Web Meeting Info:
Join Zoom Meeting - https://zoom.us/j/7183806281?pwd=WHVnUUlkWWhhcnRaYk9sWWQyOEkvUT09 | Meeting ID: 718 380 6281 P: 370553
+1 646 558 8656 US (New York) | Find your local number: https://zoom.us/u/aciVC9RrJ6
- Ted Klein
- Rob McClure
- Reuben Daniels
- Robert Hausam
- Rob McClure
- R4B and R5
Co-chair webinar schedule
Co-chair webinars collide with main WG call once a month. Do we want to try and change the day/time. Ted asked Sadhana about this schedule. She has not yet answered.
Possibly swap with co-chair call.
Rob M. suggests that we have a main Vocab call every week. Not everyone agrees.
|R4B ticket status||Rob H|
Note here: it mentions that datatypes can be added to R4B https://chat.fhir.org/#narrow/stream/179165-committers/topic/R4B
29945 (Naming System maturity level),
29960 (Concept Map Dragon) and
29113 (Naming System ownership)
are the R4B tickets as discussed on 2/11/2021 FHIR Tracker call. They must be applied by March 3, 2021
RD: suggests RH reach out to Marc to see if this can be done by Feb 22.
RH: he feels confident that this can be done by Feb 22. RD is plan B.
|R5 Criteria||From LM email|
FMG requesting exactly what content fits one of these criteria. Must be clean and ready for QA by March 30.
Vocab has a lot of tickets to consider. Need to determine how tickets are prioritized.
CC gave a description of what happened at the FHIR tracker call related to R5.
Some tickets have been taken care of, others might be transferred to UTG, some are OID related.
Any OID needed for an IG/specification reference can be added to the OID registry free of charge.
RM: is there some requirement that OIDs created for a specification have to be in the OID registry?
Ted: there is no requirement, no formal statement from SGB/TSC.
RM: is it possible that OIDs are assigned in the HL7 OID root that are not in the OID registry?
TK: ANSI delegated responsibility for that root to HL7. For type .3, HL7 would delegate responsibility to the organization that registered the OID. Type 6 = CodeSystems. Type 5 = V3 Core MIF. Type 11 = Value Sets from harmonization. Type 13 = Value Sets referenced in specifications that didn't go through the harmonization process. Type 4 = identifier spaces (e.g internal HL7 organizations like FHIR which then have the responsibility for subsequent OIDs)
All value sets in the FHIR specs do not have an OID.
Going forward: we need to define a governance policy for OIDs.
How to prioritize
Please make sure you update tickets when you have a comment, or an idea about how to approach a ticket. Link to background information, or link to a Zulip chat. The ticket should be the main place to go to find info.
Ted asked about the DesignationUse code system/value set. Not critical for R4B, but must be in R5 draft. UP-107 must be applied for R5 draft. Rob H and Ted will work off-line to resolve this issue.
Rob H. could R5 draft be the milestone rather than R4B.
TK: suppressing warnings in build, 8 hard errors that cannot be suppressed are not documented in tickets. CodeSystem resource updated with an extension, but build not updated to support. Uncomfortable releasing new THO with the 8 hard errors. Related to external code systems.
|Using Codes / Selecting a Code System Identifier Text Review|
Co-chair review of this text:
Confirm so ticket can be applied.
Sent link in meeting chat - co-chairs please review.
|Code System Identifier Deprecation|
Discussion from 2/08
Action item from 2/1: compare/merge material from WGM Policy for terminology in FHIR IGs and the Vocab material during the Task Force call today. Done.
2/15/2021 Update: Vocab needs to define a deprecated identifier policy - the addition of a new publication status code is great, but doesn't solve everything. There is an immediate need to document how to work with the R4 definition before we get to R5. Based on last discussions, implementations can't distinguish between inactive and deprecated by looking at the effective period. TK will update the ticket with his thoughts on this issue. Unfortunately we are time limited. This was pushed to R5.
|External code systems - Canada|
Did not discuss on this call.
Discussion from 2/15:
Rob H: get the proposed text integrated into the FHIR specification (in the CI build), and review in context.
We reviewed FHIR-29968 and did not get to the point where we have a text block to propose for the R5 build.
This was discussed at length during Q5 Tuesday during the WGM. Jan 2021 - HL7 WGM - Tuesday Q5 Minutes
See discussion notes from previous co-chair call: 2021-01-18 Vocab Chair Agenda/Minutes
Should we also review the definition of preferred binding strength?
How to distinguish between extensible and preferred?
Did not get to this topic
Supporting C-CDA FHIR IG
Did not get to this topic
|From WGM. How does C-CDA address terminology quality now that Term Info cannot be referenced?|