Docstoc

Ballot

Document Sample
Ballot Powered By Docstoc
					                                                               V3 Ballot Submission/Resolution Form

                             BALLOT TITLE:       HL7 Version 3 Standard: Security and Privacy Ontology, Release 1 (V3_SECPRONT_R1_D1_2011MAY) - 1st DSTU
                                                 Ballot


                          BALLOT CYCLE:          MAY 2011
                      SUBMITTED BY NAME:         Gregg Seppala
                      SUBMITTED BY EMAIL:        Gregg.Seppala@va.gov
                                                 (301) 526-2703
                      SUBMITTED BY PHONE:
           SUBMITTED BY ORGANIZATION (if         US Department of Veterans Affairs
                             applicable):
                      SUBMISSION DATE:                                                                                                       May 9, 2011
                SUBMITTED BY IDENTIFIER:
                   OVERALL BALLOT VOTE:          Affirmative




  If you submit an overall affirmative vote, please make sure you have not included negative line
                                    items on the Ballot worksheet
                                                 Enter Ballot Comments (Line Items)                         Instructions




5fce108e-2585-4968-aa9f-e686efe88029.xlsx [Submitter]                                1                                                                     March 2003
                                                               V3 Ballot Submission/Resolution Form

                             BALLOT TITLE:       HL7 Version 3 Standard: Security and Privacy Ontology, Release 1 (V3_SECPRONT_R1_D1_2011MAY) - 1st DSTU
                                                 Ballot


                          BALLOT CYCLE:          MAY 2011
                      SUBMITTED BY NAME:         Gregg Seppala
                      SUBMITTED BY EMAIL:        Gregg.Seppala@va.gov
                                                 (301) 526-2703
                      SUBMITTED BY PHONE:
           SUBMITTED BY ORGANIZATION (if         US Department of Veterans Affairs
                             applicable):
                      SUBMISSION DATE:                                                                                                       May 9, 2011
                SUBMITTED BY IDENTIFIER:
                   OVERALL BALLOT VOTE:          Affirmative




5fce108e-2585-4968-aa9f-e686efe88029.xlsx [Submitter]                                2                                                                     March 2003
                                                                                      V3 Ballot Submission/Resolution Form


                                                                                  Ballot Comment Submission

                                                                                        Figure 2 below shows the
                                                                                   Vote asserted class hierarchy …                                                                               In person
                                  Artifact                                         and Figure 3 below shows the                                                                                  resolution Comment
Number      Ballot WG Artifact    ID       Chapter    Section        Ballot   Pubs Type inferred class hierarchy        Proposed Wording                Comments                                 requested grouping   Disposition

          1 Security


          2 Security                       §1         ¶2                            A-T Section 0 covers the ontology   Section 7 covers the ontology                                                     C1          Persuasive


          3 Security                       §6         ¶6.4.1,                       A-C www.hl7.org/ontologies                                          Seems that the                                    C4          Persuasive
                                                      ¶6.4.2                                                                                            "www.hl7.org/ontologies" link does
                                                                                                                                                        not exist
          4 Security                       §7         ¶7.2.2                        A-C                                                                 Figs. 2 & 3 are difficult to compare              C2          Persuasive
                                                                                                                                                        because it appears nodes are not
                                                                                                                                                        expanded consistently.

          5 Security                       §7         ¶7.2.3                        A-C                                                                 In Fig. 5, can there be an object                             Persuasive
                                                                                                                                                        property "constrains" with domain
                                                                                                                                                        contraint if there is no asserted
                                                                                                                                                        superclass for constraint in §7.2.4.3?
                                                                                                                                                        Also, constrains is not shown
                                                                                                                                                        anywhere in Fig. 6.




          6 Security                       §7         ¶7.2.3 (Fig.                  A-T attemptedWithin                 occursWithinSession             Figs. 5 & 6 appear inconsistent                               Persuasive
                                                      5)

          7 Security                       §7         ¶7.2.3                        A-C                                                                 Include note why Fig. 6 does not                              Persuasive
                                                                                                                                                        include classes PrivacyRule,
                                                                                                                                                        PrivacyConsentDirective, and
                                                                                                                                                        PurposeOfUse shown in Figs. 5&6
                                                                                                                                                        and listed in §7.2.4


          8 Security                       §7         ¶7.2.3 (Fig.                  A-T assignsUser                     includesUserAssignment          Fig. 6 shows assignsUser twice,                               Persuasive
                                                      6)                                                                                                suggest obj. property between
                                                                                                                                                        UserAssignmentSet and
                                                                                                                                                        UserAssignment should be
                                                                                                                                                        includesUserAssignment
          9 Security                       §7         ¶7.2.4                        A-T “dictionary like”.              “dictionary like.”              punctuation should always go                                  Persuasive
                                                                                                                                                        "within quotes."
                                                                                                                                                        http://www.grammarbook.com/punct
                                                                                                                                                        uation/quotes.asp
         10 Security                       §7         ¶7.2.4.8                      A-T permits Operation               permitsOperation                remove space                                                  Persuasive




         5fce108e-2585-4968-aa9f-e686efe88029.xlsx [Ballot]                                                        3                                                                                             March 2003
                                                            V3 Ballot Submission/Resolution Form


11 Security                       §7           ¶7.2.4.8    A-T 1 Operation                     1 Operate                    permitsOperation is an object                      Persuasive
                                                                                                                            property of "operate" in fig. 6 not
                                                                                                                            "operation."
12 Security                       §7           ¶7.3        A-C                                                              "ASTM E 1986-98 standard"                          Persuasive
                                               (Fig. 9)                                                                     annotation example is outdated,
                                                                                                                            should be ASTM E 1986-09 (does
                                                                                                                            not meet annotation criteria "current"
                                                                                                                            on page 51)




13 Security                       §12                      A-T                                                              Inconsistent bolding of first phrase in            Considered -
                                                                                                                            the listed references                              No action
                                                                                                                                                                               required
14 Security                       §12          Reference   A-T Theory,Implementation and       Theory, Implementation and   missing a space after Theory,                      Persuasive
                                               eleven          Applications                    Applications

15 Security    ??                 Title Page   NA          A-C Informative Ballot                                           This document was always intended                  Considered -
                                                                                                                            for informative balloting during the               No action
                                                                                                                            May 2011 cycle, as the document                    required
                                                                                                                            itself clearly and repeatedly
                                                                                                                            indicates. Since it was nonetheless
                                                                                                                            listed for DSTU balloting, at least
                                                                                                                            one negative major vote is required
                                                                                                                            to preclude DSTU approval.

16 Security    ??                 Title Page   NA          A-C TBD                                                          Contributors remain to be                          Considered for
                                                                                                                            determined.                                        future use

17 Security    ??                 1            NA          A-T Section 0                       Section 7                    Incorrect cross reference.                C1       Persuasive


18 Security    ??                 2            2.1         A-T a specific session              specific sessions            Consistent use of plurals.                         Persuasive


19 Security    ??                 2            2.1         A-T assignment of users             assignment of users          Coonsistent use of italics.                        Persuasive




5fce108e-2585-4968-aa9f-e686efe88029.xlsx [Ballot]                                         4                                                                               March 2003
                                                        V3 Ballot Submission/Resolution Form


20 Security    ??                 2          2.2       A-T The catalog includes an appendix     The catalog lists                      Proposed language is consistent with         Persuasive
                                                           which lists                                                                 the HTML version of the HL7
                                                                                                                                       RBAC (Permission Catalog)
                                                                                                                                       document, which has no appendix
                                                                                                                                       (as well as Word version).
21 Security    ??                 2          2.5       A-S the OWL API                                                                 Citation for OWL API would be                Persuasive
                                                                                                                                       helpful.

22 Security    ??                 6          NA        A-S Our modeling approach includes use   Our modeling approach includes use Enumeration of modeling approach                 Persuasive
                                                           of the OWL 2 language, the Protégé   of the OWL 2 language, the Protégé aspects is incomplete.
                                                           4 OWL Editor, an agreed set of       4 OWL Editor, an agreed set of
                                                           references, and a collection of      references, and collection of naming
                                                           naming conventions.                  conventions, modeling conventions,
                                                                                                design patterns and usage of
                                                                                                annotations.
23 Security    ??                 6          6.4.5     A-S                                                                           Exceptions to naming conventions               Persuasive
                                                                                                                                     should be reviewed, then identified
                                                                                                                                     and justified as appropriate.

24 Security    ??                 6          6.5.1     A-T concept                              class                                  Change concept" to "class"                   Persuasive
                                                                                                                                       throughout when referring to OWL
                                                                                                                                       constituents.
25 Security    ??                 6          6.7       A-S Dublin Core                                                                 Citation for Dublin Core would be            Persuasive
                                                                                                                                       helpful (now only appears as a
                                                                                                                                       footnote in an appendix).
26 Security    ??                 7          7.2.2     A-S Figure 2 below shows the asserted                                           Point out that only upper portions of        Persuasive
                                                           class hierarchy … Figure 3 below                                            the taxonomies are shown, for
                                                           shows the inferred class hierarchy                                          reasons of space.

27 Security    ??                 7          7.2.2     A-T AdmissionPermission                  AdministrationPermission               Typo.                                        Persuasive


28 Security    ??                 7          7.2.4     A-T detains about the omitted classes    details about the omitted classes      Typo.                                        Persuasive


29 Security    ??                 7          7.2.4.1   A-S An access is an application of an    An access is an application of an      Add parenthetical clarification,             Persuasive
                                                           operation to an object.              operation to an object (in the context consistent with the definition of
                                                                                                of a session).                         Activation.
30 Security    ??                 7          7.2.4.1   A-C an object                                                                   Should reconcile text with cardinality       Persuasive
                                                                                                                                       of asserted superclass:
                                                                                                                                       accessesObkect min 1 Object.
31 Security    ??                 7          7.2.4.2   A-C a security role                                                             Should reconcile text with cardinality       Persuasive
                                                                                                                                       of asserted superclass: activatesRole
                                                                                                                                       min 1 SecurityRole
32 Security    ??                 7          7.2.4.6   A-S operatesOnObject some Object                                                As a matter of style, consider min 1         Persuasive
                                                                                                                                       instead of some, throughout.

33 Security    ??                 7          7.2.4.8   A-T Permission                           Permission                             References to OWL classes in                 Persuasive
                                                                                                                                       running text should be italicized for
                                                                                                                                       consistency with the remainder of
                                                                                                                                       the document.




5fce108e-2585-4968-aa9f-e686efe88029.xlsx [Ballot]                                     5                                                                                        March 2003
                                                              V3 Ballot Submission/Resolution Form


34 Security    ??                 7          7.2.4.8         A-S Appendix A                                                                References to Appendix A of the                      Persuasive
                                                                                                                                           Permission Catalog should be
                                                                                                                                           expunged for consistency with the
                                                                                                                                           HTML version of that document.

35 Security    ??                 7          7.2.4.10.2.1.   A-S An HL7 RBAC policy is an RBAC        An HL7 RBAC policy is an RBAC        Note that HL7 RBAC permissions                       Persuasive
                                             1                   policy that complies with the HL7    policy that complies with all        are non-normative examples.
                                                                 RBAC Permission Catalog,             normative elements of the HL7
                                                                                                      RBAC specification
36 Security    ??                 7          7.2.4.15        A-T                                                                           Reduce fontsize of definition for                    Persuasive
                                                                                                                                           consistency with remainder of
                                                                                                                                           document.
37 Security    ??                 7          7.2.4.18        A-S includesUserAssignment some                                               Consider removing this restriction                   Persuasive
                                                                 UserAssignment                                                            because an (initially) empty set of
                                                                                                                                           assignments is plausible.


