Sarah – (and John and Yan)

 

This is a challenging decision on the version number.  Bumping the new “cleaned up” naming conventions against the old historical stuff seems very challenging and this particular IG has been very problematic  because no one can seem to recall why things were done the way they were. 

 

This is what we have in the asset list right now:

 

This looks like “public health case report” and “eICR” are really the same thing.  But this is confusing because in JIRA I see a speckey file for both eicr and phcaserpt. We only have this one asset in our “asset list” and it is attributed to Public Health as the Sponsoring WG, not SDWG.

 

I think you need to clear up the confusion about the base name of the spec and get the Jira spec keys cleaned up while as the same time getting the github repo set up.  (I recommend making the Jira spec key and the github repo name the same label to reduce confusion if that’s possible.)

 

Given that you are saying in the name of this spec, it is Release 2, neither of these Jira spec files seem to being right. 

This seems like the right time to get all of these cleaned up. [Note also:  these two specification are attributed to two different Work Groups. One goes to PHER WG and the other goes to SDWG.]

CDA-phcaserpt.xml

CDA-eicr.xml

 

 

Part of the confusion regarding the version number is that this version number was previously updated under our “four-part” numbering scheme where the second-part of the version number was incremented when an STU Ballot was conducted, the third-part was incremented when an unballoted update was done, and the fourth-part was updated when an errata release was done.  Now, under the new three-part version numbering scheme, the middle part gets updated when an STU Ballot or an unballoted update are done, and the right-most part is updated for errata releases.

 

All this is to explain, I think you have three choices for the version number:

  1. Assume the current version information is what it is and accept that in this case, you can’t infer anything about the history of what this IG has been through from its version number.  Just accept it at face value and apply the current rules. Taking this approach, the version number for this errata would be v2.3.2. 
  2. Move to a new version number that does reflect the spirit of the new naming conventions and so you might move from 2.3.1 to an errata release of 2.4.1. This seems weird, but you could add a note to simply explain that the version number for the errata has been adjusted to align with current naming conventions.
  3. Or if you this the current version number is 1.3.1 (based on what we see in JIRA now) but the Release is 2, the spec has had (a combined) 3 STU or non-balloted updates, and now this 1 errata, then you could move from v1.3.1 to v2.3.1 and again,  add a note to simply explain that the version number for the errata has been adjusted to align with current naming conventions.

 

I think you should do what would make the most sense for the community that uses this IG. More important, we need to take this opportunity to do all the needed cleanup to square-up the records for this IG. That means: the github repo, the JIRA spec files for taking comments and the Product Brief pages as well as the WG sponsorship, and the CMG asset list all need to get cleaned up. 

 

Regards,

 

Lisa

 

Lisa R. Nelson, MS, MBA | SVP Enterprise Integrations

MyDirectives

M: (401) 219-1165

 

From: Sarah Gaunt <sarah.gaunt@lantanagroup.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 4, 2024 3:29 AM
To: John DAmore <johnd@moreinformatics.com>; cdamg@lists.hl7.org
Cc: giorgio.cangioli@gmail.com; dcarlson@mieweb.com; ddavis@sequoiaproject.org; raychelle@dynamichealthit.com; Zabrina Gonzaga <zabrina.gonzaga@lantanagroup.com>; yanheras@gmail.com; kmaclennan@meditech.com; linda.michaelsen@optum.com; Lisa Nelson <lnelson@mydirectives.com>
Subject: RE: CDA Mgmt Agenda request: eICR CDA IG 3.1.1: Technical Correction/Errata Review

 

This message is from an External Sender.
Please use caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to requests for information.

 

Hi all,

 

I’ve created a new publication package for review here (with the assumption that the version would be 3.2 (aka 1.3.2) to match previous versioning (see: Product Brief)): 20240903_REVIEW_CDAR2_IG_PHCASERPT_R2_STU3.2.zip

 

I haven’t created a Git repo yet (I will do that when we nail down the versioning). (The old repo is here btw: https://github.com/HL7/CDA-phcaserpt-1.3.0 and there is a branch for 1.3.1 (which was probably not the best strategy): https://github.com/HL7/CDA-phcaserpt-1.3.0/tree/CDA-phcaserpt-1.3.1).

 

I haven’t updated the Jira spec file either – I will do that when we nail down the versioning.

 

New CDA IG Checklist here: https://confluence.hl7.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=265097432

 

Product Brief: https://www.hl7.org/implement/standards/product_brief.cfm?product_id=436

 

PH Approved Publication Request: https://confluence.hl7.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=265490501

 

Thanks,

Sarah

 

Sarah Gaunt (she, her)

Senior Information Analyst

t: +61 410 292 506

Brisbane, Australia (Australian Eastern Standard Time)

 

 

From: Sarah Gaunt
Sent: Wednesday, September 4, 2024 12:45 PM
To: John DAmore <johnd@moreinformatics.com>; cdamg@lists.hl7.org
Cc: giorgio.cangioli@gmail.com; dcarlson@mieweb.com; ddavis@sequoiaproject.org; raychelle@dynamichealthit.com; Zabrina Gonzaga <zabrina.gonzaga@lantanagroup.com>; yanheras@gmail.com; kmaclennan@meditech.com; linda.michaelsen@optum.com; lnelson@mydirectives.com
Subject: RE: CDA Mgmt Agenda request: eICR CDA IG 3.1.1: Technical Correction/Errata Review

 

Thanks for the info John – this is perfect!

