Especially since I'm going to be talking now. Yeah, so I just wanted to let me see if I go
to screen. Yeah, sure.
See
this one. Okay, cool.
Um, yes, let me click. Um, we've already approved this extension back in October. I think I just never actually merged the merges of the PR to the extensions schema and oh my goodness,
wait. Well, I
I already have 2020 50108,
and so this is just following the path that we've done in the past, which is every time we add new things to the extension schema. We create a release in in our in our GitHub repo, and so it's got now the correct date as the title. It describes the extensions that we added, and then you can download the zip, or, of course, the repo at at the time and so really, that's it. I don't know that we need an official approval or anything.
Application. If anyone has any concerns, we can, you know, sort of undo this. But since we did approve the schema, the extension, and actually, I will just show that to Clinical Document Architecture, CDA extensions. And this is the author and we approved it in October. App on october 2024, they're both here, the SCTC category and the sdtc author. We did approve it. Here is the link to the minutes. It says, Well, we actually did the discussion about fire based extensions, and then we did the actual approval of those. So I
implemented with a release date of 2025 to i i could have set October, but I figured, since they're going to be using CCDA 4.0 which is going to have a 2025 date, might as well do this. And I guess remind
me the process for adding these to the base CDA model. This
is the base CDA model.
Or do you mean CDA? Underscore? Sdtc.
I I mean, the balloting process to go with this,
well, I mean, we've got
implementation the extension lives here.
We didn't
edit the normative once they've been approved, create a PR, which is what I did this PR should include a link to the Extensions page, email structure.cf, serve once the review period is over. It has been three months now. We have an approval topic during the conference call. Again, that's what we've done. So we have approved it and that now I just did the release process, which is, create a new release, follow the convention set forth by previous create a zip. Yeah, this, this is all just sort of, how do you I will go back and put the implemented on dates there. So there's not really, like a ballot here. It's just
and we approve your issues and
the IS and
John's not here anymore. There is Mark
find it. I don't know what the documentation is. We We did talk about it in a recent call, but our plan was that we would make because we have to pre publish this in order to do the CCDA ballot, which is exactly you did pre publish this, you know, as of December 18. But then, I don't know if it's going in for a ballot or a comment. I
think John said it was and or some type of review. And I guess maybe that's my ask is, is it I love the documentation you showed for the extension. I think that's fantastic. I'm just wondering if we need to have the parallel documentation for SD,
yeah, I think that sounds like a good idea.
And then what I'm what I'm wondering about is if, if you look at HL seven.org/cda, you know, the main CDA standard page. Now there's a, there's a table right there that I'm thinking, Oh, that we need, right? We need a clear way of saying that we really should have a link to CDA, underscore, sdtc, our 2.0 and then this complimentary CDA, SD thing. And and I would love to see if we agree that when we rev one, we rev the other, and they remain having the same numbers. So if we're going to make some changes, we make them in CDA, underscore, s, DTC, we make them in CDA core, SD, and then give them both the same number, like 2.0 point one. And then each time we're going to make these kinds of changes, we would make them in both places until such date that we decide otherwise, we'd make them in both places, and we would give them both the same number, so that you could see that sdtc And this SD logical model we're changing moving forward and staying in sync together,
because the management group is going to need to update This page.
Don't know what I think about the version, because historically, we've always had the sdtc is a dated version, you know, going back to before it was in GitHub. But even once it was in GitHub, and these aren't balloted things. This is when we find something. We make a fix here. But you know, you're right now there's going to be, there at least should be a balloted version of the SD version.
But we could start this together right now with the change that you're making and and just begin versioning s the CDA, underscore, sdtc, begin versioning it and start it right off with whatever you're going to give as the version number for the SD edition.