38 Security    ??                 7          7.2.4.19        A-S UserIdentity                         User                                 Consider renaming throughout for                     Not persuasive
                                                                                                                                           simplicity, clarity, and consistency
                                                                                                                                           with ANSI RBAC, HL7 RBAC, etc.
                                                                                                                                           Although this name was chosen for
                                                                                                                                           consistency with the DAM, the
                                                                                                                                           Identity suffix is arguably gratuitous
                                                                                                                                           and the DAM is internally
                                                                                                                                           inconsistent in this regard, e.g., it has
                                                                                                                                           classes such as Consenter and
                                                                                                                                           ProviderOrganization, not
                                                                                                                                           ConsenterIdentify or
                                                                                                                                           ProviderOrganizationIdentity.

39 Security    ??                 10         NA              A-C Current Limitations                                                       I support addressing each of the                     Persuasive
                                                                                                                                           current limitations listed (having
                                                                                                                                           written the list).
40 Security    ??                 Appendix A NA              A-T                                                                           Consistent use of periods at ends of                 Persuasive
                                                                                                                                           definitions.

41 Security    ??                 Appendix B NA              A-T user-patiently                       user-friendly                        Typo.                                                Persuasive


42 Security    ??                 Appendix C Each            A-C The currently listed types of        Many of the currently listed types of The comment annotation is built into                Persuasive
                                             Ontology            annotations are Dublin Core          annotations are Dublin Core           OWL, but is not part of the Dublin
                                                                 Metadata Elements:                   Metadata Elements:                    Core.
43 Security    ??                 Appendix C Each            A-S                                                                            Consider inclusion of annotations on                Persuasive
                                             Individual                                                                                     individuals.

44 Security                       Notes to   NA              A-Q HermiT(6) or Pellet (7)                                                   Are there links that can be accessed                 Persuasive
                                  Readers                                                                                                  and downloaded for these reasoners?

45 Security                       Introduction NA            A-Q Section 0 covers the ontology                                             Correct Section reference                   C1       Persuasive


46 Security                       Introduction NA            A-C Subsequent sections coer exemplary                                        Expand acronym; this appears to be                   Persuasive
                                                                 SWRL rules                                                                the first time this acronym is used in
                                                                                                                                           the document.




5fce108e-2585-4968-aa9f-e686efe88029.xlsx [Ballot]                                           6                                                                                              March 2003
                                                            V3 Ballot Submission/Resolution Form


47 Security                       Background 2.1 RBAC      A-Q The standard RBAC reference is            The standard RBAC reference is        Should be ANSI / INCITS (missing I                  Persuasive
                                                               ANSI/NCITS 359-2004,                      ANSI/INCITS 359-2004,                 in INCITS)

48 Security                       Background 2.3           A-Q characterized by Wikipedia2                                                     Is there a more concrete reference         C3       Persuasive
                                             Ontologies                                                                                        besides Wikipedia that can be used
                                                                                                                                               here?

49 Security                       Background 2.3           A-S In computer science and information Italicize if quoted from a website In Italicize if quoted from a website                        Persuasive
                                             Ontologies        science, an ontology…               computer science and information
                                                                                                   science, an ontology…

50 Security                       Background 2.4           A-C Indeed, HL7 International…                For example, HL7 International…                                                           Persuasive
                                             Description
                                             Logics
51 Security                       Objectives NA            A-T Constitute an authoritative ontology, Constitute an authoritative ontology, missing colon                                           Persuasive
                                                               with concepts that are                with concepts that are:

52 Security                       Objectives   NA          A-S …especially by enabling                   …especially by enabling security-     security/privacy or security-privacy                Persuasive
                                                               securityprivacy systems                   privacy systems:                      ? Not consistent through document

53 Security                       Objectives   NA          A-T Directives can be                         Directives can be:                    missing colon                                       Persuasive


54 Security                       Modeling   6.4.4         A-S Our indivdual names begin…                Individual names begin…               remove 'our' (or add "The Security                  Persuasive
                                  Approach   Individual                                                                                        Working Group"
                                             Naming
55 Security                       Modeling 6.5.1           A-S We have chosen to place…                  The Security and Privacy Working                                                          Persuasive with
                                  Convention Redundant                                                   Group have chose to place                                                                 mod
                                  s          Universal…
56 Security                       Ontology   7.2.4.1       A-S Definition:                                                                     Add reference for definitions                       Persuasive
                                             through
                                             7.2.4.19
57 Security                       Ontology   Figure 7      A-S                                                                                 Add references for terms used (                     Persuasive


58 Security                       10 Current NA            A-S Here is a partial list of current         Below is a partial list of current,                                                       Persuasive
                                  Limitations                  limitations…                              known limitations

59 Security                       12         #9            A-C                                                                                 I believe authors are listed first in an            Considered -
                                  References                                                                                                   article reference.                                  No action
                                                                                                                                                                                                   required
                                                                 10
60 Security                       Appendix A NA            A-S                                                                                 Is there a more concrete reference         C3       Persuasive
                                                                 http.//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology                                         besides Wikipedia that can be used
                                                                 (Information science)                                                         here?

61 Security                       Appendix A NA            A-Q Why are thre periods after the            remove periods in definition columns Why there are periods after the                      Persuasive
                                                               'definitions'?                                                                 definitions? They are not full
                                                                                                                                              sentences and format is inconsistent
                                                                                                                                              with other tables.
62 Security                       Appendix B NA            A-T Note: wheras asserted superclasses        Note: Wheras                         wheras' should be capitilized                        Persuasive




5fce108e-2585-4968-aa9f-e686efe88029.xlsx [Ballot]                                           7                                                                                                 March 2003
                                                             V3 Ballot Submission/Resolution Form


63 Security                       Appendix C Introduction   A-S                                                                          Move Introduction paragraphs to the             Considered -
                                                                                                                                         beginning of Appendix A or before               No action
                                                                                                                                         the Appendix section                            required
                                                                   11
64 Security                       Appendix C                A-C     OntoClean is a well-known       remove 'well-known';                 Saying OntoClean is 'well-known' is             Persuasive
                                                                   methodology…                                                          subjective
                                                                                                    OntoClean is a methodology for
                                                                                                    analyzing ontologies
65 Security                       Appendix C Each           A-S Does the name respect our general   remove 'others TBD'                                                                  Persuasive
                                             Indiviual          naming convention (initial
                                                                underscore; numberic suffix as
                                                                required to distinguish multiple
                                                                instances; other TBD)?
66                                6                         A-T                                                                          The links do not work                  C4       Persuasive

67                                (6.3)                     Neg-                                    ISO specifications should form the   The definitions provided should be              Persuasive
                                                             Mj                                     first level, followed by those       comprehensive and consistent
                                                                                                    referenced in the document -->       compared with the HL7 Composite
                                                                                                    please change formulation            Security and Privacy DAM
                                                                                                                                         (CSP_DAM) as well as with the
                                                                                                                                         underlying standards such as ISO
                                                                                                                                         22600 “Health informatics –
                                                                                                                                         Privilege management and access
                                                                                                                                         control” and ISO 21298 “Health
                                                                                                                                         informatics – Functional and
                                                                                                                                         structural roles” as claimed in the
                                                                                                                                         document. In that context, the ISO
                                                                                                                                         specifications should form the first
                                                                                                                                         level, followed by those referenced
                                                                                                                                         in the document.




5fce108e-2585-4968-aa9f-e686efe88029.xlsx [Ballot]                                         8                                                                                         March 2003
                                                      V3 Ballot Submission/Resolution Form


68                                (7.1)              Neg-                                      There is a high level ontology           Here it might be helpful to introduce        Persuasive
                                                      Mj                                       hierarchy defined, consisting of         the Ontology Hierarchy consisting of
                                                                                               general/universal ontology, top-level    general/universal ontology, top-level
                                                                                               ontology, domain ontology, and           ontology, domain ontology, and
                                                                                               application ontology. This set is        application ontology. This set is
                                                                                               implemented using ICT ontology.          implemented using ICT ontology.
                                                                                               The latter separation is sometimes       The latter separation is sometimes
                                                                                               neglected.                               neglected. The aforementioned and
                                                                                                                                        later on detailed examples such as
                                                                                                                                        RBAC environments are not
                                                                                                                                        represented by domain ontologies
                                                                                                                                        but just by application ontologies.
                                                                                                                                        In that context, the development of a
                                                                                                                                        security & privacy ontology as
                                                                                                                                        bottom up approach is always faced
                                                                                                                                        with the problem that some of the
                                                                                                                                        hierarchies might be represented
                                                                                                                                        differently if we would follow an top
                                                                                                                                        down approach. The representation
                                                                                                                                        of the security and privacy domain
                                                                                                                                        already establishes a type of
                                                                                                                                        ontology. So some of the relations
                                                                                                                                        represented there have to appear in
                                                                                                                                        this document as well.




69                                (7.2.4.6)          A-Q                                                                                Figure 7. Perhaps the security related       Persuasive
                                                                                                                                        operations such as identification, de-
                                                                                                                                        identification, anonymization,
                                                                                                                                        pseudonymization should be
                                                                                                                                        referenced as well.

70                                (7.2.4.7 )         A-S Organization is a administrative or   Organization is a administrative or      As this implies its structure and            Persuasive
                                                         functional structure.                 functional entity.                       function, the term structure doesn’t
                                                                                                                                        work.
71                                (7.2.4.8 )         Neg-                                                                               If Permission has been addressed,            Persuasive
                                                      Mi                                                                                which depends on rule derived from
                                                                                                                                        policies, other subpolicies such as
                                                                                                                                        obligations, refrains, authorizations,
                                                                                                                                        delegations are inevitable.

72                                (7.2.4.10)         A-S                                       A Policy is a set of legal, political,                                                Persuasive
                                                                                               organisational, functional and
                                                                                               technical obligations or omissions for
                                                                                               communication and cooperation.
                                                                                               (ISO 22600)




5fce108e-2585-4968-aa9f-e686efe88029.xlsx [Ballot]                                   9                                                                                           March 2003
                                                      V3 Ballot Submission/Resolution Form


73                                (7.2.4.10.2        A-S                                         Security policy is a plan or course of                                              Persuasive
                                  )                                                              action adopted for providing
                                                                                                 computer security. [ISO/IEC 2382-
                                                                                                 08] It is the set of rules laid down
                                                                                                 by the security authority governing
                                                                                                 the use and provision of security
                                                                                                 services and facilities. (ISO 22600)

74                                (7.2.4.11)         A-S                                         A consent is a special policy which                                                 Persuasive
                                                                                                 defines an agreement between an
                                                                                                 entity playing the role of the subject
                                                                                                 of an act and an entity acting. (ISO
                                                                                                 22600) A ConsentDirective is the
                                                                                                 representation of that
                                                                                                 ConstraintPolicy. Privacy consent
                                                                                                 directive references one or more
                                                                                                 policies and contains a set of consent
                                                                                                 rules. The privacy consent directive
                                                                                                 is expressed using a permission,
                                                                                                 information category and user role,
                                                                                                 similar to the way privacy policy
                                                                                                 rules are described. (CSP-DAM)


75                                (7.2.4.12 )        A-S A privacy rule specifies permission     A privacy rule specifies permission                                                 Persuasive
                                                         or obligation to treat information in   or obligation to treat information in
                                                         accord with privacy wishes.             accord with privacy policies.

