PD+Sprint+Meeting+Session+9+Meeting+Minutes+2011-08-05

**Name** : //Provider Directories (PD) Initiative Sprint Team// Meeting //10//
 * Date** : //8/5/2011//

Agenda/Objectives:

 * **Topic** || **Time Allotted** ||
 * Initiative Updates and Announcements || 10 minutes ||
 * Query for Electronic Service Information including Electronic Address Use Case || 90 minutes ||
 * Review of subsequent work efforts on Electronic Service Information Discovery work stream || 15 minutes ||
 * Sprint Team Logistics/ Next Steps and Questions || 5 minutes ||

Attendees:
__Workgroup Attendees:__ Craig Klassy, Cletis Earle, Rick Marolt, Lester Keepper, Jonathan Tadese, Dave Shevlin, Dave Marotz, Joni Booth, david tao, Don Jorgenson, Ananya Gupta, Richard Eshbach, Vincent Lewis, Gail Kocher, rao parvatam, Mike Woodcock, Chris Andreou, Karen Witting, Peter Bachman, lin wan, Ron Sawdey __Panelist Attendees:__ Virginia Riehl, Victoria Njoku

Action Items:

 * **Date** || **Description** || **Status** || **Notes** ||
 * 8/5/2011 || Provide updates on disposition to consensus comments on Use Case || CLOSED || Updates to be shared with Brett Peterson, Annamarie Saarinen, and Bob Dieterle ||
 * 8/5/2011 || Submit vote on Use Case towards consensus || CLOSED || Committed Members who have not yet voted on Use Case ||
 * 8/8/2011 || Address any additional comments received during voting period || CLOSED || Use Case Support Leads and Sprint Team ||
 * 8/12/2011 || Submit final Use Case package for second work stream || OPEN || Use Case Support Leads ||
 * 8/5/2011 || Review posted Meeting Minutes for Sprint Team and SWG meetings and provide any corrections || OPEN || Sprint Team Members ||

**Key Discussion Points:**

 * The discussion focused on comments received along with “Yes” votes from Karen Witting, Annamarie Saarinen, and Brett Peterson. Offline feedback from Bob Dieterle were also incorporated during the discussion
 * Comments and suggestions were made to revise the language of the Message Content Requirements section (section 12.1) to address concerns about whether data elements are required or optional in the Use Case and to ensure clarity:
 * A clarification was made that there will be discussion about which data elements will be required versus optional during the harmonization process. The Harmonization team will introduce the scope and details of its activities at the next Sub-workgroup meeting, Thursday August 11th
 * The group discussed and approved replacing revising the introduction to the query message table (Table 8) as: “The following table lists the data elements that are available within a Provider Directory query message. The optional/required nature of each data element is not specified in the use case and is deferred for discussion during harmonization. Each data element in the table is necessary for some aspect of the use case, but the table does not specify exactly how they may be used together or which mix of content makes sense and which mix does not. All data elements may contain multiple values unless otherwise stated.”
 * The group discussed and approved replacing revising the introduction to the return message table (Table 9) as: “The following table lists the data elements that are available within a Provider Directory return message. The optional/required nature of each data element is not specified in the use case and is deferred for discussion during harmonization. All data elements may contain multiple values unless otherwise stated.”
 * The group discussed and approved revising the second column’s heading for both Table 8 and 9 to just state “Data Elements”
 * Including some language that future data elements could be added for future search criteria was suggested and discussed Given that the current list of data elements does provide any limitations to future additions, most members did not see a need to add this statement explicitly
 * Comments and suggestions were made to revise the notes within the Organization section of the return message table to provide more clarity:
 * The group discussed and removed the phrase “with reference to parent’ from the note "Suggest to return record (row) for each organization (with reference to parent) that fills the search criteria”. This revision will reflect that there has been no definition of a parent/child relationship for organizations as well as which related organizations get returned in the use case. These items will be discussed later in harmonization.
 * The group discussed a slight revision to the note "For where individual is included in search, returned organization should be constrained to those organization entries with which the individual has a relationship" to read clearly as "For where an individual is requested by the query…”
 * Within the Organization-Organization section of the return message table, comments and discussion regarding the “Type of relationship” and “Description” data elements focused on the need to clarify the meaning of both data elements and whether there was a need to keep both:
 * The group discussed this issue and concluded that the harmonization phase should determine if there is a standardized list of organization to organization relationships that could support the use case.
 * Assuming that a list could be identified, the group decided to remove the “description” data element and include a note under Appendix E that provides direction to harmonization indicating that if a list of relationships was not identified, this field should revert to a free text “description” data element.
 * Under the Organization-Organization section, a suggestion was made and approved to clarify the note "Information unique to relationship between for from Organization and for to Organization service locations" to "Information unique to relationship between the "from" Organization and the "to" Organization."
 * Under the Individual-Organization Relationship section, a comment was made and approved to delete the note "Return of this information assumes that the query included information from the Organization Section or a Unique Reference for the organization" because it was improper to provide this implementation advice within the Use Case
 * Under the Individual-Organization Relationship section, a comment was made and approved to remove "service location" from the note "Information unique to relationship between Individual Provider and Organization service location"
 * Under the Electronic Service Information section, comments were made that the corresponding notes were unclear including the meanings of electronic service type, the term “new unique endpoint, and for data elements to differ. The group approved the following revision "Electronic Service Information describes a unique endpoint" to the entire notes section
 * Under Appendix E the first bullet “All data elements captured under Dataset Considerations (Section 12.0) may have zero, one, or many values” was considered to have been addressed in the new introductions to the query and return dataset tables. However, the concept of zero values was not captured in the new introduction specifically as one Committed Member emphasized. The group decided to remove the referenced bullet above and requested for the Support Leads to inform the Member about the disposition
 * Under Appendix E, a comment was made to remove the bullet about recipient name because there was no reference to recipient name in the Use Case. There was a reference to recipient name in the Individual section of the query message table, hence the statement was maintained
 * In regards to Use Case Assumptions, a comment was made to include an additional assumption about the Electronic Service Information Consumer actor knowing how to access/find the appropriate Provider Directory actor especially since multiple Provider Directories exist. The group discussed and concluded that one of the Pre-conditions satisfied this request i.e. “The Electronic Service Information Consumer system has the ability to determine a Provider Directory that may receive a query”

