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
Regrets Rob McClure
- Confirm R4B changes
- R5 ticket approach - prioritize
- Address Zoom bombing
We addressed the co-chair webinar issue.
March 11 call collides with FHIR tracker. Attendees agreed to start the next tracker call at 5 pm ET, and extend to 2 hours to address Concept Map issues. Michael Lawley synthesized open issues and we will discuss as a collection. https://gist.github.com/lawley/3a59cf669d29a6d62e2948bc51e101a3
Rob H has changed this call.
Still not addressed: Rob M. suggests that we have a main Vocab call every week. Not everyone agrees.
Zoom bombs are on the rise. Implement waiting room?
Ted suggests we wait until the first bomb occurs. He suggests that there always be more than 1 host. A host can put someone in the waiting room even without setting up waiting room. The host can also bring someone back from the waiting room.
|R4B ticket status||Rob H|
R4B Tickets Must be applied and QA'ed by March 3. Vocab goal is Feb 22.
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 *******StructureDefinition for comparison not available.
29113 (Naming System ownership)
Notification sent to all co-chairs. Any issues?
Release not yet started, delayed because of a build bug. If not able to successfully build this week, the release will be abandoned for R4B.
|R5||From LM email|
R5 draft deadline is in 29 days. Vocab needs to think about how to prioritize the work to be done. Will discuss on main WG call.
RD: Why is there an R5 draft? What is the different between R5 draft and R5? Doesn't the CI build process validate changes?
TK: The CI build doesn't check 100% of the updates.
R5 draft will be everything in the CI build as of March 30. No lock that these would be the only changes allowed for R5.
R5 draft will be balloted. RH reminded us that there was an R4 draft.
ConceptMap should be #1.
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.
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.
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.
There is some thought in the community that R5 will be the last release of FHIR. People will be reluctant to move from R4. He suggests that we should consider how to get all the vocab resources to normative for R5. Connectathons? ConceptMap and NamingSystem are the non-normative resources (TerminologyCapability?). Maturity level is not up to the owning work group.
A resource doesn't have to be in its formal form to start the normative process. The maturity level change might have hindered the ability to move ConceptMap to normative.
Ted brought up the V2 experience - pre-adopting portions of a subsequent release. Its possible something similar will happen with FHIR.
|OID related tickets|
Steps to resolve issue?
Please review the tickets here: https://jira.hl7.org/secure/Dashboard.jspa?selectPageId=12009
These will be discussed on the main WG call this week.
project = fhir and "Work Group" = "Vocabulary [vocab]" and grouping = OIDs
Must the OIDs be created via the OID registry, is there a technical requirement that the OIDs for a value set be in the OID registry.
TK: there is no V3 requirement that there is an OID in the OID registry for a value set. There is no OID registry API.
RM: Is the OID registry the source of truth for all HL7 terminology - we can state that the OID registry is not the source of truth for OIDs for all HL7 terminology.
TK: at one time the OID registry was declared to be the source of truth (history - back to when V3 didn't participate in harmonization.....)
RM: The OID registry as it exists does not contain every important OID, we shouldn't add OIDs to the registry simply because we have them. Personal opinion - we should create/generate OIDs for every terminology artifact. They don't have to be in the OID registry. The source of truth should be in THO (if appropriate) or in tx.fhir.org. TOOLING UPDATE REQUIRED (possibly when the CodeSystem and/or ValueSet is created in UTG) (generate the OID, make it visible) HSCR project. Category label = UTG Vocab needs to define a policy
RM: suggests adding this text to the tickets: Thank you for identifying these issues. Not all OIDs are in the OID registry. Vocab has identified that there is a deficiency in communication about OID assignments. It has been added to the list of items Vocab must address. Please continue to bring these to our attention. (Carmela will do this and prepare a block vote) Some do not have OIDs, some do.
TK: does this impact revenue? This is a complex issue that requires a systems level solution.
Older policy: External CodeSystem OIDs must be registered in the OID registry - and there is a cost to this. Does HTA enforce this? This is not a policy that is enforced, known, etc. Its not clear that there was a formal policy, and if there is, this must change.
Type 6 OID - are for external code systems if an external code system doesn't have their own OID. The owner can still be listed as the external organization.
Bulk loading of OIDs would be helpful.
|Using Codes / Selecting a Code System Identifier Text Review|
Co-chair review of this text:
Confirm so ticket can be applied.
Decided to talk about this at the 6 pm meeting.
3/1/2021 update: The identifier meeting attendees clarified the target audience for the materials we are creating.
Decided to focus first on getting the diagram up to date - which is for an IG author audience.
Note: the Monday 6 pm ET discussions have been specific to the URL - for use in FHIR. There are other identifiers for the other HL7 product families. This should be managed through UTG. Not only identifiers, but different metadata across the product families. Example?
Once the HTA material is in HTA, the problem will be less. TOOLING REQUIREMENTS - create OIDs for every FHIR terminology
Code System Identifier Deprecation
Did not discuss on 3/1
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.
Governance: (still need a policy)
Deprecated status takes precedence over the validity period.
How to detect deprecated identifiers
Chance for mis-interpretation? Adding deprecated to the status value set does not help the NamingSystem identifier deprecated issue.
Ran out of time.
|External code systems - Canada|
Did not discuss on 3/1
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 discuss on 3/1
Supporting C-CDA FHIR IG
Did not discuss on 3/1
|From WGM. How does C-CDA address terminology quality now that Term Info cannot be referenced?|