76                                (7.2.4.15 )        Neg-                                                                                 Confusing. The description provided        Persuasive
                                                      Mi                                                                                  is that of a Structural Roles
                                                                                                                                          according to ISO 21298.
77                                (7.2.4.15.1)       A-S                                         Functional roles are bound to an         Should refer to ISO 21298 using that       Persuasive
                                                                                                 activity/act. Functional roles can be    definition. Just Neumann &
                                                                                                 assigned to be performed during an       Strembeck ref. doesn’t really help,
                                                                                                 act. (ISO 21298) Functional role         but it is consistent with the
                                                                                                 defines the access control decision.     referenced ISO specs, which should
                                                                                                 Functional Roles can be grouped          always have the highest priority.
                                                                                                 according to their authorization to
                                                                                                 access Protected Information (PI)
                                                                                                 and perform various operations on
                                                                                                 health care information. (CSP-DAM)




5fce108e-2585-4968-aa9f-e686efe88029.xlsx [Ballot]                                    10                                                                                         March 2003
                                                      V3 Ballot Submission/Resolution Form


78                                (7.2.4.15.2        A-S                          Structural roles specify relations        Should refer to ISO 21298 using that               Persuasive
                                  )                                               between entities in the sense of          definition. Structural role doesn’t
                                                                                  competence (RIM roles) often              automatically allow to connect to a
                                                                                  reflecting organisational or structural   recource.
                                                                                  relations (hierarchies). (ISO 21298)
                                                                                  Describing a characteristic the entity
                                                                                  has (including qualifications, etc.), a
                                                                                  structural role can
                                                                                  enable/facilitate/legally permit a
                                                                                  functional role as prerequisite,
                                                                                  requirement or facilitator (e.g.,
                                                                                  qualification). (CSP-DAM)



79                                (7.2.4.16)                                      Session is a part of a workflow                                                              Not persuasive
                                                                                  consisting on tasks or transactions.                                                         with mod




80 Security                       1                  A-S eximplary                                                          The word exemplary has two very                    Persuasive
                                                                                                                            different meanings. It is not clear
                                                                                                                            which meaning is needed here. I
                                                                                                                            certainly don't think you mean to
                                                                                                                            indicate that there is only one
                                                                                                                            possible SWRL rules
81 Security                       1                  A-S SWRL                                                               the first use of an acronym needs to               Persuasive
                                                                                                                            be spelled out
82 Security                       2.1                A-S popular                                                            Although some might think RBAC is                  Persuasive
                                                                                                                            popular, others may find it
                                                                                                                            unpopular. This is opinion and
                                                                                                                            should not be in here.
83 Security                       2.2                A-S Those operations…                                                  It is not clear from the context of the            Persuasive
                                                                                                                            sentence and paragraph what the
                                                                                                                            word 'those' is referring to.
84 Security                       2.3                Neg-                                                                   Wikipedia is not acceptable               C3       Persuasive
                                                      Mj                                                                    reference


85 Security                       2.4                Neg-                                                                   This whole section is full of                      Persuasive
                                                      Mi                                                                    sentences that only someone who
                                                                                                                            understands the domain would
                                                                                                                            understand. Therefore this section is
                                                                                                                            not helpful at explaining what
                                                                                                                            Description Logics is.

86 Security                       2.5                Neg-                                                                   This whole section is full of                      Persuasive
                                                      Mi                                                                    sentences that only someone who
                                                                                                                            understands the domain would
                                                                                                                            understand. Therefore this section is
                                                                                                                            not helpful at explaining what OWL
                                                                                                                            is.




5fce108e-2585-4968-aa9f-e686efe88029.xlsx [Ballot]                           11                                                                                            March 2003
                                                       V3 Ballot Submission/Resolution Form


87 Security                       2.6                Neg-                                     This whole section is full of                     Persuasive
                                                      Mi                                      sentences that only someone who
                                                                                              understands the domain would
                                                                                              understand. Therefore the section is
                                                                                              not helpful at explaining what SWRL
                                                                                              is.
88 Security                       4                  A-S                                      I think that the first bullet means to            Persuasive
                                                                                              be scoped to Access Control. That is
                                                                                              it is not intended to cover the whole
                                                                                              domain of security and privacy
                                                                                              (backup, encryption, audit logging,
                                                                                              etc)
89 Security                       7.2.2              Neg-                                     The difference between Asserted and      C2       Persuasive
                                                      Mi                                      Inferred is not clear. Yes, I can see
                                                                                              there is expansion of Object and
                                                                                              Permission. But given that tthey are
                                                                                              not expanded in the Asserted, I can't
                                                                                              see any difference.

90 Security                       Figure 6           Neg-                                     The concepts of PurposeOfUse and                  Persuasive
                                                      Mi                                      ConfidentialityCode are missing, yet
                                                                                              clearly a part of our HL7 models
                                                                                              (and XSPA)
91 Security                       Figure 6           Neg-                                     Object is not sufficiently developed.             Persuasive
                                                      Mi                                      Objects also have attributes of being
                                                                                              about a Patient, having an identity,
                                                                                              carrying a confidentialityCode




92 Security                       7.2.4.3            Neg- …that is enforced upon access       I thought that constraints were                   Not persuasive
                                                      Mi permissions.                         against a requet-context, not a
                                                                                              permission.




93 Security                       7.2.4.3            Neg-                                     Isn't there a constraint catalog?                 Considered -
                                                      Mi                                                                                        No action
                                                                                                                                                required
94 Security                       7.2.4.5            Neg-                                     Need to also include Patient Identity,            Persuasive
                                                      Mi                                      Object Identifier,
                                                                                              confidentialityCode, Type-of-object,
                                                                                              etc.




5fce108e-2585-4968-aa9f-e686efe88029.xlsx [Ballot]                                 12                                                       March 2003
                                                       V3 Ballot Submission/Resolution Form


95 Security                       7.2.4.8            Neg- Essentially, that means that any      The permission Catalog is an OPEN       Persuasive
                                                      Mj instance of a Permission must          vocabulary. The catalog is not
                                                          instantiate a permission from the     considered complete.
                                                          catalog; no other permissions are
                                                          valid




96 Security                                          A-C Agree with authors' list of current                                            Persuasive
                                                         limitations of the document; further
                                                         detail is needed in various parts of
                                                         the document




5fce108e-2585-4968-aa9f-e686efe88029.xlsx [Ballot]                                   13                                             March 2003
                                                                                          V3 Ballot Submission/Resolution Form


                                                  Committee Resolution                                                                                                                                    Ballot Comment Tracking




                                                                                                               Abstain
                                                                                                     Against
            Disposition                                                                                                  Change    Substantive                                                   On Behalf of        Submitter




                                                                                               For
Withdrawn   Committee       Disposition Comment                      Responsible Person                                  Applied   Change        Submitted By Organization        On behalf of   Email               Tracking ID

                                                                                                                                                 Gregg Seppala US Department of
                                                                                                                                                               Veterans Affairs

                            Done                                     Tony Weida                                          Yes                     Gregg Seppala US Department of David Staggs     David.Staggs@va.g
                                                                                                                                                               Veterans Affairs                  ov

                            Hyperlinking removed (pending            Tony Weida                                          Yes                     Gregg Seppala US Department of David Staggs     David.Staggs@va.g
                            possible future implementation)                                                                                                    Veterans Affairs                  ov

                            Will expand figures consistently         Tony Weida                                          No                      Gregg Seppala US Department of David Staggs     David.Staggs@va.g
                                                                                                                                                               Veterans Affairs                  ov


                            The answer is yes (the default           Tony Weida                                          Yes                     Gregg Seppala US Department of David Staggs     David.Staggs@va.g
                            superclass is the root class: Thing ).                                                                                             Veterans Affairs                  ov

                            Revised caption of Figure 6 to say
                            that it conveys selected object
                            properties. The document body says
                            "Figure 6 below illustrates most of
                            the object properties …"


                            Changed both figures (and ontology Tony Weida                                                Yes                     Gregg Seppala US Department of David Staggs     David.Staggs@va.g
                            itself) to attemptedWithinSession                                                                                                  Veterans Affairs                  ov

                            Agreed.                                  Tony Weida                                          No                      Gregg Seppala US Department of David Staggs     David.Staggs@va.g
                                                                                                                                                               Veterans Affairs                  ov
                            (Those classes are WIP. Eventually,
                            there will be too many classes for
                            practical inclusion in a figure on a
                            single page of the document.)

                            Done                                     Tony Weida                                          Yes                     Gregg Seppala US Department of David Staggs     David.Staggs@va.g
                                                                                                                                                               Veterans Affairs                  ov



                            Done                                     Tony Weida                                          Yes                     Gregg Seppala US Department of David Staggs     David.Staggs@va.g
                                                                                                                                                               Veterans Affairs                  ov


                            Done                                     Tony Weida                                          Yes                     Gregg Seppala US Department of David Staggs     David.Staggs@va.g
                                                                                                                                                               Veterans Affairs                  ov




       5fce108e-2585-4968-aa9f-e686efe88029.xlsx [Ballot]                                                                14                                                                                           March 2003
                                                                         V3 Ballot Submission/Resolution Form


                     Done                                   Tony Weida                    Yes               Gregg Seppala US Department of David Staggs   David.Staggs@va.g
                                                                                                                          Veterans Affairs                ov

                     Existing content was taken verbatim Tony Weida                       No                Gregg Seppala US Department of David Staggs   David.Staggs@va.g
                     from VHA Structural Roles Catalog.                                                                   Veterans Affairs                ov

                     WG agreed in Orlando to implement
                     updated ASTM standard in place of
                     VHA catalog.

                     The ASTM copyright does not
                     appear to permit inclusion of their
                     material without suitable licensing:
                     http://www.astm.org/COPYRIGHT/

                     WG discussion during the May 31
                     teleconference led to the conclusion
                     that it would be appropriate to
                     include only a few examples from
                     ASTM for the purposes of
                     illustration and as part of examples
                     of ontology usage.

