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

9:00 PTAgenda
  • Extensible bindings
  • Update/Overview on what Conformance doing with FHIR

Reminder to complete attendace sheet.

UP-162 - Getting issue details... STATUS

Need Code for Direct Secure Messaging

Extended discussion.

Need a WG sponsor (not "Direct Trust").

This is being requested in multiple product families (v2 table 0201, etc.) and VSAC.  Harmonization considerations.

Can the v2 value set content be drawn from multiple code systems (for example, V3 table)?

Frank - No process currently for v2 table changes in UTG to get back into the vs Access database.

For the V2 space, when V2 wants to use something from outside within a V2 artifact, the content will be the "output" of a value set. 

Adding the "Direct Trust" concept would be done in one place (e.g. in a non-V2 code system), then V2 will be able to access that from the value set.  

To be compatible with V2.9 and earlier, the code string length should not be longer than 3 characters

Conclusion:  The expectation is that V2 will be using value set machinery for the expansions that will represent to cont

Ted Klein
Motion: The Vocabulary WG recommends that the groups working with the v2 publication formats and tooling consider that going forward the enumerated content of v2 tables is determined by the expansion of the (THO) value set associated with the table.

Vote: Ted Klein / Sandy Stuart: 16-0-0

Note to motion: the implication is that codes in tables may be drawn from more that one code system across more than one HL7 product silo.

Need to further discuss this Jira tracker on the Vocab Co-chair call on this coming Monday - related to vocabulary content unification discussion.

Update/Overview on what Conformance doing with FHIR

No specific further thoughts or work on this from Conformance WG since last discussion in Sydney WGM.

Extensible bindings

Rob M.
Most of us understand that "extensible" bindings are problematic.  It is generally understood that it is necessary to be able to have a value set that is known to not necessarily have complete content.

In FHIR, the question is what is meant by saying that a meaning is "scoped by" a concept in the current value set expansion.

Only use the extensible binding when you really want people to send codes from the bound value set expansion, but you know that expansion may not be complete.

We need to figure out a computable way to verify when use of extensible binding is appropriate.

Extensible bindings make sense when the expectation is that the receiver will require and be able to make use of the concepts in the categorization from the known value set expansion.

A warning may be needed when only via human review can it be determined if the code that is sent may be scoped by a concept in the bound value set. 

Conformance is a tool to help you process data (in certification it is or can be more stringent).

Write words for around the idea that sending a concept outside the bound value set may be considered "non-conformant", but with the expectation of acceptance

Need additional wording for R5 to describe these considerations and make clear the limited circumstances where an extensible binding is appropriate to use.

Next meeting
Will plan to have another joint meeting at the same time at the next WGM.
10:31 PTAdjourn

Action items

  • No labels