FHIR ValueSet IHE Profile?

Hi All,

See the thread below for a discussion of interest in an IHE profile of FHIR ValueSets. I know that there have been several needs to express relationships that have come up in the OpenHIE community (hierarchical relationships, mappings) that are not explicitly defined in FHIR. Would there be an interest in an IHE profile in the community? Any other relationships missing or other gaps in FHIR?

Cheers,
-carl

···

Begin forwarded message:

From: Caumanns, Jörg joerg.caumanns@fokus.fraunhofer.de
Subject: AW: [ititech:5988] Newer version of Sharing Value-Sets (SVS)?
Date: July 1, 2016 at 3:16:00 AM EDT
To: Carl Leitner cleitner@intrahealth.org, Robert Horn robert.horn@agfa.com
Cc: “tony.schaller@medshare.nettony.schaller@medshare.net, “ititech@googlegroups.comititech@googlegroups.com, “stefan.sabutsch@elga.gv.at” stefan.sabutsch@elga.gv.at, Roeland Luykx roeland@arpage.ch, “Adrian.Schmid@e-health-suisse.ch” Adrian.Schmid@e-health-suisse.ch, “Reinhold.Sojer@bag.admin.ch” Reinhold.Sojer@bag.admin.ch

We’ve been using the mentioned FHIR class together with the respective REST-API as the external interface to our CTS2-based terminology server (http://semantik.fokus.fraunhofer.de/WebCts2LE/main3/terminologies.jsp). As the Swiss colleagues our intention was to link networked objects with terminologies and we had to learn that even though FHIR provides the needed extension mechanisms this easily opens a Pandora’s box where one proprietary extensions comes to another. E.g. even though the mentioned requirement for multiple designations is part of the standard, this does not hold for the definitions of concepts. As well the class does not provide means for encoding relationships among concepts other than hierarchies. This required another extension for e.g. properly implementing the UCUM references within LOINC. Therefore any profiling towards the mentioned requirements will not just be on the interface level or through adding some more elements to the class but even effects the core of the underlying information model. One the positive side it turned out that it is very, very easy to generate FHIR compliant terminologies and value sets out of Excel sheets and Word forms due to the very straightforward structure of the valueset class (which on the other hand imposes severals drawbacks as sketched above).
To conclude: If there is a profile proposal planned for this we would strongly support this and would even be glad to participate in the proposal writing…

Best Regards
Jörg

Von: ititech@googlegroups.com [mailto:ititech@googlegroups.com] Im Auftrag von Carl Leitner
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 30. Juni 2016 19:40
An: Robert Horn
Cc: tony.schaller@medshare.net; ititech@googlegroups.com; stefan.sabutsch@elga.gv.at; Roeland Luykx; Adrian.Schmid@e-health-suisse.ch; Reinhold.Sojer@bag.admin.ch
Betreff: Re: [ititech:5986] Newer version of Sharing Value-Sets (SVS)?

Perhaps it would be worthwhile to look at FHIR ValueSets? It may be worth profiling this as a work item proposal in light of:
http://www.hl7.org/implement/standards/fhir/valueset.html#6.21.6

Cheers,
-carl

On Jun 30, 2016, at 11:29 AM, Robert Horn robert.horn@agfa.com wrote:

I don’t know of one, although there are various other code related activities. Most of the activity that I know about is integrated with development of codes and value sets. SVS was intended to be a lighter weight focussed method of distributing finished work to many client systems that only want to make use of finished work.

Others on the list may know of other activities.