                     This is a result of Word's built-in    Tony Weida                    No                Gregg Seppala US Department of David Staggs   David.Staggs@va.g
                     ISO 690 style. Does HL7 have a                                                                       Veterans Affairs                ov
                     preferred style?
                     Done                                   Tony Weida                    Yes               Gregg Seppala US Department of David Staggs   David.Staggs@va.g
                                                                                                                          Veterans Affairs                ov

                     Agreed                                 Tony Weida                    No                Gregg Seppala US Department of Tony Weida     weida@apelon.com
                                                                                                                          Veterans Affairs




                     Agreed                                 Tony Weida                    No                Gregg Seppala US Department of Tony Weida     weida@apelon.com
                                                                                                                          Veterans Affairs

                     Done                                   Tony Weida                    Yes               Gregg Seppala US Department of Tony Weida     weida@apelon.com
                                                                                                                          Veterans Affairs

                     Done                                   Tony Weida                    Yes               Gregg Seppala US Department of Tony Weida     weida@apelon.com
                                                                                                                          Veterans Affairs

                     Done                                   Tony Weida                    Yes               Gregg Seppala US Department of Tony Weida     weida@apelon.com
                                                                                                                          Veterans Affairs




5fce108e-2585-4968-aa9f-e686efe88029.xlsx [Ballot]                                        15                                                                                  March 2003
                                                                  V3 Ballot Submission/Resolution Form


                     Done                            Tony Weida                    Yes               Gregg Seppala US Department of Tony Weida   weida@apelon.com
                                                                                                                   Veterans Affairs



                     Done                            Tony Weida                    Yes               Gregg Seppala US Department of Tony Weida   weida@apelon.com
                                                                                                                   Veterans Affairs

                     Done                            Tony Weida                    Yes               Gregg Seppala US Department of Tony Weida   weida@apelon.com
                                                                                                                   Veterans Affairs




                     Agreed                          Tony Weida                    No                Gregg Seppala US Department of Tony Weida   weida@apelon.com
                                                                                                                   Veterans Affairs


                     Done                            Tony Weida                    Yes               Gregg Seppala US Department of Tony Weida   weida@apelon.com
                                                                                                                   Veterans Affairs

                     Done                            Tony Weida                    Yes               Gregg Seppala US Department of Tony Weida   weida@apelon.com
                                                                                                                   Veterans Affairs

                     Done                            Tony Weida                    Yes               Gregg Seppala US Department of Tony Weida   weida@apelon.com
                                                                                                                   Veterans Affairs


                     Done                            Tony Weida                    Yes               Gregg Seppala US Department of Tony Weida   weida@apelon.com
                                                                                                                   Veterans Affairs

                     Done                            Tony Weida                    Yes               Gregg Seppala US Department of Tony Weida   weida@apelon.com
                                                                                                                   Veterans Affairs

                     Done                            Tony Weida                    Yes               Gregg Seppala US Department of Tony Weida   weida@apelon.com
                                                                                                                   Veterans Affairs

                     Done                            Tony Weida                    Yes               Gregg Seppala US Department of Tony Weida   weida@apelon.com
                                                                                                                   Veterans Affairs

                     Done                            Tony Weida                    Yes               Gregg Seppala US Department of Tony Weida   weida@apelon.com
                                                                                                                   Veterans Affairs

                     Plan on switching to min 1      Tony Weida                    No                Gregg Seppala US Department of Tony Weida   weida@apelon.com
                                                                                                                   Veterans Affairs

                     Done                            Tony Weida                    Yes               Gregg Seppala US Department of Tony Weida   weida@apelon.com
                                                                                                                   Veterans Affairs




5fce108e-2585-4968-aa9f-e686efe88029.xlsx [Ballot]                                 16                                                                               March 2003
                                                                     V3 Ballot Submission/Resolution Form


                     Done                               Tony Weida                    Yes               Gregg Seppala US Department of Tony Weida     weida@apelon.com
                                                                                                                      Veterans Affairs



                     Done                               Tony Weida                    Yes               Gregg Seppala US Department of Tony Weida     weida@apelon.com
                                                                                                                      Veterans Affairs


                     Done                               Tony Weida                    Yes               Gregg Seppala US Department of Tony Weida     weida@apelon.com
                                                                                                                      Veterans Affairs

                     Agreed                             Tony Weida                    No                Gregg Seppala US Department of Tony Weida     weida@apelon.com
                                                                                                                      Veterans Affairs



                     WG decided in Orlando to leave     Tony Weida                    No                Gregg Seppala US Department of Tony Weida     weida@apelon.com
                     name unchanged                                                                                   Veterans Affairs




                     Agreed                             Tony Weida                    No                Gregg Seppala US Department of Tony Weida     weida@apelon.com
                                                                                                                      Veterans Affairs

                     Done (now consistently omit        Tony Weida                    Yes               Gregg Seppala US Department of Tony Weida     weida@apelon.com
                     periods)                                                                                         Veterans Affairs

                     Done                               Tony Weida                    Yes               Gregg Seppala US Department of Tony Weida     weida@apelon.com
                                                                                                                      Veterans Affairs

                     Done                               Tony Weida                    Yes               Gregg Seppala US Department of Tony Weida     weida@apelon.com
                                                                                                                      Veterans Affairs

                     Plan to incorporate                Tony Weida                    No                Gregg Seppala US Department of Tony Weida     weida@apelon.com
                                                                                                                      Veterans Affairs

                     Yes. Footnote added accordingly.   Tony Weida                    Yes               Gregg Seppala US Department of Suzanne       suzanne.gonzales-
                                                                                                                      Veterans Affairs Gonzales-Webb webb@va.gov

                     Done                               Tony Weida                    Yes               Gregg Seppala US Department of Suzanne       suzanne.gonzales-
                                                                                                                      Veterans Affairs Gonzales-Webb webb@va.gov

                     Done                               Tony Weida                    Yes               Gregg Seppala US Department of Suzanne       suzanne.gonzales-
                                                                                                                      Veterans Affairs Gonzales-Webb webb@va.gov




5fce108e-2585-4968-aa9f-e686efe88029.xlsx [Ballot]                                    17                                                                                 March 2003
                                                                        V3 Ballot Submission/Resolution Form


                     Done                                  Tony Weida                    Yes               Gregg Seppala US Department of Suzanne       suzanne.gonzales-
                                                                                                                         Veterans Affairs Gonzales-Webb webb@va.gov

                     Will instead quote and cite the       Tony Weida                    No                Gregg Seppala US Department of Suzanne       suzanne.gonzales-
                     sources that were paraphrased and                                                                   Veterans Affairs Gonzales-Webb webb@va.gov
                     cited in the Wikipedia excerpt.

                     Done                                  Tony Weida                    Yes               Gregg Seppala US Department of Suzanne       suzanne.gonzales-
                                                                                                                         Veterans Affairs Gonzales-Webb webb@va.gov


                     Done                                  Tony Weida                    Yes               Gregg Seppala US Department of Suzanne       suzanne.gonzales-
                                                                                                                         Veterans Affairs Gonzales-Webb webb@va.gov

                     Done                                  Tony Weida                    Yes               Gregg Seppala US Department of Suzanne       suzanne.gonzales-
                                                                                                                         Veterans Affairs Gonzales-Webb webb@va.gov

                     Changed to security/privacy.          Tony Weida                    Yes               Gregg Seppala US Department of Suzanne       suzanne.gonzales-
                                                                                                                         Veterans Affairs Gonzales-Webb webb@va.gov

                     Done                                  Tony Weida                    Yes               Gregg Seppala US Department of Suzanne       suzanne.gonzales-
                                                                                                                         Veterans Affairs Gonzales-Webb webb@va.gov

                     Done                                  Tony Weida                    Yes               Gregg Seppala US Department of Suzanne       suzanne.gonzales-
                                                                                                                         Veterans Affairs Gonzales-Webb webb@va.gov

                     Reworded: "Domain and range           Tony Weida                    Yes               Gregg Seppala US Department of Suzanne       suzanne.gonzales-
                     restrictions have been placed …"                                                                    Veterans Affairs Gonzales-Webb webb@va.gov

                     Agreed                                Tony Weida                    No                Gregg Seppala US Department of Suzanne       suzanne.gonzales-
                                                                                                                         Veterans Affairs Gonzales-Webb webb@va.gov

                     Done (cited HL7 RBAC Permission Tony Weida                          Yes               Gregg Seppala US Department of Suzanne       suzanne.gonzales-
                     Catalog in caption)                                                                                 Veterans Affairs Gonzales-Webb webb@va.gov

                     Done                                  Tony Weida                    Yes               Gregg Seppala US Department of Suzanne       suzanne.gonzales-
                                                                                                                         Veterans Affairs Gonzales-Webb webb@va.gov

                     This is a result of Word's built-in   Tony Weida                    No                Gregg Seppala US Department of Suzanne       suzanne.gonzales-
                     ISO 690 style. Does HL7 have a                                                                      Veterans Affairs Gonzales-Webb webb@va.gov
                     preferred style?
                     Will instead quote and cite the       Tony Weida                    No                Gregg Seppala US Department of Suzanne       suzanne.gonzales-
                     sources that were paraphrased and                                                                   Veterans Affairs Gonzales-Webb webb@va.gov
                     cited in the Wikipedia excerpt.

                     Done                                  Tony Weida                    Yes               Gregg Seppala US Department of Suzanne       suzanne.gonzales-
                                                                                                                         Veterans Affairs Gonzales-Webb webb@va.gov


                     Done                                  Tony Weida                    Yes               Gregg Seppala US Department of Suzanne       suzanne.gonzales-
                                                                                                                         Veterans Affairs Gonzales-Webb webb@va.gov




5fce108e-2585-4968-aa9f-e686efe88029.xlsx [Ballot]                                       18                                                                                 March 2003
                                                                    V3 Ballot Submission/Resolution Form


                     OK as is, per Suzanne             Tony Weida                    No                Gregg Seppala US Department of Suzanne       suzanne.gonzales-
                                                                                                                     Veterans Affairs Gonzales-Webb webb@va.gov

                     Done                              Tony Weida                    Yes               Gregg Seppala US Department of Suzanne       suzanne.gonzales-
                                                                                                                     Veterans Affairs Gonzales-Webb webb@va.gov


                     Done                              Tony Weida                    Yes               Gregg Seppala US Department of Suzanne       suzanne.gonzales-
                                                                                                                     Veterans Affairs Gonzales-Webb webb@va.gov



                     Hyperlinking removed (pending     Tony Weida                    Yes               Bernd Blobel   HL7 Germany
                     possible future implementation)
                     Agreed                            Tony Weida                    No                Bernd Blobel   HL7 Germany




5fce108e-2585-4968-aa9f-e686efe88029.xlsx [Ballot]                                   19                                                                                 March 2003
                                                                       V3 Ballot Submission/Resolution Form


                     WG agreed in Orlando to describe     Tony Weida                    No                Bernd Blobel   HL7 Germany
                     accordingly




                     WG agreed in Orlando to add such     Tony Weida                    No                Bernd Blobel   HL7 Germany
                     operations




                     Done                                 Tony Weida                    Yes               Bernd Blobel   HL7 Germany


                     Agreed                               Tony Weida                    No                Bernd Blobel   HL7 Germany




                     Agreed to use ISO definition         Tony Weida                    No                Bernd Blobel   HL7 Germany

                     Suggestion disagrees with the CSP-
                     DAM, which does not include the
                     words "or omissions"




5fce108e-2585-4968-aa9f-e686efe88029.xlsx [Ballot]                                      20                                             March 2003
                                                                            V3 Ballot Submission/Resolution Form


                     Agreed to use ISO definition              Tony Weida                    No                Bernd Blobel   HL7 Germany




                     Agreed to use ISO definition              Tony Weida                    No                Bernd Blobel   HL7 Germany




                     +R84The Ontology uses the class
                     definition from the CSP-DAM
                     glossary. The suggested text appears
                     elsewhere in the CSP-DAM text.