 

What you state below is one of the reasons I’m confused about the versioning – the current IG is actually Release 2 STU 3.1 (the “.1” is because we did an unballoted STU update, and there was some legacy weirdness around why it was called Release 2 that I can’t remember/never understood). However, the current version is in the Jira Spec file as <version code="1.3.1" deprecated="false"/> - again I can’t remember why this was but it either came from Lynn or CDA Mgmt Group.

 

So maybe the errata should be 1.3.2 (which honestly, seems totally wrong on a few levels!!!)?

 

I’ll work on your suggestions today so you can have everything for tomorrow’s meeting (I won’t update the Jira spec though, because I don’t want to put the wrong version in  there). I’ll come to the meeting tomorrow and we can discuss…

 

Thanks,

Sarah

 

Sarah Gaunt (she, her)

Senior Information Analyst

t: +61 410 292 506

Brisbane, Australia (Australian Eastern Standard Time)

 

 

From: John DAmore <johnd@moreinformatics.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 4, 2024 12:01 PM
To: Sarah Gaunt <sarah.gaunt@lantanagroup.com>; cdamg@lists.hl7.org
Cc: giorgio.cangioli@gmail.com; dcarlson@mieweb.com; ddavis@sequoiaproject.org; raychelle@dynamichealthit.com; Zabrina Gonzaga <zabrina.gonzaga@lantanagroup.com>; yanheras@gmail.com; kmaclennan@meditech.com; linda.michaelsen@optum.com; lnelson@mydirectives.com
Subject: RE: CDA Mgmt Agenda request: eICR CDA IG 3.1.1: Technical Correction/Errata Review

 

Sarah,

 

Since it’s a new publication, I think the errata would still need CMG approval. That said, it looks like the 3.1 checklist was from 2022 (https://confluence.hl7.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=131047471) so it uses the older checklist format.  The new format is here:  https://confluence.hl7.org/display/CDA/CDA+Publication+Request+Checklist

 

From my perspective (others feel free to weight in), the most important steps of the new checklist would be:

 

Yan is chairing tomorrow’s call and I am doing notes. If you’ve got something in advance of 1pm ET, will work to slot into agenda.  

 

Cheers,

John

 

From: Sarah Gaunt <sarah.gaunt@lantanagroup.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 3, 2024 9:32 PM
To: cdamg@lists.hl7.org
Cc: giorgio.cangioli@gmail.com; dcarlson@mieweb.com; John DAmore <johnd@moreinformatics.com>; ddavis@sequoiaproject.org; raychelle@dynamichealthit.com; Zabrina Gonzaga <zabrina.gonzaga@lantanagroup.com>; yanheras@gmail.com; kmaclennan@meditech.com; linda.michaelsen@optum.com; lnelson@mydirectives.com
Subject: CDA Mgmt Agenda request: eICR CDA IG 3.1.1: Technical Correction/Errata Review

 

Hi all,

 

We are doing a technical correction / errata release for the eICR CDA IG.

 

We’ve made all the changes (the changes are only to the notes/guidance in the IG).

 

I think (but am not 100% sure!) that we need to get approval from the CDA Mgmt Group.

 

I have questions though:

  1. What version number should this errata release have? It was 3.1, do we just leave it as 3.1 or do we need to change it to 3.1.1?
  2. Do we need to fill in a CDA publication checklist? (Kind of assuming we do, though there have been no substantive changes to the IG).

 

Could we get on the next CDA Mgmt Group agenda to get approval (or an eVote) (assuming we need approval!).

 

Thanks,

Sarah

 

Sarah Gaunt (she, her)

Senior Information Analyst

t: +61 410 292 506

Brisbane, Australia (Australian Eastern Standard Time)

 

 

From: Sarah Gaunt
Sent: Friday, August 23, 2024 12:46 PM
To: 'pher@lists.hl7.org' <pher@lists.hl7.org>
Cc: Laura Conn <lbk1@cdc.gov>; 'Joel Hartsell' <joelhartsell@epi-vant.com>; Ola Fakorede <ola.fakorede@lantanagroup.com>
Subject: eICR CDA IG 3.1.1: Technical Correction/Errata Review

 

Hi all,

 

The eICR CDA IG 3.1.1 errata release is ready for review here: CDAR2_IG_PHCASERPT_R2_STU3.1.1_Vol2_Templates_and_Supporting.docx. The document has review notes indicating where the changes have been made.

 

Note: I’m not 100% sure what the version number, date, etc. in the IG should be – I will sort these out with CDA Management Group prior to publication.

 

I have attached the draft errata letter (note that the link to the published IG in the letter does not yet contain the new IG).

 

The Jira that has been applied to the IG is here:  CDA-21155

 

Thanks,

Sarah

 

Sarah Gaunt (she, her)

Senior Information Analyst

t: +61 410 292 506

Brisbane, Australia (Australian Eastern Standard Time)