Kind Regards,

Robert Horn | Agfa HealthCare
Interoperability Architect | HE/Technology Office
T +1 978 897 4860

Agfa HealthCare Corporation, Gotham Parkway 580, Carlstadt, NJ 07072-2405, USA
http://www.agfahealthcare.com
http://blog.agfahealthcare.com
Click on link to read important disclaimer: http://www.agfahealthcare.com/maildisclaimer

From: Tony Schaller tony.schaller@medshare.net
To: “ititech@googlegroups.comititech@googlegroups.com
Cc: Robert Horn/MOPOO/AGFA@AGFA, “stefan.sabutsch@elga.gv.at” stefan.sabutsch@elga.gv.at, Roeland Luykx roeland@arpage.ch, “Adrian.Schmid@e-health-suisse.ch” Adrian.Schmid@e-health-suisse.ch, “Reinhold.Sojer@bag.admin.ch” Reinhold.Sojer@bag.admin.ch
Date: 06/30/2016 11:26 AM
Subject: AW: [ititech:5983] Newer version of Sharing Value-Sets (SVS)?

Hi Robert

Thanks for this information. We’ll discuss about a CP.
When I understand you right, there are currently no similar activities?

Regards,
Tony

Von: Robert Horn [mailto:robert.horn@agfa.com]
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 30. Juni 2016 17:15
An: Tony Schaller tony.schaller@medshare.net
Betreff: Re: [ititech:5983] Newer version of Sharing Value-Sets (SVS)?

I think that optional data fields can be added by mean of CP. They don’t invalidate with existing valid implementations. Some of your additions puzzle me, but resolving that is within the scope of discussion for a CP.

Additional transactions and workflow could be subject for a workitem to extend SVS by adding an option. This is a good time to start describing and detailing a workitem proposal. The submission and evaluation of proposals starts in the early fall and concludes in November.

Kind Regards,

Robert Horn | Agfa HealthCare
Interoperability Architect | HE/Technology Office
T +1 978 897 4860

Agfa HealthCare Corporation, Gotham Parkway 580, Carlstadt, NJ 07072-2405, USA
http://www.agfahealthcare.com
http://blog.agfahealthcare.com

Click on link to read important disclaimer: http://www.agfahealthcare.com/maildisclaimer

From: Tony Schaller tony.schaller@medshare.net
To: “ititech@googlegroups.comititech@googlegroups.com
Cc: “Sabutsch, Stefan” stefan.sabutsch@elga.gv.at, Roeland Luykx roeland@arpage.ch, “Adrian.Schmid@e-health-suisse.ch” Adrian.Schmid@e-health-suisse.ch, “Reinhold.Sojer@bag.admin.ch” Reinhold.Sojer@bag.admin.ch
Date: 06/30/2016 05:40 AM
Subject: [ititech:5983] Newer version of Sharing Value-Sets (SVS)?
Sent by: ititech@googlegroups.com

Hi,

ITI TF-2b, Revision 12.1 – Final Text April 22, 2016 3.48.5.1 SOAP Binding resp. 3.60.5.1 SOAP Binding reference a 2008 Schema:
The following types shall be imported (xsd:import) in the /definitions/types section: 7050 namespace=“urn:ihe:iti:svs:2008”, schema=“SVS.xsd”

We have some enhanced requirements for SVS:

  •    Additional fields like
    

o Parent Value-Set
o Valid from (date)
o Valid to (date)
o Additional displayNames in multiple languages e.g. de/fr/it (Switzerland is a multi-language country)
o Additional use case dependent data like e.g.
§ Datatype
§ Ucum Unit
§ Link to parent Value-Set (e.g. LOINC Code used for the assignment of lab observations to the appropriate Laboratory Specialty Section)
§ X.509 certificates (Base64)
§ other custom fields

  •    Optional workflow support: Push information when a newer Value-Set is available
    

So my primary question is:
Are there currently enhancements planned for SVS?

Secondary questions if NO such enhancements are planned by IHE International:

  •    Should we prepare a Change Proposal? And is there a chance for an accept of requirements as described above?
    
  •    Or do you prefer a National Extension?
    

Secondary questions if there are currently such enhancements in elaboration by IHE International:

  •    With whom should we discuss our requirements?
    