                     Done                                      Tony Weida                    Yes               Bernd Blobel   HL7 Germany



                     Agreed                                    Tony Weida                    No                Bernd Blobel   HL7 Germany


                     Agreed to use ISO definition              Tony Weida                    Yes               Bernd Blobel   HL7 Germany

                     Existing definition was taken from
                     HL7 RBAC Role Engineering
                     Process specification

                     Cited ISO text defines what is done
                     to functional roles, not what they are.




5fce108e-2585-4968-aa9f-e686efe88029.xlsx [Ballot]                                           21                                             March 2003
                                                                      V3 Ballot Submission/Resolution Form


                     Agreed to use ISO definition        Tony Weida                    Yes               Bernd Blobel   HL7 Germany

                     Definition was taken from HL7
                     RBAC Role Engineering Process
                     specification.

                     Cited ISO text is confusing




                     Agreed to look for ISO definition   Tony Weida                                      Bernd Blobel   HL7 Germany
                     first.

                     Current definition was taken
                     verbatim from ANSI/INCITS 359-
                     2004.
                     Reworded                            Tony Weida                    Yes               John Moehrke   GE Healthcare




                     Done                                Tony Weida                    Yes               John Moehrke   GE Healthcare   David Staggs   David.Staggs@va.g
                                                                                                                                                       ov
                     Done                                Tony Weida                    Yes               John Moehrke   GE Healthcare   David Staggs   David.Staggs@va.g
                                                                                                                                                       ov


                     Reworded                            Tony Weida                    Yes               John Moehrke   GE Healthcare   David Staggs   David.Staggs@va.g
                                                                                                                                                       ov

                     Will instead quote and cite the     Tony Weida                    No                John Moehrke   GE Healthcare   David Staggs   David.Staggs@va.g
                     sources that were paraphrased and                                                                                                 ov
                     cited in the Wikipedia excerpt.

                     Remove tutorial material            Tony Weida                    No                John Moehrke   GE Healthcare   David Staggs   David.Staggs@va.g
                                                                                                                                                       ov




                     Remove tutorial material            Tony Weida                    No                John Moehrke   GE Healthcare   David Staggs   David.Staggs@va.g
                                                                                                                                                       ov




5fce108e-2585-4968-aa9f-e686efe88029.xlsx [Ballot]                                     22                                                                                  March 2003
                                                                        V3 Ballot Submission/Resolution Form


                     Remove tutorial material             Tony Weida                     No                John Moehrke   GE Healthcare   David Staggs   David.Staggs@va.g
                                                                                                                                                         ov




                     Done                                 Tony Weida                     Yes               John Moehrke   GE Healthcare   David Staggs   David.Staggs@va.g
                                                                                                                                                         ov




                     Will expand figures consistently     Tony Weida                     No                John Moehrke   GE Healthcare   David Staggs   David.Staggs@va.g
                                                                                                                                                         ov




                     Planned as part of upcoming work     Tony Weida                     No                John Moehrke   GE Healthcare   David Staggs   David.Staggs@va.g
                     on privacy aspects                                                                                                                  ov


                     Planned as part of upcoming work     Tony Weida                     No                John Moehrke   GE Healthcare   David Staggs   David.Staggs@va.g
                     on privacy aspects. Of course, not                                                                                                  ov
                     all HL7 RBAC objects are about
                     individual patients, e.g.,
                     BusinessRule and CareGuideline
                     and all workflow objects.


                     Definition taken verbatim from       Tony Weida                     No                John Moehrke   GE Healthcare   David Staggs   David.Staggs@va.g
                     ANSI/INCITS 359-2004. It can be                                                                                                     ov
                     confusing but can be understood as
                     correct.

                     (Constraint is not defined in the
                     DAM).



                     The answer is yes. Will reword text Tony Weida                      No                John Moehrke   GE Healthcare   David Staggs   David.Staggs@va.g
                     to improve clarity.                                                                                                                 ov

                     Planned (in general terms) as part of Tony Weida                    No                John Moehrke   GE Healthcare   Tony Weida     weida@apelon.com
                     upcoming work on privacy aspects




5fce108e-2585-4968-aa9f-e686efe88029.xlsx [Ballot]                                       23                                                                                  March 2003
                                                                          V3 Ballot Submission/Resolution Form


                     Note: The permission catalog is now Tony Weida                        No                John Moehrke    GE Healthcare       Tony Weida   weida@apelon.com
                     characterized as an example in a
                     separate sub-ontology.

                     Will clarify that new permissions can
                     be added, existing permissions can
                     be updated, etc. However,
                     granting/denying access is based on
                     the knowledge that users are only
                     allowed access according to the
                     currently defined permissions at a
                     given moment (assigned to them).



                     Agreed                                  Tony Weida                    No                Walter Suarez   Kaiser Permanente




5fce108e-2585-4968-aa9f-e686efe88029.xlsx [Ballot]                                         24                                                                                    March 2003
                                                                     V3 Ballot Submission/Resolution Form


ment Tracking




      Referred To   Received From      Notes




                5fce108e-2585-4968-aa9f-e686efe88029.xlsx [Ballot]                    25                    March 2003
                                                     V3 Ballot Submission/Resolution Form




5fce108e-2585-4968-aa9f-e686efe88029.xlsx [Ballot]                    26                    March 2003
                                                     V3 Ballot Submission/Resolution Form




5fce108e-2585-4968-aa9f-e686efe88029.xlsx [Ballot]                    27                    March 2003
                                                     V3 Ballot Submission/Resolution Form




5fce108e-2585-4968-aa9f-e686efe88029.xlsx [Ballot]                    28                    March 2003
                                                     V3 Ballot Submission/Resolution Form




5fce108e-2585-4968-aa9f-e686efe88029.xlsx [Ballot]                    29                    March 2003
                                                     V3 Ballot Submission/Resolution Form




5fce108e-2585-4968-aa9f-e686efe88029.xlsx [Ballot]                    30                    March 2003
                                                     V3 Ballot Submission/Resolution Form




5fce108e-2585-4968-aa9f-e686efe88029.xlsx [Ballot]                    31                    March 2003
                                                     V3 Ballot Submission/Resolution Form




5fce108e-2585-4968-aa9f-e686efe88029.xlsx [Ballot]                    32                    March 2003
                                                     V3 Ballot Submission/Resolution Form




5fce108e-2585-4968-aa9f-e686efe88029.xlsx [Ballot]                    33                    March 2003
                                                     V3 Ballot Submission/Resolution Form




5fce108e-2585-4968-aa9f-e686efe88029.xlsx [Ballot]                    34                    March 2003
                                                     V3 Ballot Submission/Resolution Form




5fce108e-2585-4968-aa9f-e686efe88029.xlsx [Ballot]                    35                    March 2003
                                                Ballot Submission/Resolution Instructions

                                                                                                                                                     Return to Ballot
  How to Use this Spreadsheet
 Submitting a ballot:

 SUBMITTER WORKSHEET:
 Please complete the Submitter worksheet noting your overall ballot vote. Please note if you have any negative line items, the ballot is considered negative overall.
 For Organization and Benefactor members, the designated contact must be one of your registered voters to conform with ANSI guidelines.

 BALLOT WORKSHEET:
 Please complete all lavender columns as described below - columns in turquoise are for the committees to complete when reviewing ballot comments.
 Several columns utilize drop-down lists of valid values, denoted by a down-arrow to the right of the cell. Some columns utilize a filter which appears as a drop down
 in the gray row directly below the column header row.
 If you need to add a row, please do so near the bottom of the rows provided.
 If you encounter issues with the spreadsheet, please contact Karen VanHentenryck (karenvan@hl7.org) at HL7 Headquarters.

 Resolving a ballot:
 Please complete all green columns as described below - columns in blue are for the ballot submitters.
 You are required to send resolved ballots back to the ballot submitter, as denoted by the Submitter worksheet.

 Submitting comments on behalf of another person:
 You can cut and paste other peoples comments into your spreadsheet and manually update the column titled "On behalf of" or you
 can use a worksheet with the amalgamation macro in it (available from HL7 Inc. or HL7 Canada (hl7canada@cihi.ca)). The
 amalgamation worksheet contains the necessary instructions to automatically populate the 'submitter', 'organization' and
 'on behalf of' columns. This is very useful for organizational members or international affiliates who have one representative
 for ballot comments from a number of different people.




5fce108e-2585-4968-aa9f-e686efe88029.xlsx [Instructions]                                                                                                    August, 2002
                                          Ballot Submission/Resolution Instructions

  Column Headers
                                                     Ballot Submitter (sections in lavender)

  Number                                 This is an identifier used by HL7 Committees. Please do not alter.
  Ballot WG                              Select the WG from the drop down list that will best be able to resolve the ballot comment.

                                         In some situations, the ballot comment is general in nature and can best be resolved by a non-chapter
                                         specific WG. This can include MnM (Modeling and Methodology) & INM (Infrastructure and
                                         Management). Enter these WGs if you feel the ballot can best be resolved by these groups. In some
                                         situations, chapter specific WGs such as OO (Observation and Orders) and FM (Financial Management)
                                         will refer ballot comments to these WGs if they are unable to resolve the ballot comment. An explanation
                                         of the 'codes' used to represent the Ballot WGs as well as the Ballots they are responsible for is included in
                                         the worksheet titled 'CodeReference'
  Artifact                               The type of Artifact this Change affects.
                                         HD            Hierarchical Message Definition
                                         AR            Application Roles
                                         RM            Refined Message Information Model
                                         IN            Interaction
                                         TE            Trigger Event
                                         MT            Message Type
                                         DM            Domain Message Information Model
                                         ST            Storyboard
                                         ??            Other


  Section                                Section of the ballot, e.g., 3.1.2. Note: This column can be filtered by the committee, for example, to
                                         consider all ballot line items reported against section 3.1.2.
  Ballot                                 A collection of artifacts including messages, interactions, & storyboards that cover a specific interest area.
                                         Examples in HL7 are Pharmacy, Medical Devices, Patient Administration, Lab Order/Resulting, Medical
                                         Records, and Claims and Reimbursement.

                                         Select from the drop down list the specific ballot that the comment pertains to. An explanation of the
                                         'codes' used to represent the Ballots as well as the Ballot WGs that are are responsible for them is
                                         included in the worksheet titled 'CodeReference'. Please refer to the list of available ballots on the HL7
                                         site for more descriptive information on current, open ballots.
  Pubs                                   If the submitter feels that the issue being raised directly relates to the formatting or publication of this
                                         document rather than the content of the document, flag this field with a "Y" value, otherwise leave it blank
                                         or "N".


5fce108e-2585-4968-aa9f-e686efe88029.xlsx [Instructions]                                                                                      August, 2002
                                          Ballot Submission/Resolution Instructions

  Vote/Type                              Negative Votes:

                                         1. (Neg-Mj) Negative Vote with reason , Major. Use this in the situation where the content of the material is
                                         non-functional, incomplete or requires correction before final publication. All Neg-Mj votes must be
                                         resolved by committee.

                                         2. (Neg-Mi) Negative Vote with reason, Minor Type. Use this when the comment needs to be resolved, but
                                         is not as significant as a negative major.

                                         Affirmative Votes:

                                         3. (A-S) Affirmative Vote with Comment - Suggestion. Use this if the committee is to consider a
                                         suggestion such as additional background information or justification for a particular solution.

