ish/100ish
   1. Status - they are working with us

Process issues:

1. short term, mid=term, long-term
2. Short:
   1. IGs trying to publish in the the next 30-60 days
   2. all code system issues not resolved (some charge $$)
      1. cannot be exposed in IG if there is a charge
   3. Code Systems and Value Sets are used - whoever publishes first gets to name them however they want
      1. Defining URL
      2. Name
      3. Title
      4. Publisher
      5. Copyright
      6. Definition
   4. AdmitSource - is in every IG
   5. How to manage approvals from IP owner
   6. How to coordinate among developers
3. Mid
   1. next 90 days
   2. new Code systems/value sets that do not use protected IP
4. Long
   1. STEPS documented for adding codes in UTG
   2. STEPS for implementers/analysts are documented where? 

TK: if in UTG, then the publisher will use that information

RM: The elements in 2.c are the ones that have to be valued correctly. 

MD: not addressing versioning (some of these code systems are updated annually)

We do not drive the code system timing.

RM: These element values will change as we transition to formal publication. Is there a way that we can allow the IGs to go forward, that the values need to be agreed to by HTA, and we need to do something so that it can be noted in the publication that these values are not finalized. Then the IG needs to be re-published. 

Is this possible?

GG: this might not be ideal, but it is a process. This is something editors would have to do on the front page.

LM: what are we allowed to publish in absence of a formal agreement with the external party?

If it turns out to be true that we need formal agreement to have any sort of canonical url, then its difficult to have a code system stub? Value a url that is human-readable and includes a warning.

What can be included in the non-final IG that won't get us in hot water but provides information of use to the implementer community?

CC: What code systems are we are missing this information for? 

MD: AHA NUBC (American Hospital Association) (National Uniform Billing Codes)

RM: Back to Lloyd's points - how to move forward tactically. These can be addressed.

We can manage the potential issue with examples with text and technical corrections. 

TK: agrees with RM. Question to MD and LJ: would it be possible in conversations with the external organizations to explain that their IP will be represented in a provisional manner in initial publications. 

LJ: we need to be independent to the degree possible, if we ask for more, we will wait and we can't afford to wait. 

MD: caution - past experience has been negative in some cases with the organizations in play.  We can build out the stubs, and tell developers to value things correctly - consistency is desired. It will be a challenge to enforce compliance across the guides.

TK: it is incumbent upon HL7 to come up with the process. 

JJ: Supports moving forward

LJ: Swapna at LOINC recently approached HTA and provided some excellent text that could be repurposed in relation to IP and where to go to get the concepts, etc.

JJ: she agrees we do have some good wording, Swapna's wording is related to 3rd party content within the CodeSsytem.

The issue is managing the technical info. 

1. draft the UTG proposals in anticipation of getting the information
2. propose a temporary canonical url 
   1. guess at a good one 
   2. make it non-sensical / obvious that this isn't a real url
      1. we have urls to the owner license pages
      2. Suggestions
         1. domain = example.org   (validator will find these)  (rejected based on how this is supposed to be used)
         2. RD: create specific hl7.example.org  (attendees liked this)
3. Define the text that will go in the top of the IG and also in each resource indicating that the items noted may change

The example url could be used as a 'flag' and we can track the use of identifiers (in tooling) that take advantage of the HL7 example domain. 

Motion:

Rob McClure moves that we accept the following text:

Rob Hausam seconds. 

When a finalized external code system is not in terminology.hl7.org, IG authors will be able to obtain the necessary information per HTA process, a specific url based in example.hl7.org will be obtained, and they will also submit a request to HTA to begin the process for information regarding the external code system. 

Once the finalized external code system information is available, the expectation is that for any published HL7 artifact that references the provisional code system information, a technical correction will be published.  

Further discussion:

RD: fix some of the grammar in the 1st para.  

RM: accepts the friendly amendment, as does RH

Vote:  Abstain: 0  Against: 0   For:  25

JJ: Note: the canonical urls will be required on project scope statements - this should alleviate some of the timing issues

GG: does this mean that this is what is supposed to happen in Mary Kay's IGs? Mary Kay - are you ok with this?

MD: she understand the meaning and implications of the change, 

RM: 

Immediate tasks

1. set up the process to assign urls in the example domain
2. craft the language to add to IGs
   1. Beginning of IG
   2. For each code system (this might be tougher to implement)

CM notes that we have a main vocab call next week, this will be at the top of the agenda

Viet: how will this information be communicated

RM: suggestions?

Viet: a single call or maybe a couple, applies to anything in ballot reconciliation or pre-publication

MD: somebody has to go back to IP owners to let them know what is happening 

RM: we need to post this information in a Confluence page and let everyone know its there - an HL7 wide notification? 

CM: Julie, is she amenable to having HTA take on the communication to IP owners suggested by MD? Yes

HTA will add this to their agenda for next week.

TK: did CM say that the temporary urls would not go into UTG - this might not be true. 

GG: the tooling implications of this decision can be carried over on the Zulip channel.