Somebody started recording? Did you start to record?
Oh, for your notes,
we only have one submitted topic, but we probably also should look at the work remaining schedule,
which we can we should probably
do, maybe, maybe after this, so maybe I'll just edit this so we remember.
Oh, oh, sorry, you do it
all right?
I don't know if it's handy, you could put a link in there too.
I don't know. I hope I know Russ, who's our usual person that works on leads the that schedule administration stuff. He's usually the leader on it. So I haven't looked at the schedule at all, but I can remember, okay, so any other items that anyone wants to add, or any time constraints that anyone has,
Bob has a time constraint for 8am Pacific, Okay,
we will make sure we get to your topic by then. Sorry, before then, how much time do you think you need or what?
Well, maybe 20 to 30 minutes. Okay,
All right, so previous meeting
minutes. But
I look like my Oh, I see.
All right. So we've got
notes down here, and decisions are bolded. Got the presentation from last time did a black vote, which is bolded. We have very big table because of the blockbuster we put in that refers to the block. But
uh, no, sorry, these were, I'm just going to close this narrow. These were the topics that we were starting to discuss with respect to the clinical fire, clinical document, or existing JIRAs that we as a worker have to look at. I think we, I'm not sure we even got through one last time,
which we, yeah, we,
if, I don't know if people have the appetite for today or if anything's ready given the holidays, but you know, I think we're going to dig more into that one with the meeting after this, which would be today. But we, you know, we don't have to do that today. We can do that the next time and or make sure we had some time in the work group to do that. That would probably be a really good work group topic, to really dig into that for a whole quarter and get them done. Yeah, so we got attendance. Okay, anyone see anything that needs to be added or changed?
Right? We will consider them proof approved,
business updates. Who've we got on? Anything from TSC,
TSC, people on, I heard Marc choice. Anything from terminology,
nothing, really, nope.
Okay. CDA management group
got John on anymore. Okay, so we got Linda. Yeah,
I was hoping Lisa was going to be here, but nothing substantial we I think we've forgotten what the status of what's happening with CDA, not CCDA, but CDA and but I don't see John on so maybe if he joins later, we could ask that question, or Benjamin might know. Oh, okay, no,
Benjamin knows nothing. Oh, okay.
And we're preparing our road map and preparing for the working group where we'll present it to the it is structured docs for approval. Sorry. Say that
again. I miss it. Our
road map for 2026, five, rather and well presented on one of our queues. I'm not sure that's been defined yet with structured docs
I am with back on CDA. I'm assuming that. I'm assuming that what needed to get changed, what for in order for the CCDA ballot to, you know, have have us be not, have not have some errors in it that were related to the update or corrections that were needed. I'm assuming that was done.
I think it was done via an update, but, yeah, I haven't seen it come through, like, PSC, like an
announcement or something. And so I just,
I'm, I'm curious where we are in the the work on it, and if I remember correctly, what was going to be done, I remember hearing it was going to be done on a yearly basis. But I just, I don't know, chalk it up to the Christmas vacation. I don't remember,
yeah, and he did talk about it, what the where, the status was, and I'm also forgetting that maybe later we can look back on the notes and see if it's something that there's something there, or
maybe somebody who knows him well, could see if he could join for some period of time. Maybe,
yeah. And I you know, because I think that the intention was a treat it like they used to do v3 where they just do, when they find errors or whatever, they just periodically update it, and then once a year they do do a ballot. I think that's what it was, gay.
My big question. This is Lisa, sorry for getting here late. I got distracted with another task. Is it conceptually? Will we continue to align CDA, underscore, sdtc, with the changes that get made in CDA are to logical model?
That's my topic today. But yes, I believe so. Okay,
because I'm like, That's the bridge. That's the bridge spot right there. We're never going to touch CD AR two ever again, but we have control over CD AR two. What do we call it? SD edition, SD edition, and we have the ability to make governance decisions about what's allowed in CDA, underscore, sdtc, and I think that's where the principles lie for us to be able to govern a bridging strategy towards the future.
Yeah, I think within reason. I mean, obviously extensions and corrections we'll put there. If we do end up saying, okay, the SD version is the new version, we can actually make updated releases of it. Then I think the question will be, what do we do with the old SCTC? But,
and at some point, I do see that that would be an A natural logical progression, that while we're doing this, initially, we take on the kinds of changes that we can do in both places, and eventually, as the community gets ready for it, we would put ourselves in a place where, like, let's say somebody was bold enough to take on a project to figure out how to get the usage for telecom name and address all using the same vocabulary, we would have to make a breaking you know, we would have to cut ourselves free and give ourselves permission to make a change in CDA r2 SD edition that might not be possible to make in CDA underscore, sdtc, or maybe there is a way, and we just have to figure out how to make a rule change that allows for that to happen and for us to kind of like, cut away from the past enough to harmonize on, like basic things, like, there are certain name uses, and then we all say that the same way, that's the kind of that's the kind of wiggle room we have to create for ourselves. I
Okay,
and I have an update from John. He said, ask them with the status of the CDA instruction, definition stuff, and he said that the the CDA SD has been published on the 18th, and they're going to be making a project so they can ballot it in the future.