                                         4. (A-T) Affirmative Vote with Comment - Typo. If the material contains a typo such as misspelled words,
                                         enter A-T.

                                         5. (A-Q) Affirmative Vote with Question.

                                         6. (A-C) Affirmative Vote with Comment.
  Existing Wording                       Copy and Paste from ballot materials.
  Proposed Wording                       Denote desired changes.

                                         Reason for the Change. In the case of proposed wording, a note indicating where the changes are in the
  Comments
                                         proposed wording plus a reason would be beneficial for the WG reviewing the ballot.
  In Person Resolution Required?         Submitters can use this field to indicate that they would appreciate discussing particular comments in
                                         person during a WG Meeting. Co-Chairs can likewise mark this field to indicate comments they think
                                         should be discussed in person. Please note that due to time constraints not all comments can be reviewed
                                         at WGMs.




5fce108e-2585-4968-aa9f-e686efe88029.xlsx [Instructions]                                                                                    August, 2002
                                          Ballot Submission/Resolution Instructions

                                                 Committee Resolution (sections in turquoise)
  Comment Grouping                       This is a free text field that WGs can use to track similar or identical ballot comments. For example, if a
                                         committee receives 10 identical or similar ballot comments the WG can place a code (e.g. C1) in this
                                         column beside each of the 10 ballot comments. The WG can then apply the sort filter to view all of the
                                         similar ballot comments at the same time.
  Disposition                            The instructions for selecting dispositions were too large for this section and have been moved to the
                                         worksheet titled "Instructions Cont.."




5fce108e-2585-4968-aa9f-e686efe88029.xlsx [Instructions]                                                                                     August, 2002
                                          Ballot Submission/Resolution Instructions

  Withdraw                               Withdraw
  (Negative Ballots                      This code is used when the submitter agrees to "Withdraw" the negative line item. The Process
  Only)                                  Improvement Committee is working with HL7 Headquarters to clarify the documentation on 'Withdraw" in
                                         the HL7 Governance and Operations Manual. To help balloters and co-chairs understand the use of
                                         "Withdraw", the following example scenarios have been included as examples of when "Withdraw" might
                                         be used: 1) the WG has agreed to make the requested change, 2) the WG has agreed to make the
                                         requested change, but with modification; 3) the WG has found the requested change to be persuasive but
                                         out-of scope for the particular ballot cycle and encourages the ballotter to submit the change for the next
                                         release; 4) the WG has found the requested change to be non-persuasive and has convinced the
                                         submitter. If the negative ballotter agrees to "Withdraw" a negative line item it must be recorded in the
                                         ballot spreadsheet.

                                         The intent of this field is to help manage negative line items, but the WG may elect to manage affirmative
                                         suggestions and typos using this field if they so desire.

                                         This field may be populated based on the ballotter's verbal statement in a WGM, in a teleconference or
                                         in a private conversation with a WG co-chair. The intention will be documented in minutes as appropriate
                                         and on this ballot spreadsheet. The entry must be dated if it occurs outside of a WGM or after the
                                         conclusion of WGM.

                                         The field will be left unpopulated if the ballotter elects to not withdraw or retract the negative line item.

                                         Note that a ballotter often withdraws a line item before a change is actually applied. The WG is obliged
                                         to do a cross check of the Disposition field with the Change Applied field to ensure that they have
                                         finished dealing with the line item appropriately.

                                         Retract
                                         The ballotter has been convinced by the WG to retract their ballot item. This may be due to a
                                         decision to make the change in a future version or a misunderstanding about the content.

                                         NOTE: If the line item was previously referred, but withdrawn or retracted once the line item is dealt with
                                         in the subsequent WG update the disposition as appropriate when the line item is resolved.
  Disposition Committee                  If the Disposition is "Refer", then select the WG that is ultimately responsible for resolving the ballot
                                         comment. Otherwise, leave the column blank. If the Disposition is "Pending" for action by another WG,
                                         select the appropriate WG.




5fce108e-2585-4968-aa9f-e686efe88029.xlsx [Instructions]                                                                                          August, 2002
                                          Ballot Submission/Resolution Instructions

  Disposition Comment                    Enter a reason for the disposition as well as the context. Some examples from the CQ WG include:
                                         20030910 CQ WGM: The request has been found Not Persuasive because....
                                         20031117 CQ Telecon: The group agreed to the proposed wording.
                                         20031117 CQ Telecon: Editor recommends that proposed wording be accepted.


  Responsible Person                     Identifies a specific person in the WG (or disposition WG) that will ensure that any accepted changes are
                                         applied to subsequent materials published by the WG (e.g. updating storyboards, updating DMIMs, etc.).

  For, Against, Abstain                  In the event votes are taken to aid in your line item resolutions, there are three columns available for the
                                         number of each type of vote possible, for the proposed resolution, against it or abstain from the vote.
  Change Applied                         A Y/N indicator to be used by the WG chairs to indicate if the Responsible Person has indeed made the
                                         proposed change and submitted updated materials to the committee.
                                         A Y/N indicator to be used by the WG chairs to indicate if the line item is a substantive change.
  Substantive Change                     NOTE: This is a placeholder in V3 pending definition of substantive change by the ArB.
                                         This column is auto filled from the Submitter Worksheet. It is used to refer back to the submitter for a
                                         given line item when all the ballot line items are combined into a single spreadsheet or database. For
                                         Organization and Benefactor members, the designated contact must be one of your registered voters to
  Submitted By                           conform with ANSI guidelines.
                                         This column is auto filled from the Submitter Worksheet. Submitter's should enter the name of the
                                         organization that they represent with respect to voting if different from the organization that they are
                                         employed by. It is used to link the submitter's name with the organization they are voting on behalf of for a
  Organization                           given line item when all the ballot line items are combined into a single spreadsheet or database.
                                         This column is autofilled from the Submitter Worksheet. It is used to track the original submitter of the line
                                         item. Many International Affiliates, Organizational, and Benefactor balloters pool comments from a variety
  On Behalf Of                           of reviewers, which can be tracked using this column.
                                         This column is autofilled from the Submitter Worksheet. It is used to track the email address of the original
                                         submitter of the line item. Many International Affiliates, Organizational, and Benefactor balloters pool
  On Behalf Of Email                     comments from a variety of reviewers, which can be tracked using this column.
  Submitter Tracking ID #                Internal identifier (internal to the organization submitting the ballot). This should be a meaningful number
                                         to the organization that allows them to track comments. This can be something as simple as the
                                         reviewer’s initials followed by a number for each comment, i.e. JD-1, or even more complex such as
                                         ‘001XXhsJul03’ where ‘001’ is the unique item number, ‘XX’ is the reviewer's initials, ‘hs’ is the company


  Referred To                            Use this column to indicate the WG you have referred this ballot comment to.



5fce108e-2585-4968-aa9f-e686efe88029.xlsx [Instructions]                                                                                      August, 2002
                                          Ballot Submission/Resolution Instructions

  Received From                          Use this column to indicate the WG from which you have received this ballot comment.
                                         This is a free text field that WGs can use to add comments regarding the current status of referred or
  Notes                                  received item.




5fce108e-2585-4968-aa9f-e686efe88029.xlsx [Instructions]                                                                                   August, 2002
                                          Ballot Submission/Resolution Instructions




5fce108e-2585-4968-aa9f-e686efe88029.xlsx [Instructions]                              August, 2002
                                          Ballot Submission/Resolution Instructions




5fce108e-2585-4968-aa9f-e686efe88029.xlsx [Instructions]                              August, 2002
                                             Ballot Submission/Resolution Instructions

                                                                                                         Back to ballot           Back to instructions
Ballot instructions continued...
For the column titled "Disposition" please select one of the following:

Applicable to All Ballot Comments (Affirmative and Negative)
1. Persuasive. The WG has accepted the ballot comment as submitted and will make the appropriate change in the next ballot cycle. At this point the
comment is considered withdrawn and the corresponding cell from the column titled ‘Withdrawn’ should be marked appropriately. Section 14.08.01.03
of the HL7 Governance and Operations Manual (GOM) states that if a ballot comment is to be withdrawn that “…the Work Group effecting reconciliation
agrees without objection that the poistion expressed by the negative response is persuasive” and therefore WGs must take a vote to accept the
comment as persuasive.

2. Persuasive with Mod. The WG believes the ballot comment has merit, but has changed the proposed solution given by the voter. Example
scenarios include, but are not limited to;
-The WG has accepted the intent of the ballot comment, but has changed the proposed solution
-The WG has accepted part of the ballot comment, and will make a change to the standard; the other part is not persuasive
-The WG has accepted part of the ballot comment, and will make a change to the standard; the other part may be persuasive but is out of scope
The standard will be changed accordingly in the next ballot cycle. The nature of, or reason for, the modification is reflected in the Disposition Comments.
At this point the comment is considered withdrawn and the corresponding cell from the column titled ‘Withdrawn’ should be marked appropriately.
Section 14.08.01.03 of the HL7 Governance and Operations Manual (GOM) states that if a ballot comment is to be withdrawn that “…the Work Group
effecting reconciliation agrees without objection that the poistion expressed by the negative response is persuasive” and therefore WGs must take a
vote to accept the comment as persuasive.

3. Not Persuasive. The WG does not believe the ballot comment has merit or is unclear. Section 14.08.01.02 of the HL7 GOM states that “Approval of
a motion to declare a negative response not persuasive shall require an affirmative vote of at least sixty percent (60%) of the combined affirmative and
negative votes cast by the Work Group during reconciliation.” A change will not be made to the standard or proposed standard. The WG must indicate a
specific reason why the ballot comment is rejected in the Disposition Comments. The ballot submitter has the option to appeal this decision following
HL7 procedures as defined in section 14.12 of the HL7 GOM.
Example scenarios include, but are not limited to;
- the submitter has provided a recommendation or comment that the WG does not feel is valid
- the submitter has not provided a recommendation/solution; the submitter is encouraged to submit a proposal for a future ballot
- the recommendation/solution provided by the submitter is not clear; the submitter is encouraged to submit a proposal for a future ballot

4. Not Persuasive with Mod. The comment was considered non-persuasive by the WG; however, the WG has agreed to make a modification to the
material based on this comment. For example, adding additional explanatory text. Additional changes suggested by the non-persuaive comment will
not be made to the standard or proposed standard. The WG must indicate a specific reason why the ballot comment is rejected in the Disposition
Comments. The ballot submitter has the option to appeal this decision following HL7 procedures as defined in section 14.12 of the HL7 GOM.

5. Not Related. The WG has determined that the ballot comment is not relevant to the domain at this point in the ballot cycle. Section 14.08.01.01 of
the HL7 GOM states that “Approval of a motion to declare a negative response not related shall require an affirmative vote of at least sixty percent
(60%) of the combined affirmative and negative votes cast by the Work Group during reconciliation.” Example scenarios include, but are not limited to;


5fce108e-2585-4968-aa9f-e686efe88029.xlsx [Instructions Cont..]                                                                                August, 2002
                                            Ballot Submission/Resolution Instructions
(60%) of the combined affirmative and negative votes cast by the Work Group during reconciliation.” Example scenarios include, but are not limited to;
- the submitter is commenting on a portion of the standard, or proposed standard, that is not part of the current ballot
- the submitter's comments may be persuasive but beyond what can be accomplished at this point in the ballot cycle without creating potential
controversy.
- the submitter is commenting on something that is not part of the domain

6. Referred and Tracked. This should be used in circumstances when a comment was submitted to your WG in error and should have been submitted
to another WG. If you use this disposition you should also select the name of the WG you referred the comment to under the Column "Referred To".