**Resolution(s):**

 * Revisions to the Dataset Considerations section are as follows:
 * (See //Key Discussion Points// above for detailed revisions)
 * Revisions Appendix E are as follows:
 * Removal of the statement “//All data elements captured under Dataset Considerations (Section 12.0) may have zero, one, or many values”//
 * Inclusion of the statement “//When determining query response information, organization-organization relationships must be considered and assumptions made//”
 * Inclusion of the statement “//Type of relationship” data element for organization may not have a defined code set. During the harmonization phase, there is a need to determine the purpose of this code set and if a code set exists to meet this requirement. If no codeset is found, then the data element should be changed to a free form description of the relationship//”
 * Inclusion of the statement, “The concept of zero, one, or many values for data elements captured under the Dataset Considerations (Section 12.0) would be discussed in the harmonization process”

__Questions/Review of subsequent work efforts on Electronic Service Information Discovery work stream:__

 * One Member raised a question about where to address some issues that were not addressed in during the Use Case discussions such as misidentification of information, time value (e.g. for certificates), fraudulent use of information, etc.
 * A clarification was made that some of these issues including “spoofing” have been noted under the Issues, Obstacles, and Potential Risks sections of both Use Cases. For example, the first Use Case addresses the need for certificates to be properly validated.

Key Discussion Points:

 * Use Case Support Leads will inform Brett Peterson, Annamarie Saarinen, and Bob Dieterle (who were not able to attend the meeting) about the disposition to comments on the Use Case received as part of consensus
 * Other Committed Members that have not voted are requested to review Use Case and **cast votes by Monday, August 8th COB ET**
 * Achieve consensus on Use Case and handoff //Query for Electronic Service Information including Electronic Address// //Use Case//for consensus by August 12th
 * Initiate Harmonization process for Electronic Service Information Discovery work stream
 * Continue Harmonization work for Certificate Discovery for Direct Project work stream
 * Review Meeting Minutes for Sprint Team and SWG meetings and provide any corrections
 * Next Certificate Discovery SWG Meeting rescheduled for **Monday** **August 8, 2:30-4:00PM ET**
 * Next Electronic Service Information Discovery SWG Meeting scheduled for **Thursday August 11, 12:00-1:30PM ET)**
 * Next Sprint Team Meeting scheduled for **Friday August 12, 2011 3:00-5:00PM ET**