Regards,
Tony

IHE Suisse
Technical Project Manager
Tony Schaller
medshare GmbH, Buchshaldenstrasse 2, 3661 Uetendorf, Switzerland
Mobile: +41 79 213 85 77; tony.schaller@medshare.net

IHE Suisse
Geschäftsstelle, Oberstrasse 222, Postfach 51, 9014 St. Gallen, Switzerland
Phone: +41 71 279 11 88; info@ihe-suisse.ch; www.ihe-suisse.ch


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “IHE ITI Technical Committee” group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email toititech+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to ititech@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/ititech.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “IHE ITI Technical Committee” group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email toititech+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to ititech@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/ititech.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “IHE ITI Technical Committee” group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email toititech+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to ititech@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/ititech.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “IHE ITI Technical Committee” group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ititech+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to ititech@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/ititech.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

We’ll support IHE doing such a profile, though it could also be done in HL7 directly as part of the group working on terminology services.

Note that the current build of FHIR addresses all the issues discussed below

Grahame

···

On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 10:53 PM, Carl Leitner litlfred@gmail.com wrote:

Hi All,

See the thread below for a discussion of interest in an IHE profile of FHIR ValueSets. I know that there have been several needs to express relationships that have come up in the OpenHIE community (hierarchical relationships, mappings) that are not explicitly defined in FHIR. Would there be an interest in an IHE profile in the community? Any other relationships missing or other gaps in FHIR?

Cheers,
-carl

Begin forwarded message:

From: Caumanns, Jörg joerg.caumanns@fokus.fraunhofer.de
Subject: AW: [ititech:5988] Newer version of Sharing Value-Sets (SVS)?
Date: July 1, 2016 at 3:16:00 AM EDT
To: Carl Leitner cleitner@intrahealth.org, Robert Horn robert.horn@agfa.com
Cc: “tony.schaller@medshare.nettony.schaller@medshare.net, “ititech@googlegroups.comititech@googlegroups.com, “stefan.sabutsch@elga.gv.at” stefan.sabutsch@elga.gv.at, Roeland Luykx roeland@arpage.ch, “Adrian.Schmid@e-health-suisse.ch” Adrian.Schmid@e-health-suisse.ch, “Reinhold.Sojer@bag.admin.ch” Reinhold.Sojer@bag.admin.ch

We’ve been using the mentioned FHIR class together with the respective REST-API as the external interface to our CTS2-based terminology server (http://semantik.fokus.fraunhofer.de/WebCts2LE/main3/terminologies.jsp). As the Swiss colleagues our intention was to link networked objects with terminologies and we had to learn that even though FHIR provides the needed extension mechanisms this easily opens a Pandora’s box where one proprietary extensions comes to another. E.g. even though the mentioned requirement for multiple designations is part of the standard, this does not hold for the definitions of concepts. As well the class does not provide means for encoding relationships among concepts other than hierarchies. This required another extension for e.g. properly implementing the UCUM references within LOINC. Therefore any profiling towards the mentioned requirements will not just be on the interface level or through adding some more elements to the class but even effects the core of the underlying information model. One the positive side it turned out that it is very, very easy to generate FHIR compliant terminologies and value sets out of Excel sheets and Word forms due to the very straightforward structure of the valueset class (which on the other hand imposes severals drawbacks as sketched above).
To conclude: If there is a profile proposal planned for this we would strongly support this and would even be glad to participate in the proposal writing…

Best Regards
Jörg

Von: ititech@googlegroups.com [mailto:ititech@googlegroups.com] Im Auftrag von Carl Leitner
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 30. Juni 2016 19:40
An: Robert Horn
Cc: tony.schaller@medshare.net; ititech@googlegroups.com; stefan.sabutsch@elga.gv.at; Roeland Luykx; Adrian.Schmid@e-health-suisse.ch; Reinhold.Sojer@bag.admin.ch
Betreff: Re: [ititech:5986] Newer version of Sharing Value-Sets (SVS)?