7. Pending Input from Submitter. This should be used when the WG has read the comment but didn't quite understand it or needs to get more input
from the submitter. By selecting "Pending Input from Submitter" the WG can track and sort their dispositions more accurately.

8. Pending Input from other WG. The WG has determined that they cannot give the comment a disposition without further input or a final decision
from another WG. This should be used for comments that do belong to your WG but require a decision from another WG, such as ArB or MnM.

Applicable only to Affirmative Ballot Comments
9. Considered for future use. The WG, or a representative of the WG (editor or task force), has reviewed the item and has determined that no change
will be made to the standard at this point in time. This is in keeping with ANSI requirements. The reviewer should comment on the result of the ballot
comment consideration. An Example comment is included here:
- the suggestion is persuasive, but outside the scope of the ballot cycle; the submitter is encouraged to submit a proposal to the WG using the agreed
upon procedures.

10. Considered-Question answered. The WG, or a representative of the WG (editor or task force), has reviewed the item and has answered the
question posed. In so doing, the WG has determined that no change will be made to the standard at this point in time. This is in keeping with ANSI
requirements.

11. Considered-No action required. Occasionally people will submit an affirmative comment that does not require an action. For example, some WG's
have received comments of praise for a job well done. This comment doesn't require any further action on the WG's part, other than to keep up the
good work.




5fce108e-2585-4968-aa9f-e686efe88029.xlsx [Instructions Cont..]                                                                             August, 2002
                                                           Ballot Submission/Resolution Instructions




     int the

econciliation




 Comments.




           of

st indicate a




                5fce108e-2585-4968-aa9f-e686efe88029.xlsx [Instructions Cont..]                        August, 2002
                                                          Ballot Submission/Resolution Instructions




en submitted


more input




t no change




 some WG's




               5fce108e-2585-4968-aa9f-e686efe88029.xlsx [Instructions Cont..]                        August, 2002
                                                                V3 Ballot Submission/Resolution Form


  Note on entering large bodies of text:
  ------------------------------------------------------------------
  When entering a large body of text in an Excel spreadsheet cell:

  1) The cell is pre-set to word wrap

  2) You can expand the column if you would like to see more of the available data

  3) There is a limit to the amount of text you can enter into a "comment" text column so keep things brief.
     -For verbose text, we recommend a separate word document; reference the file name here and include it (zipped) with your ballot.

  4) To include a paragraph space in your lengthly text, use Alt + Enter on your keyboard.

  5) To create "bullets", simply use a dash "-" space for each item you want to
  "bullet" and use two paragraph marks between them (Alt + Enter as described
  above).
  ------------------------------------------------------------------




5fce108e-2585-4968-aa9f-e686efe88029.xlsx [Format Guidelines]                         49                                                March 2003
                                                                V3 Ballot Submission/Resolution Form




5fce108e-2585-4968-aa9f-e686efe88029.xlsx [Format Guidelines]                    50                    March 2003
                                                              V3 Ballot Submission/Resolution Form


 Note: This section is a placeholder for Q&A/Helpful Hints for ballot resolution. (These notes are from Cleveland Co-Chair meeting; needs to be edited, or replaced by use cases)

 Marked ballots
 Issue For second and subsequent membership ballots HL7 ballots only the substantive changes that were added since the last ballot, with the instructions that ballots returned on unmarked ite
 “not related”. How do you handle obvious errors that were not marked, for example, the address for an external reference (e.g. DICOM) is incorrect?
 Response You can correct the obvious typographical errors as long as it is not a substantive change, even if it is unmarked. We recommend conservation interpretation of “obvious error” as y
 make a change that will questioned, or perceived to show favoritism. If you are unclear if the item is an “obvious error” consult the TSC Chair or ARB.
 Comment With the progression of ballots from Committee - > Membership the closer you get to final member ballot, the more conservative you should be in adding content. In the early stag
 ballot, it may be acceptable to adding new content (if endorsed by the committee) as wider audiences will review/critique in membership ballot. The Bylaws require two levels of ballot for n
 to Section 14.01). Exceptions must approved by the TSC Char.

 Non-persuasive
 Issue Use with discretion· Attempt to contact the voter before you declare their vote non-persuasive· Fixing a problem (e.g. typo) in effect makes the negative vote non-persuasive.· In all case
 be informed of the TC’s action.
 Response The preferred outcome is for the voter to withdraw a negative ballot; It is within a chair’s prerogative to declare an item non-persuasive. However, it does not make sense to declar
 without attempting to contact the voter to discuss why you are declaring non-persuasive. If you correct a typo, the item is no longer (in effect) non-persuasive once you have adopted their re
 change, however the voter should then willingly withdraw their negative as you have made their suggestion correction.. In all cases, you must inform the voter.
 Comment


 Non-related
 Issue Use with discretion· Used, for example, if the ballot item is out of scope, e.g. on a marked ballot the voter has submitted a comment on an area not subject to vote.· Out of scope items
 Response
 Comment


 Non-standard ballot responses are received
 Issue The ballot spreadsheet allows invalid combination, such as negative typo.
 Response Revise the ballot spreadsheets to support only the ANSI defined votes, plus “minor” and “major” negative as requested by the committees for use as a management tool. Question w
 Suggestion will be retained
 Comment Separate Affirmative/Abstain and Negative ballots will be created. Affirmative ballots will support: naffirmativenaffirmative with commentnaffirmative with comment
 comment – suggestionnabstainNegative ballots will support:nnegative with reason – majornnegative with reason – minorNote: “major” “minor” need definition

 Substantive changes must be noted in ballot reconciliation
 Issue Who determines whether a ballot goes forward?
 Response Substantive changes in a member ballot will result in a subsequent ballot. These should be identified on the ballot reconciliation form. (Refer to Bylaws 15.07.03). The TSC Chair
 whether the ballot goes forward to another member ballot, or back to committee ballot.
 Comment · Co-chairs and Editors need a working knowledge of “substantive change” as defined on the Arb website.·

 What Reconciliation Documentation Should Be Retained?
 Issue · By-Laws Section 14.04.01 states: “All comments accompanying affirmative ballots shall be considered by the Technical Committee.” This means each line item must be reviewed. Y
 disposition "considered" to mark affirmative comments that have been reviewed. Committees are encouraged to include in the comment section what they thing of the affirmative comment a


5fce108e-2585-4968-aa9f-e686efe88029.xlsx [Co-Chair Guidelines]                        51                                                                              March 2003
                                                              V3 Ballot Submission/Resolution Form

 disposition "considered" to mark affirmative comments that have been reviewed. Committees are encouraged to include in the comment section what they thing of the affirmative comment a
 they think action should be taken, and by who.
 Response ·
 Comment


 How do you handle negatives without comment?
 Issue How do you handle a negative ballot is submitted without comments?
 Response The co-chair attempts to contact the voter, indicating “x” days to respond. If there is no response, the vote becomes 'not persuasive' and the co-chair must notify the ballotter of this


 Appeals
 Issue How are appeals handled?
 Response · Negative votes could be appealed to the TSC or Board· Affirmative votes cannot be appealed
 Comment

 Some information is not being retained
 Issue · The disposition of the line item as to whether or not a change request has been accepted needs to be retained. · The status of the line item as it pertains to whether or not the respondent
 the line item is a separate matter and needs to be recorded in the column titled "withdrawn'

 Some information is not being retained
 Issue By-Laws Section 14.04.01 states: “All comments accompanying affirmative ballots shall be considered by the Technical Committee.”· There is divided opinion as to whether or not Tec
 Committee’s need to review all line items in a ballot.· Should there be a statement on the reconciliation document noting what the TC decided?
 Response “. . .considered” does not mean the committee has to take a vote on each line item. However, a record needs to be kept as to the disposition. There are other ways to review, e.g. se
 committee for review offline, and then discuss in conference call. The review could be asynchronous, then coordinated in a conference call. The ballot has to get to a level where the committ
 the item. The committee might utilize a triage process to manage line items.
 Comment Action Item: Add to the ballot spreadsheet a checkoff for “considered; this would not require, but does not prohibit, documentation of the relative discussion.

 Withdrawing Negatives
 To withdraw a negative ballot or vote, HQ must be formally notified. Typically, the ballotter notifies HQ in writing of this intent. If, however, the ballotter has verbally expressed the intention
 entire negative ballot in the TC meeting, this intent must be documented in the minutes. The meeting minutes can then be sent via e-mail to the negative voter with a note indicating that this i
 that he/she withdrew their negative as stated in the attached meeting minutes and that their vote will be considered withdrawn unless they respond otherwise within five (5) days.

 The ballotter may also submit a written statement to the TC. The submitter's withdrawal must be documented and a copy retained by the co-chairs and a copy sent to HL7 HQ by email or fax.

 Two weeks (14 days) prior to the scheduled opening of the next ballot, the co-chairs must have shared the reconciliation package or disposition of the negative votes with the negative balloter
 balloters then have 7 days to withdraw their negative vote. If, 7 days prior to the scheduled opening of the next ballot the negative vote is not withdrawn, it will go out
 with the subsequent ballot as an outstanding negative.


 Changes applied are not mapped to a specific response
 Issue Changes are sometimes applied to the standard that are not mapped directly to a specific ballot response , due to editing requirements
 Response: A column to record substantive changes and to track whether the change has been applied was added.


5fce108e-2585-4968-aa9f-e686efe88029.xlsx [Co-Chair Guidelines]                          52                                                                               March 2003
                                                               V3 Ballot Submission/Resolution Form

 Response: A column to record substantive changes and to track whether the change has been applied was added.

 Asking for negative vote withdrawal:
 Please include the unique ballot ID in all requests to ballot submitters. E.g. if asking a ballot submitter to withdraw a negative please use the ballot ID to reference the ballot.


 The following sections contain known outstanding issues. These have not been resolved because they require a 'ruling' on interpretations of the Bylaws and the Policies and Procedures
 updating of those documents. If you ever in doubt on how to proceed on an item, take a proposal for a method of action, then take a vote on that proposal of action and record it in the sp
 the minutes.

 Tracking duplicate ballot issues is a challenge
 Issue Multiple voters submit the same ballot item.
 Response While items may be “combined” for purposes of committee review, each ballot must be responded to independently.
 Comment


 Editorial license
 Issue There is divided opinion as to the boundaries of "editorial license".
 Response
 Comment


 Divided opinion on what requires a vote
 Issue
 Response · Do all negative line items require inspection/vote of the TC? – Yes, but you can group· Do all substantive line items require inspection/vote of the TC? Yes· How should non
 be evaluated for potential controversy that would require inspection and vote of the TC? Prerogative of Chair, if so empowered
 Comment


 Ballet Reconciliation Process Suggestion
 Issue It might be useful to map the proposed change to the ARB Substantive Change document. This would involve encoding the ARB document and making allowances for “Guideline Not F
 Response ARB is updating their Substantive Change document; this process might elicit additional changes.
 Comment Action Item? This would require an additional column on the spreadsheet

 How are line item dispositions handled?
 Issue Line items are not handled consistently
 Response · A Withdrawn negative is counted as an affirmative (this is preferable to non-persuasive.)· A Not related remains negative in the ballot pool for quorum purposes, but does not imp
 e.g. it does not count as a negative in the 90% rule.· A Not persuasive remains negative in the ballot pool for quorum purposes, but does not impede the ballot, e.g. it does not count as a negat
 rule.· Every negative needs a response; not every negative needs to be “I agree with your proposed change.” The goal is to get enough negatives resolved in order to get the ballot to pass, wh
 quality standard.
 Comment

 How should negative line items in an “Affirmative Ballot” be handled?