Okay, so I do
backwards, but yes,
but it doesn't have to be balloted every time. And we make changes that the the the principle that's being established here, I liked what gay was saying, or when I first joined, is there a range of changes that can just be made, right? And then you do some periodic ballot but what happens if somebody comes up then makes a ballot comment and says, Oh, this change that you already made, and has been out there in the wild for six months already. I've got an issue with it, and they prove that there is some concern, and then we just change it again.
Oh, I don't know, I suppose. I you know? I mean, that's probably not, I
mean, yeah, but it's also, it's created to be used with CCDA 4.0 so that's kind of their chance to find it, and if there's actually a problem with it, then yeah, I guess we would fix it again in the future. But, yeah, meanwhile, today, or couple of days ago, I've already published a new version of the SDT, sdtc schema. So
yeah, so it'd be something like, we're permitted to make changes that are driven by needs of IGS, like consolidated CDA, where we're in like some kind of roadblock and we can't move forward. We have to adjust the schema, those kinds of essential changes, I would say, can happen, and then the ballot is more like a perfunctory thing, where you're not expecting anybody to to show up and be against any of the changes, because we only made changes that they absolutely need for the other stuff that they want,
right? And it's mostly corrections. It's like, like, Brett or sorry, breast is, is saying it's the intention is that they're errata type of things.
Yeah, and I'll just point out that the rim, which followed this kind of pattern, there were comments put in against it, and those would be fed back into the harmonization rim harmonization process, and may result in changes so you know it, it, it's designed to allow it to evolve while still meeting the requirements of balloting.
And I know that when that was the intent the model that John wanted to follow. Yeah,
exactly. So, so it's not perfect, but it it works.
So Austin, what? What did he do? He published an errata, and that doesn't have to go through like two weeks of review by SD or anything like that. I'm
not exactly sure what he did. He said he published it. I sure how he published it, yeah, right.
He approved them on on structured documents, yeah,
yeah. It's not neurotic. It's the new version of CDA. SD, I
don't know what, yeah, we, we have, we have a process that's committee driven for publishing changes.
So it's like an update, not, not really an errata, yeah,
yeah. It's 201 SD, right now. So, yep, it says active as of 2024, 1218,
I would say, if it's 201, that's an Errata. 2.0, dot one. When I look at that version number, that's an if it had been an update or the committee governed kind of update, not an S to update, but the committee governed update. The agreement in the gom is that the middle number would increment if that's the if that's what we've got, yeah,
but this is the schema we're talking about. Correct the schema, the sdtc schema.
We're talking about the fire logical model, not the SDT.
Oh, okay, okay,
Lisa, you should join that. We're having a discussion on FMG about making it more obvious what the naming conventions and numbering conventions are, because it's always an issue when people bring, bring IGS to for approval publication is almost very few people get it right, yeah,
when, when is that gay?
Oh, to start, Sarah and Eric costs are going to, are going to kind of put together a little like table and and then we'll work with Lynn and with folks that create, like a table in the FMG space, which, yeah,
if you could loop me in as you see stuff going on, I would love to participate in whatever ad hoc or formal meetings happen. Just let me know when they are. I'll show up.
All right, sounds good. I'll send an email later today.
Actually, I never remind myself.
Okay, all right, so I don't see anyone. Oh, and see C are from asdp on the on the participant list. But are there any external updates from AST or anyone else?
All right, hearing no.
There is a new HIPAA regulation came out of OCR. I haven't looked at it all. I just heard it, so that might have some impact.
If you happen to have a link, I'm looking
I do. It'll take me a minute. No worries,
and yeah, just put in the chat if you if you find it alright. Let's take a look at see if we have any project proposals. I think there are some
we haven't looked at yet.
We can go a little bit fast here so that we can give the clinical documents, people their time before eight cross paradigm, sensitive data and sensitivity flags, library and guidance. Well, geez, how? How related to your topic? Linda,
all right, so this is a proposal. Structure, documents, notify, okay.
Project aims to provide an open source library that can be shared and maintained as an industry wide repository of agreed to sensitive data by jurisdiction in this Privacy Rules,
someday in the US. This is interesting. Okay,
I looks like I'm thinking that we would also, I mean, I we, I think we should at least be, I'm logging right an interested party like Sabrina says here from CMG, I don't know if we should be anything else, certainly pertinent and something we'd have to act on within CDA. If you know, we potentially would have to act on within CDA. So do people, what do people think interested party or co sponsor?
