Yesterday we went through our walk through of the IHE Data Access Framework White Paper. We hacked on it pretty hard for a number of reasons. One of the challenges we ran into was that the QIDAM didn't deliver on it's promise of harmonizing HQMF, HeD, QDM, VMR and CDA models. Instead, it delivered on part of that, and only on that part related to HQMF/HeD harmonization. The problem with that is that the DAF white paper needed that like yesterday, so now we have to find something else.
Unfortunately, other conceptual models don't fit the situation very well, and as we know, the reason for QIDAM was because HL7 had no conceptual model from which you could derive its clinical statement model. So even though we all have that model in our heads, we still don't have it on paper. My choices are to find one that fits (two have already failed), or build Yet Another One. Ycch.
During the discussion, Derek from ITI stopped by, and he's done some real work with RM-ODP, and one of our co-chairs in the group (Laura Bright) is familiar with the Zachman Framework. As a result of those discussions, we've gone from the HL7 SAIF 3 X 4 grid to a 2 x 5 grid, where IHE makes it really clear, we say NOTHING about technology, and our two levels are conceptual and implementable across the original five viewpoints. That pretty much corresponds with Volume I and Volume II/III content divide. Ho-ray for simplification. 2 x 5 < 3 x 4, and two are explicitly N/A.
After geeking out about that, there was a little side conversation over lunch about the curvature of a saddle (I won, it's negative, but she'll get me back for that later).
And then, there was the fact that IHE ITI decided this week to change the CP status known as "Rejected" to "Rejected with apologies".
IHE In Vienna has been fun so far, I just hope I manage to get some sleep while I'm here.