I think it's somehow important to retain the date, because, you know, it's fine if we know internally, we know that this is what we're doing, but then people that are use it externally will might get confused. I
believe that Lynn, I believe that Lynn hasn't a way of doing that, because if you recall consolidated CDA, which had seven erratas. It was 2.1, dot 0.1, through 2.1, dot 0.7, Russ OTT had us made an improvement that each time you make a change in that errata part of the tuple at the end, you stamp a date on it, like 2025, September or 2023, November, or whatever it was, and that was how we could give ourselves more understanding of this is the version that was released at this point in time. You
What about just something like this?
And then could you make CDA, underscore, sdtc, space to die or
to go with it.
What do you and then just keep, keep dates, you know, in like, whatever the official
I mean, we can do whatever we want. This is just a made up thing, but this is for convention that we've had for for years.
I mean, can we have both? I mean, that's cryptic, though. How does anybody know that that's CDA, I know in the context of the site and everything you know where you are. But I think a better, a better name would be CDA, underscore, sdtc, and then, in lieu of the date, you give it that version 2.0 point one, and someplace we can keep track that the 2.0 point one release is January 2025,
why not both?
I would I would be fine with both. I would just stick it after the version number.
I have sort of been against this since we went to GitHub, but a lot of people that I thought you included Lisa, were really pushing for we need this zip file named like this, because that's what people people have always used
I do. The only thing that I'm just saying is I don't know why I agreed to not have CDA underscore, sdtc in there. And at the time when we made those decisions, we didn't have a second child to manage simultaneously. And now that we have two to manage together, I'm trying to come up with something that can work for both
and have a very similar look and feel To it enough to distinguish the two, but enough so
I want, I sort of would want to let that kind of simmer With implementers who aren't necessarily on this call, just because, you know, some people, I mean, so, so honestly, I kind of realized this when, when my company was was doing some validation, and I realized they had a really old version of the schema, and I'm like, Well, Hey, let's grab this newest one. You know people that have been used to downloading these, I don't know, I it's just a file name. When you download it, you can save it as whatever the heck you want. And we can call it whatever the heck we want here too. But
Well, for those people, Ben, if you just, if you imagined that, where it's at right after it says download, if it just said CDA, underscore, sdtc, and then it had space 2.0, dot one. And then you could put that number, if that you know that date number, if that helps people feel comfortable. That was what Linda just said, is keep them both and just make their the constructs similar.
It would be good to get some implementer input. And Ryan was on the call earlier. I don't see anyone else on right now, so maybe we can bring this up again.
Yeah, I wonder
finally, reach out.
Reach out. Rachelle would be a good, another good person to ask, because she has to teach a lot of people about this stuff, and when you have to, you know, spend 25 minutes explaining how you would know that this file and that file are are a pair. It just, it takes a like, cogniz, Cognizant burden, what is called Cognizant cognitive, cognitive burden, cognitive burden.
Yeah, so, why don't we do that? Why don't we plan to? Lisa, would you be willing to reach out?
Yeah, adding this comment for now?
Yeah, I think for now, that's what we can do. And then we should, you know, and maybe it's something we end up just having a table like we're looking at before that says this and this are the same and the different versions. I
mean, this, this is literally just, just a file that I created in a file name. I mean, I can rename it to whatever we want. It's just, we said, Follow the conventions, followed by, I'm just
worried about the impact on implementers, like you said, you know, like when they change a file
whatever, or doing any sort of automated look up out there and expecting a date as the first part of it or something. CDA management group always does an announcement when these go out, right? So we could talk about the name change in that announcement, if we decide to
do what we always have to think about. You know, there's a much broader user group, user stakeholders than participate in Ho seven. So absolutely. Anyway, I'm wondering if we could stop this. Oh,
but you know what I see Dave on Dave Carlson, who's an implementer, I wonder if he has any insight.
Unfortunately, I haven't been listening, so
no worries. We just wonder. For the sdtc file, when it gets updated, it usually has a date on it as the name, as part of the name, would it affect you. If that was changed that didn't start with the date,
you can have time to think about it for next time.