They seem to think that we're interested. As you know, it's interesting that CMG is not here since we asked. Project, Project, sorry.
Oh, I
was at I was thinking Sabrina's
comment is from us down there. Yeah, no,
I was just confused for a second because I was looking at this list and thinking, wow, why isn't cross group on here? But they're actually the sponsoring group, so any opinions people
might affect your methodology.
Yeah, and it also gay. It affects that, that DS 4p, CDA Guide, which is like a kind of in a challenging asset history position. It's very old, and it's and it's been through multiple like low participation reviews to extend its life, and in its sitting out there as a very influential document, but it really hasn't had a lot of SB oversight.
Is that, is that a CDA document?
It's a CDA IG, and it's called DS, 4p, data, segmentation, privacy,
I remember the name, but I could, I didn't, is it a? I guess what I really meant was, is it a? It's so it's actually a CDA. It's
in our CDA asset list, and it's available on the, you know, the standards grid from HL seven, and I can just actually got
templates and stuff in it, or is it just like,
it's got templates, and it's, it's like, really hairy. It's really, when you try and read it, it's different than anything you know, you would usually see at all produced out of security work group and and I feel concerned because the the mainstream structured documents. Community has not really weighed in on it, and now it's, it's being, you know, held up to a very high degree of use. And I'm just concerned about about possible consequences of if it all makes sense or not,
yeah, yeah. Whether there would be the, you know, the interested initiative to update that based on this, or maybe we would just retire and say, Look at this, because this is cross paradigm, so it will apply, right? It's almost like that potentially could
be like a next generation of it that comes out better? Yeah,
yeah. I mean, we could put the same kind of comment on unless people think that we should actually be a co sponsor.
And, you know, those of us that may have more, you know, like I perhaps might want to be involved more significantly, but the work group as a whole would potentially be just an interesting party. Does that sound reasonable? It
might be worth, I think, certainly worth someone putting a comment about that other IG, to say, hey, here's some prior art. And
right, don't,
either don't recreate it, or are you going to record or
do recreate it? Maybe we opportunity to make it better,
Let's withdraw it with doing this or whatever.
Do we want more frequent process
over folks like one of the things that makes me feel really good about IPS is and same with qrda is we have really good cross pollination into those other works, and this is one space where we don't have strong cross pollination into that other space. I don't know if there's anybody who typically attends structured documents that has kind of a mission or a side interest that would make security and privacy interesting enough to them to kind of help be a stronger set of eyes and ears to see what they're doing and see if it all makes sense together.
Well, I never used to be interested in privacy and security that much, but I am now in this day and age, so I might be that person.
Oh, that'd be awesome. Gay, yeah,
and let's mention this. We want to do it somebody. Lisa, would you happen to be able to grab a link for that? Willem, yeah,
I'll grab that. Yep. I
ESP, whatever. What was it? DSP, what ESP is for, the number four,
DS, 4p, isn't
it for remind me
the number four, yeah. And before the P, DS, data security, for privacy.
I mean, it stands for F, O, R, but Right, oh, those standards people being clever, clever,
clever.
It went normative in 2014 and then got an ST you update in 2023, recently. But in between there, who knows? You know? So I'll give the link to the the current St. You Version. Okay?
Chat. There it is gay. Thank you. Thank
do we know if on our agenda today, if
the if there's an update on the the errata for digital signature spec, is that something that's going to be covered today?
Maybe when you get done with this, we could just, I forgot to ask about that. I
I didn't okay. The link didn't work off. Can fix it? No, I can't fix it later, but anyway, they'll get it there. Can't change comments, all right, so I'm sorry I missed what you were talking about.
Oh, if DS if DS 4p is something that is on the agenda to be talked about today. I'm sorry I just said DS 4p i meant digital signature is something that we're talking about today. Oh, it's
not currently on the agenda. So why don't we see how the current stuff goes? And okay, and then we can,
and we might not be able to do it if Russ isn't here. Russ
is here. I think,
Okay, I'm here.
Okay, let's close that. Let's go here. Project scope statements, almost we're almost done to get to clinical documents.
December 13. So when's the last time we met? We probably looked at all these functional, yes,
mental health, just you.
Russ, no, but I'm really, I'm adjacent. The short story is that this is just a technical update. Anyway. They're just updating the underlying framework to the newer version of the functional model. Like, I don't think we need to be involved at all, okay?
And we are not indicated as a party. They
also made it clear that there is no adoption,
okay, all right, so we don't need to worry about this one.
I can't remember if we looked at we must have looked at these. I'm sure we looked at this
peak at the one was December 3 Just in case. But we would have had a meeting since then so I'm sure we looked at it, again, we're not at party, so Oh Laura made a comment. Right.