Perhaps it would be worthwhile to look at FHIR ValueSets? It may be worth profiling this as a work item proposal in light of:
http://www.hl7.org/implement/standards/fhir/valueset.html#6.21.6

Cheers,
-carl

On Jun 30, 2016, at 11:29 AM, Robert Horn robert.horn@agfa.com wrote:

I don’t know of one, although there are various other code related activities. Most of the activity that I know about is integrated with development of codes and value sets. SVS was intended to be a lighter weight focussed method of distributing finished work to many client systems that only want to make use of finished work.

Others on the list may know of other activities.

Kind Regards,

Robert Horn | Agfa HealthCare
Interoperability Architect | HE/Technology Office
T +1 978 897 4860

Agfa HealthCare Corporation, Gotham Parkway 580, Carlstadt, NJ 07072-2405, USA
http://www.agfahealthcare.com
http://blog.agfahealthcare.com
Click on link to read important disclaimer: http://www.agfahealthcare.com/maildisclaimer

From: Tony Schaller tony.schaller@medshare.net
To: “ititech@googlegroups.comititech@googlegroups.com
Cc: Robert Horn/MOPOO/AGFA@AGFA, “stefan.sabutsch@elga.gv.at” stefan.sabutsch@elga.gv.at, Roeland Luykx roeland@arpage.ch, “Adrian.Schmid@e-health-suisse.ch” Adrian.Schmid@e-health-suisse.ch, “Reinhold.Sojer@bag.admin.ch” Reinhold.Sojer@bag.admin.ch
Date: 06/30/2016 11:26 AM
Subject: AW: [ititech:5983] Newer version of Sharing Value-Sets (SVS)?

Hi Robert

Thanks for this information. We’ll discuss about a CP.
When I understand you right, there are currently no similar activities?

Regards,
Tony

Von: Robert Horn [mailto:robert.horn@agfa.com]
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 30. Juni 2016 17:15
An: Tony Schaller tony.schaller@medshare.net
Betreff: Re: [ititech:5983] Newer version of Sharing Value-Sets (SVS)?

I think that optional data fields can be added by mean of CP. They don’t invalidate with existing valid implementations. Some of your additions puzzle me, but resolving that is within the scope of discussion for a CP.

Additional transactions and workflow could be subject for a workitem to extend SVS by adding an option. This is a good time to start describing and detailing a workitem proposal. The submission and evaluation of proposals starts in the early fall and concludes in November.

Kind Regards,

Robert Horn | Agfa HealthCare
Interoperability Architect | HE/Technology Office
T +1 978 897 4860

Agfa HealthCare Corporation, Gotham Parkway 580, Carlstadt, NJ 07072-2405, USA
http://www.agfahealthcare.com
http://blog.agfahealthcare.com

Click on link to read important disclaimer: http://www.agfahealthcare.com/maildisclaimer

From: Tony Schaller tony.schaller@medshare.net
To: “ititech@googlegroups.comititech@googlegroups.com
Cc: “Sabutsch, Stefan” stefan.sabutsch@elga.gv.at, Roeland Luykx roeland@arpage.ch, “Adrian.Schmid@e-health-suisse.ch” Adrian.Schmid@e-health-suisse.ch, “Reinhold.Sojer@bag.admin.ch” Reinhold.Sojer@bag.admin.ch
Date: 06/30/2016 05:40 AM
Subject: [ititech:5983] Newer version of Sharing Value-Sets (SVS)?
Sent by: ititech@googlegroups.com

Hi,

ITI TF-2b, Revision 12.1 – Final Text April 22, 2016 3.48.5.1 SOAP Binding resp. 3.60.5.1 SOAP Binding reference a 2008 Schema:
The following types shall be imported (xsd:import) in the /definitions/types section: 7050 namespace=“urn:ihe:iti:svs:2008”, schema=“SVS.xsd”