No, right now,
keep that on your bottom maybe next time.
We're not doing anything automated with it, or
anything else, please,
ladies, so we could ask Kyle too.
Yeah, I'm gonna, I'm putting it in our notes for next time that we meet to talk about this at CMG, we have a lot of good implementers there.
Wonder if we can take Russ, has to leave at the bottom of the hour, and he's our work group meeting schedule expert person. So maybe we could just take a few minutes and start talking about the work group meeting schedule, which is just, you know, we've only begun to draft it, but it's approaching very close, very soon, so I think we have to be going on it, and then we can at least just talk about topics we want to have on it at this point, sure,
so it's sort of templated in, and we do have some topics that we did intentionally put on here, but we still got a lot of flexibility right now. We've coordinated, like the different
joint sessions that we intend to we're gonna what we're
either but a couple things we'd highlight, we're gonna have basically Monday through Thursday, scheduled with our administrivia and q1 as per usual. But as you can see, we've still got a lot of openings. We're gonna have one joint session with vocab Tuesday, q3 and then joint with patient care, with vocab topics and anything that we need to bring to patient care, we intend to slide into this as well, but I think recently, we haven't had that many topics we need to bring to them. We did intentionally have the two quarters of joint with CMG and this topic we did intentionally put on here. I know from our discussions around how are we going to do maintenance and publication, kind of what we talked about a little bit today, about, you know, you know, where do we draw the line for what's a ballot and what doesn't need to be a ballot? And then we have the second placeholder. These were mainly the topics that we had, topics we need to discuss as a group in January. And then we did get joint sessions lined up with CGP, q3 and q4 on Wednesday, which will be when they're doing the US core ballot reviews. So we can be there to sort of discuss the future of us CDI and its implications on CCDA as well. So that's what we have right now for agenda scheduled. I don't know if there's anything top of mind. What we've historically done is put topics that we need to schedule right on here. So I'd welcome you guys, as you come up with topics, if you want to throw them on here, we can put them in there and then slot them in honestly. If there's an open quarter, I would also say, feel free to pencil things in where you want to. I think that's okay, but this is what we've got right now.
I think that we, I saw clinical document profiles up there, so I'll share this. I'll share our agenda with that group, and times it might work for them. And also, I think we had just mentioned something, oh, going through the our assigned erratas We should probably add.
So we had, so which errata is the question, right? So we, we did have something here for the arc.
I interesting any errata that are we own, like anything on on composition, right? Yes.
Okay,
and I did set up special filters for that. I can add another one around that so there are tickets that aren't have already been like triaged to structure docs, but then we could also, more broadly, just look for fire tickets that reference composition. Yeah.
And I can get a link to a search that will work for that great
and I guess the other thing we have to talk about is co chair availability. I saw, I saw a topic that you had an interim co chair assignment. I don't know what.
I think that's kind of like a standing thing that we've had. I can take it out of the agenda. It's just something that we've, you know, yeah, we
probably don't need it for the virtual right? But we do have, we do have to assign our chairs and scribes and stuff. Can actually have a co chair meeting and do that? Yeah, I think we should
probably do that in a co chair meeting. And I'll, I'll get this updated before we have the actual meeting with like, the specifics of what are the things that we need to cover. I but
yeah, lot of open sessions as of now, I imagine we may cancel some of those, depending on what we really need. I there
too.
These virtual ones are so weird to me still.
And I feel like, in particular, it's this one, right? Like, if, if there's something else going on that's going to draw away the CMG or structure docs, folks like, we could move these. But I think this has been a pretty consistent slot for us,
right, right, right now we've been the same with q3 and four not meeting them to join CGP is becoming consistent as well. So, all right, so you know, we'll, we'll make sure it's that. We'll make sure the link is in the minutes. And if people you know, want to just for easy navigation. And if, as people think of topics, please add them to the top. Or, yeah, like Russ said, even to a particular quarter,
like Brett suggestion of, if Monday's open, that's just direct you
to Say, oh yeah,
thank you, and I thought you were saying, cancel Monday. Yeah, no, I like that idea, because q1 is 6am for me,
yeah, think it might be, is it six? Oh, yeah, you're right.