5fce108e-2585-4968-aa9f-e686efe88029.xlsx [Co-Chair Guidelines]                          53                                                                                March 2003
                                                               V3 Ballot Submission/Resolution Form


 How should negative line items in an “Affirmative Ballot” be handled?
 Issue Affirmative Ballots are received that contained negative line items. The current practice is to err on the side of caution and treat the negative line item as a true negative (i.e. negative ba
 Response · If a member votes “Affirm with Negative line item” the negative line item is treated as a comment but the ballot overall is affirmative.· Action Item: This must be added to the Ba
 Comment Revising the ballot spreadsheet to eliminate invalid responses will minimize this issue. Note on the ballot spread

 Difference Between Withdraw and Retract
 If a ballot submitter offers to withdraw the negative line item the ‘negative’ still counts towards the total number of affirmative and negative votes received for the ballot (as it currently seems
 bylaws). If the submitter offers to retract their negative then it does not count towards the overall affirmative and negative votes received for the ballot.




5fce108e-2585-4968-aa9f-e686efe88029.xlsx [Co-Chair Guidelines]                          54                                                                                March 2003
                                                              V3 Ballot Submission/Resolution Form




5fce108e-2585-4968-aa9f-e686efe88029.xlsx [Co-Chair Guidelines]                55                    March 2003
                                                                             V3 Ballot Submission/Resolution Form


, or replaced by use cases)


lots returned on unmarked items will be found

etation of “obvious error” as you do not want to

ing content. In the early stages of committee
uire two levels of ballot for new content (refer



       persuasive.· In all cases, the voter must

does not make sense to declare non-persuasive
nce you have adopted their recommended




to vote.· Out of scope items




management tool. Question will be removed.

ive with comment – typonaffirmative with




ws 15.07.03). The TSC Chair will determine




ne item must be reviewed. You can use the
of the affirmative comment and whether or not


               5fce108e-2585-4968-aa9f-e686efe88029.xlsx [Co-Chair Guidelines]                56                    March 2003
                                                                              V3 Ballot Submission/Resolution Form

 of the affirmative comment and whether or not




 ust notify the ballotter of this disposition.




whether or not the respondent has withdrawn



 nion as to whether or not Technical

e other ways to review, e.g. send to the
 to a level where the committee could vote on




erbally expressed the intention to withdraw the
 th a note indicating that this is confirmation
hin five (5) days.

nt to HL7 HQ by email or fax.

otes with the negative balloters. The negative




                5fce108e-2585-4968-aa9f-e686efe88029.xlsx [Co-Chair Guidelines]                57                    March 2003
                                                                             V3 Ballot Submission/Resolution Form




 the Policies and Procedures as well as
 action and record it in the spreadsheet and in




C? Yes· How should non-substantive changes




owances for “Guideline Not Found”.




m purposes, but does not impede the ballot,
g. it does not count as a negative in the 90%
er to get the ballot to pass, while producing a




               5fce108e-2585-4968-aa9f-e686efe88029.xlsx [Co-Chair Guidelines]                58                    March 2003
                                                                              V3 Ballot Submission/Resolution Form



 true negative (i.e. negative ballot).
 This must be added to the Ballot Instruction



he ballot (as it currently seems to state in the




                5fce108e-2585-4968-aa9f-e686efe88029.xlsx [Co-Chair Guidelines]                59                    March 2003
                                                              V3 Ballot Submission/Resolution Form




5fce108e-2585-4968-aa9f-e686efe88029.xlsx [Co-Chair Guidelines]                60                    March 2003
Ballot Committee Code   Ballot Committee Name Ballot Code Name

InM                     Infrastructure and      CT
                        Messaging               XML-ITS DataTypes

                                                XML-ITS Structures

                                                Datatypes Abstract
                                                MT
                                                TRANSPORT
                                                UML-ITS DataTypes

                                                CI, AI, QI
                                                MI

CBCC                    Community Based         MR
                        Collaborative Care


CDS                     Clinical Decision Support DS

CS                      Clinical Statement      CS

FM                      Financial Management    AB
                                                CO
                                                CR

II                      Imaging Integration     DI
                                                II

M and M                 Modelling and           RIM
                        Methodology             Refinement
                                                CPP
                                                MIF
                                                HDF

MedRec                  Medical Records (now    MR
                        merged with SD)

OO                      Orders and Observations BB
                                                CG
                                                CP
                                                LB
                                                ME
                                                OB
                                                OR
                                                RX
                                                SP
                                      TD


PA           Patient Administration   PA
                                      MM
                                      SC

PC           Patient Care             PC

PM           Personnel Management     PM

PHER         Public Health /          IZ
             Emergency Response       PH
                                      RR

Publishing   Publishing               V3 Help Guide (ref)
                                      Backbone (ref)

RCRIM        Regulated Clinical Research Information Management
                                      RP
                                      RT

Sched        Scheduling               SC

StructDocs   Structured Documents     CD
                                      QM

Vocab        Vocabulary               Vocabulary (ref)
                                      Glossary (ref)

ArB          Architectural Review Board
Attach       Attachments
CCOW         Clinical Context Object Workgroup
Ed           Education
Meaning

Version 3: (CMET) Common Message Elements, Release 1, 2, 3
Version 3: XML Implementation Technology Specification - Data Types, Release
1
Version 3: XML Implementation Technology Specification - Structures, Release 1

Version 3: Data Types - Abstract Specification, Release 1
Version 3: Shared Messages, Release 1, 2
Version 3: Transport Protocols
Version 3: UML Implementation Technology Specification - Data Types, Release
1
Version 3: Infrastructure Management, Release 1
Version 3: Master File/Registry Infrastructure, Release 1

Version 3: Medical Records: Composite Privacy Consent Directive, Release 1


Version 3: Clinical Decision Support, Release 1

Version 3: Clinical Statement Pattern, Release 1

Version 3: Accounting and Billing, Release 1,2
Version 3: Coverage, Release 1 (virtual CMET domain)
Version 3: Claims and Reimbursement, Release 1, 2, 3, 4

Version 3: Diagnostic Imaging, Release 1
Version 3: Imaging Integration, Release 1

Version 3: Reference Information Model, Release 1, 2
Version 3: Refinement, Extensibility and Conformance, Release 1, 2
Version 3: Core Principles and Properties
Version 3: Model Interchange Format
Version 3: HL7 Development Framework, Release 1

Version 3: Medical Records, Release 1, 2


Version 3: Blood Tissue Organ, Release 1
Version 3: Clinical Genomics, Release 1
Version 3: Common Product Model, Release 1
Version 3: Laboratory, Release 1
Version 3: Medication, Release 1
Version 3: Observations, Release 1
Version 3: Orders, Release 1
Version 3: Pharmacy, Release 1
Version 3: Specimen, Release 1
Version 3: Therapeutic Devices, Release 1


Version 3: Patient Administration, Release 1, 2
Version 3: Material Management, Release 1
Version 3: Scheduling, Release 1

Version 3: Care Provision, Release 1

Version 3: Personnel Management, Release 1

Version 3: Immunization, Release 1
Version 3: Public Health, Release 1
Version 3: Regulated Reporting, Release 1

Version 3: Guide
Version 3: Backbone

Version 3: Regulated Products, Release 1
Version 3: Regulated Studies, Release 1

Version 3: Scheduling, Release 1, 2

Version 3: Clinical Document Architecture, Release 1, 2
Version 3: Quality Measures, Release 1

Version 3: Vocabulary
Version 3: Glossary
Type of Document

Domain

Foundation

Foundation
Foundation
Domain
Foundations

Foundation
Domains
Domain



Domain

Domain

Domain

Domain
Domain
Domain

Domain
Domain

Foundation
Foundation
Foundation
Foundation
Foundation



Domain

Domain
Domain
Domain
Domain
Domain
Domain
Domain
Domain
Domain
Domain



Domain
Domain
Domain

Domain

Domain

Domain
Domain
Domain

Reference
Reference

Domain
Domain

Domain

Domain
Domain

Foundation
Reference
                                                            V3 Ballot Submission/Resolution Form

This page reserved for HL7 HQ. DO NOT EDIT.




                      Affirmative Negative



If you submit an overall affirmative vote, please make sure you have not included negative line items on the Ballot worksheet
Please be sure that your overall negative vote has supporting negative comments with explanations on the Ballot worksheet
You have indicated that you will be attending the Working Group Meeting and that you would like to discuss at least one of your comments with the responsible Committee during that time. Ple




Yes                   No


                                                                              Consi Consi            Pendi Pendi
                                                                              dered - dered -        ng      ng
                                                                     Consider No      Questi         input input
                                                                     ed for   action on              from from
                      Persuasive Not      Not persuasive     Not     future   requir Answe           submit other
Persuasive            with mod persuasive with mod           related use      ed      red            ter     WG
                                                                                              Referred and tracked

HD
AR
RM
IN
TE
MT
DM
ST
??




5fce108e-2585-4968-aa9f-e686efe88029.xlsx [Setup]                                     67                                                                           March 2003
                                                    V3 Ballot Submission/Resolution Form

                                                         ArB,Ard
                                                         en,Attac
                                                         h,Cardio
                                                         ,CBCC,
                                                         CCOW,
                                                         CDS,CG
                                                         ,CIC,Clin
                                                         ical
                                                         Stateme
                                                         nt,Confo
                                                         rm,Ed,E
                                                         HR,FM,
                                                         HCDev,I
                                                         I,Implem
                                                         entation,
                                                         InM,ITS,
                                                         Lab,M
                                                         and M,M
                                                         and M/
                                                         CMETs,
                                                         M and
                                                         M/
                                                         Templat
                                                         es,M
                                                         and M/
                                                         Tooling,
                                                         MedRec,
                                                         OO,PA,
                                                         PC,PHE
                                                         R,PM,P
                                                         S,PSC,
                                                         RCRIM,
                                                         RX,Sche




5fce108e-2585-4968-aa9f-e686efe88029.xlsx [Setup]                    68                    March 2003
                                                                           V3 Ballot Submission/Resolution Form




Committee during that time. Please note that due to time constraints not all comments can be reviewed at WGMs and that it is your responsibility to find out when this ballot comment can be scheduled for dis




              5fce108e-2585-4968-aa9f-e686efe88029.xlsx [Setup]                                      69                                                                             March 2003
                                                    V3 Ballot Submission/Resolution Form




5fce108e-2585-4968-aa9f-e686efe88029.xlsx [Setup]                    70                    March 2003
                                                                 V3 Ballot Submission/Resolution Form




omment can be scheduled for discussion.




             5fce108e-2585-4968-aa9f-e686efe88029.xlsx [Setup]                    71                    March 2003

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:239
posted:2/26/2012
language:English
pages:71