We have some enhanced requirements for SVS:

  •    Additional fields like
    

o Parent Value-Set
o Valid from (date)
o Valid to (date)
o Additional displayNames in multiple languages e.g. de/fr/it (Switzerland is a multi-language country)
o Additional use case dependent data like e.g.
§ Datatype
§ Ucum Unit
§ Link to parent Value-Set (e.g. LOINC Code used for the assignment of lab observations to the appropriate Laboratory Specialty Section)
§ X.509 certificates (Base64)
§ other custom fields

  •    Optional workflow support: Push information when a newer Value-Set is available
    

So my primary question is:
Are there currently enhancements planned for SVS?

Secondary questions if NO such enhancements are planned by IHE International:

  •    Should we prepare a Change Proposal? And is there a chance for an accept of requirements as described above?
    
  •    Or do you prefer a National Extension?
    

Secondary questions if there are currently such enhancements in elaboration by IHE International:

  •    With whom should we discuss our requirements?
    

Regards,
Tony

IHE Suisse
Technical Project Manager
Tony Schaller
medshare GmbH, Buchshaldenstrasse 2, 3661 Uetendorf, Switzerland
Mobile: +41 79 213 85 77; tony.schaller@medshare.net

IHE Suisse
Geschäftsstelle, Oberstrasse 222, Postfach 51, 9014 St. Gallen, Switzerland
Phone: +41 71 279 11 88; info@ihe-suisse.ch; www.ihe-suisse.ch


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “IHE ITI Technical Committee” group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email toititech+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to ititech@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/ititech.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “IHE ITI Technical Committee” group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email toititech+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to ititech@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/ititech.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “IHE ITI Technical Committee” group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email toititech+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to ititech@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/ititech.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “IHE ITI Technical Committee” group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ititech+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to ititech@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/ititech.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “Terminology Services” group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to terminology-services+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


http://www.healthintersections.com.au / grahame@healthintersections.com.au / +61 411 867 065

Hi Grahame,

That’s great that this is all already supported. I guess the question is if there is any optionality/multiple ways in which these things are supported. If so, a profile could be useful in narrowing things down. I recall, at least with DSTU, that I saw a few different ways in which a hierarchy could be represented.

I assume you are talking about STU3 which I think is due to be released in December. The IHE proposal process begins in September, so perhaps it makes sense to due an assessment then.

Cheers,
-carl

···

On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 10:53 PM, Carl Leitner litlfred@gmail.com wrote:

Hi All,

See the thread below for a discussion of interest in an IHE profile of FHIR ValueSets. I know that there have been several needs to express relationships that have come up in the OpenHIE community (hierarchical relationships, mappings) that are not explicitly defined in FHIR. Would there be an interest in an IHE profile in the community? Any other relationships missing or other gaps in FHIR?

Cheers,
-carl

Begin forwarded message:

From: Caumanns, Jörg joerg.caumanns@fokus.fraunhofer.de
Subject: AW: [ititech:5988] Newer version of Sharing Value-Sets (SVS)?
Date: July 1, 2016 at 3:16:00 AM EDT
To: Carl Leitner cleitner@intrahealth.org, Robert Horn robert.horn@agfa.com
Cc: “tony.schaller@medshare.nettony.schaller@medshare.net, “ititech@googlegroups.comititech@googlegroups.com, “stefan.sabutsch@elga.gv.at” stefan.sabutsch@elga.gv.at, Roeland Luykx roeland@arpage.ch, “Adrian.Schmid@e-health-suisse.ch” Adrian.Schmid@e-health-suisse.ch, “Reinhold.Sojer@bag.admin.ch” Reinhold.Sojer@bag.admin.ch