So I mean, I can just do this for now. Oh, that's terrible. I'm sorry. Come on, confluence, you can be better than that. Oh, we can't. All right, I'll have to figure out how
to fix it. Let's do that. I'd like to thank you. Brett, I like that. Okay, I will
make that update.
I'm here for you. I Yeah,
awesome, especially since I have to let the horses out Monday morning. So
All right, see, I don't think
less people want have something we did, oh, but Russ has to leave again too, so, but we have four minutes. I think, Lisa, you want to you wanted to talk about the digital signatures take. I just
wanted an update on, on if we were like, where we're at, and what the next steps are to progress that doing that Errata.
I know it's on one of the TSC e votes, I just can't remember which one. So
Linda, it's on the one that we just did. You know, this week we approved extension of it, but, but the extension that we approved is the unfixed version, like, somehow get that errata caught up.
I think that was a Russ question, or if he if he had any right? Yeah,
so the forensics, what we found was the
of the errata version A while ago, but never a publication request, never like a final package of it. So to me, the first question is, who is going to put together whatever the final draft is? And then I would assume that we would want to go through the publication request process, through through us, so we could put together a publication request that references it, but we want to circulate that with structured docs, probably for like a week, right with the draft, so that people have an opportunity to review and then we just approved to publish as an errata and go through The normal publication process, but I think that starts with a finalized version of the the revised content.
It sounds like something more than can be done in a structured documents meeting like work needs to be done outside,
yeah. And, I mean, I think Lisa, you had your hands on the last draft of that, right? And then I saw an email between you and, like, Bob deterly, and I think that's where the communication ended. So like we could do a comparison of what was sent in that email a couple years ago and see what the changes are from what's published. But is that everything you know, is that exactly what wanted to do?
I mean, I believe if somebody wants to make a team. I would be happy to show up for a call and contribute my part of the memory, but I I'm not taking responsibility for creating this Errata. It is an orphaned child that Bob dieterly has stranded, and I just don't, I don't think that's a right. I'm willing to join the team if you guys want to fix it. I'm willing to help, but I'm not willing to, like stand up and own doing this errata myself.
Bob's not being paid to do anything, so he has that's the problem is, I asked him to do it, it's his work, and I asked him to do it, and he said he's not being paid to do anything. Do it, and he's not doing it. You can't get his attention to to do it. He doesn't feel like it's his responsibility. So what's in this nowhere, nowhere
Linda, do we ever talk at the TSC about, like, the role like, orphans? I mean, I'm sorry, I knew the TSC. So, you know, where does this type of kind of conversation sit of a standard we believe to be orphaned, we believe there's work to be done. Is that, is there any kind of like, does it give the inventory of those that are orphaned and they need to be updated? Or is that,
well, Austin on the call, it's
the responsibility of the work group that owns the standard, which, unfortunately in this case, is structured documents, and they make the hard choice. I The volunteer resources to update it, or whether they're going to take the hard choice of withdrawing it, letting it lapse, and that's the discussion
we're having. This was one that we tried to withdraw, and then realize, because it's referenced in a rule, we thought it would be inappropriate to withdraw.
Well, we could take the hard choice and say we're going to withdraw it anyway.
Well, we didn't. We took the, I know, and extended the Sto. We can
still withdraw it though,
right? Yeah, yeah.
Do we have a direct con? I'm trying to think of, like, who's the, who's the direct contact at CMS, that one of us? I mean, I could think of a few people I know, but I don't think I'm the best person to make that phone call. Like, who can call CMS to say, hey, we're gonna withdraw this. What does this mean for you?
I tried that, and they were quiet about, sort of, what do they want to do about they didn't