We’ve been using the mentioned FHIR class together with the respective REST-API as the external interface to our CTS2-based terminology server (http://semantik.fokus.fraunhofer.de/WebCts2LE/main3/terminologies.jsp). As the Swiss colleagues our intention was to link networked objects with terminologies and we had to learn that even though FHIR provides the needed extension mechanisms this easily opens a Pandora’s box where one proprietary extensions comes to another. E.g. even though the mentioned requirement for multiple designations is part of the standard, this does not hold for the definitions of concepts. As well the class does not provide means for encoding relationships among concepts other than hierarchies. This required another extension for e.g. properly implementing the UCUM references within LOINC. Therefore any profiling towards the mentioned requirements will not just be on the interface level or through adding some more elements to the class but even effects the core of the underlying information model. One the positive side it turned out that it is very, very easy to generate FHIR compliant terminologies and value sets out of Excel sheets and Word forms due to the very straightforward structure of the valueset class (which on the other hand imposes severals drawbacks as sketched above).
To conclude: If there is a profile proposal planned for this we would strongly support this and would even be glad to participate in the proposal writing…

Best Regards
Jörg

Von: ititech@googlegroups.com [mailto:ititech@googlegroups.com] Im Auftrag von Carl Leitner
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 30. Juni 2016 19:40
An: Robert Horn
Cc: tony.schaller@medshare.net; ititech@googlegroups.com; stefan.sabutsch@elga.gv.at; Roeland Luykx; Adrian.Schmid@e-health-suisse.ch; Reinhold.Sojer@bag.admin.ch
Betreff: Re: [ititech:5986] Newer version of Sharing Value-Sets (SVS)?

Perhaps it would be worthwhile to look at FHIR ValueSets? It may be worth profiling this as a work item proposal in light of:
http://www.hl7.org/implement/standards/fhir/valueset.html#6.21.6

Cheers,
-carl

On Jun 30, 2016, at 11:29 AM, Robert Horn robert.horn@agfa.com wrote:

I don’t know of one, although there are various other code related activities. Most of the activity that I know about is integrated with development of codes and value sets. SVS was intended to be a lighter weight focussed method of distributing finished work to many client systems that only want to make use of finished work.

Others on the list may know of other activities.

Kind Regards,

Robert Horn | Agfa HealthCare
Interoperability Architect | HE/Technology Office
T +1 978 897 4860

Agfa HealthCare Corporation, Gotham Parkway 580, Carlstadt, NJ 07072-2405, USA
http://www.agfahealthcare.com
http://blog.agfahealthcare.com
Click on link to read important disclaimer: http://www.agfahealthcare.com/maildisclaimer

From: Tony Schaller tony.schaller@medshare.net
To: “ititech@googlegroups.comititech@googlegroups.com
Cc: Robert Horn/MOPOO/AGFA@AGFA, “stefan.sabutsch@elga.gv.at” stefan.sabutsch@elga.gv.at, Roeland Luykx roeland@arpage.ch, “Adrian.Schmid@e-health-suisse.ch” Adrian.Schmid@e-health-suisse.ch, “Reinhold.Sojer@bag.admin.ch” Reinhold.Sojer@bag.admin.ch
Date: 06/30/2016 11:26 AM
Subject: AW: [ititech:5983] Newer version of Sharing Value-Sets (SVS)?

Hi Robert

Thanks for this information. We’ll discuss about a CP.
When I understand you right, there are currently no similar activities?

Regards,
Tony

Von: Robert Horn [mailto:robert.horn@agfa.com]
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 30. Juni 2016 17:15
An: Tony Schaller tony.schaller@medshare.net
Betreff: Re: [ititech:5983] Newer version of Sharing Value-Sets (SVS)?

I think that optional data fields can be added by mean of CP. They don’t invalidate with existing valid implementations. Some of your additions puzzle me, but resolving that is within the scope of discussion for a CP.

Additional transactions and workflow could be subject for a workitem to extend SVS by adding an option. This is a good time to start describing and detailing a workitem proposal. The submission and evaluation of proposals starts in the early fall and concludes in November.

Kind Regards,

Robert Horn | Agfa HealthCare
Interoperability Architect | HE/Technology Office
T +1 978 897 4860

Agfa HealthCare Corporation, Gotham Parkway 580, Carlstadt, NJ 07072-2405, USA
http://www.agfahealthcare.com
http://blog.agfahealthcare.com

Click on link to read important disclaimer: http://www.agfahealthcare.com/maildisclaimer

From: Tony Schaller tony.schaller@medshare.net
To: “ititech@googlegroups.comititech@googlegroups.com
Cc: “Sabutsch, Stefan” stefan.sabutsch@elga.gv.at, Roeland Luykx roeland@arpage.ch, “Adrian.Schmid@e-health-suisse.ch” Adrian.Schmid@e-health-suisse.ch, “Reinhold.Sojer@bag.admin.ch” Reinhold.Sojer@bag.admin.ch
Date: 06/30/2016 05:40 AM
Subject: [ititech:5983] Newer version of Sharing Value-Sets (SVS)?
Sent by: ititech@googlegroups.com

Hi,

ITI TF-2b, Revision 12.1 – Final Text April 22, 2016 3.48.5.1 SOAP Binding resp. 3.60.5.1 SOAP Binding reference a 2008 Schema:
The following types shall be imported (xsd:import) in the /definitions/types section: 7050 namespace=“urn:ihe:iti:svs:2008”, schema=“SVS.xsd”

We have some enhanced requirements for SVS:

  •    Additional fields like
    

o Parent Value-Set
o Valid from (date)
o Valid to (date)
o Additional displayNames in multiple languages e.g. de/fr/it (Switzerland is a multi-language country)
o Additional use case dependent data like e.g.
§ Datatype
§ Ucum Unit
§ Link to parent Value-Set (e.g. LOINC Code used for the assignment of lab observations to the appropriate Laboratory Specialty Section)
§ X.509 certificates (Base64)
§ other custom fields

  •    Optional workflow support: Push information when a newer Value-Set is available
    

So my primary question is:
Are there currently enhancements planned for SVS?

Secondary questions if NO such enhancements are planned by IHE International:

  •    Should we prepare a Change Proposal? And is there a chance for an accept of requirements as described above?
    
  •    Or do you prefer a National Extension?
    

Secondary questions if there are currently such enhancements in elaboration by IHE International:

  •    With whom should we discuss our requirements?
    

Regards,
Tony

IHE Suisse
Technical Project Manager
Tony Schaller
medshare GmbH, Buchshaldenstrasse 2, 3661 Uetendorf, Switzerland
Mobile: +41 79 213 85 77; tony.schaller@medshare.net

IHE Suisse
Geschäftsstelle, Oberstrasse 222, Postfach 51, 9014 St. Gallen, Switzerland
Phone: +41 71 279 11 88; info@ihe-suisse.ch; www.ihe-suisse.ch


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “IHE ITI Technical Committee” group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email toititech+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to ititech@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/ititech.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “IHE ITI Technical Committee” group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email toititech+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to ititech@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/ititech.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “IHE ITI Technical Committee” group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email toititech+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to ititech@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/ititech.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “IHE ITI Technical Committee” group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ititech+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to ititech@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/ititech.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “Terminology Services” group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to terminology-services+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

http://www.healthintersections.com.au / grahame@healthintersections.com.au / +61 411 867 065

That's great that this is all already supported. I guess the question is
if there is any optionality/multiple ways in which these things are
supported. If so, a profile could be useful in narrowing things down. I
recall, at least with DSTU, that I saw a few different ways in which a
hierarchy could be represented.

I assume you are talking about STU3 which I think is due to be released in
December. The IHE proposal process begins in September, so perhaps it
makes sense to due an assessment then.

well, most of this stuff has been applied, so you can look at the current
build to see. There's still optionality - there's always optionality. but I
don't think that it's relevant this time

Grahame