PD+-+Electronic+Service+Information+Discovery+Consensus+Page

The Electronic Service Information Discovery Data Model is CLOSED for consensus voting. Voting will run from **Friday, November 18** to **Sunday, December 4**. Voting is limited to Committed Members. Participants can learn more about the S&I Framework Consensus Process here.

Please review the Data Model Overview and Scope in addition to the data model and supporting materials prior to voting.

Consensus voting is limited to the following components of the Electronic Service Information Discovery Data Model:
 * 1) Object Data Set - data elements and definitions for all data objects
 * 2) Query Data Set - data elements for query transactions
 * 3) Response Data Set - data elements for response transactions
 * 4) Data model assumptions
 * 5) Query and Response Descriptions and Examples

Items 1 thru 4 are worksheets embedded within the Data Model workbook. Item 5 is a separate document.

A number of worksheets are included to help clarify objects within the data model. While participants are encouraged to review these supporting materials, they //**are not**// in and of themselves under consideration for consensus vote//**.**// Supporting materials include:
 * 1) ESI IntegrationProfile examples
 * 2) ESI ContentProfile examples
 * 3) ESI SecurityProfile examples

These worksheets embedded within the Electronic Service Information Discovery Data Model.

Please enter your comments/endorsement of the Electronic Service Information Discovery Data Model in the table below. Please find your name below, and provide a yes or no vote. If your vote is no, please explain __**in detail**__ what your objections are and how you believe they can be resolved.

Please note, only committed WG members can participate in the consensus process. If you are a committed member and your name is not listed below please edit the table and add your organization/name. "RFC4514, Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP): String Representation of Distinguished Names requires programmatic or human support of a DN or RDN to query an X.500/LDAP Directory to uniquely identify an object (such as an organization, i.e.a medical provider) in order to locate and return a response" "See RFC-5280 for instances in the use case in which security information (that may also be bound to a provider in a Provider Directory) is returned. If this is a Digital Certificate, certain fields may also require (or prohibit) the use of a DN. || a) Digital Certificate - there is no obvious provider directory query/response use case that necessitates communicating the certificate ID and certificate distinguished name outside the digital certificate itself. While it may be advisable to store these values within the internal storage of a provider directory, it is not necessary or useful to allow for them to be specified in a query or to require they be carried outside the digital certificate in the response. Expanding standards to support something that is not needed is unnecessary and burdensome. b) Electronic Service Information Object - this object is designed to allow for speculative future communication protocols and by doing so makes it more confusing to specify the existing cases. Detailed implementation guides will be needed to guide people in using the fields in this object and I am concerned that only those very few who created the object attributes - like myself - will be able to write these implementation guides using the attributes provided in a consistent way. It will be important for many eyes to review this content and assure the small team who created it that it is clear how to expand it to new transports and protocols. ||
 * **Organization** || **Name** || **Endorsement (Yes, Yes with Comments, No)** || **If No, what can be changed to make it yes?** ||
 * n/a - Independent || Dr. Michael Brody ||  ||   ||
 * 3M Health Information Systems || Ron Sawdey ||  ||   ||
 * ABILITY Network Inc || Brett Peterson || Yes ||  ||
 * ABILITY Network Inc || McLain Causey ||  ||   ||
 * Accredited Standards Committee X12 || Margaret Weiker ||  ||   ||
 * Accredited Standards Committee X12 || Don Bechtel ||  ||   ||
 * Accredited Standards Committee X12 || Gail Kocher || Yes ||  ||
 * Allscripts || Derrick Evans || Yes ||  ||
 * Axolotl Corp. || Lin Wan ||  ||   ||
 * Cequs Inc. || Peter Bachman || Yes with Comments || The following should be added.
 * CMS || Daniel Kalwa ||  ||   ||
 * Colorado Regional Health Information Organization || Terri Skalabrin ||  ||   ||
 * Covisint || Peter Gilbert ||  ||   ||
 * Covisint || Peter Greaves ||  ||   ||
 * eClinicalWorks || Ananya Gupta ||  ||   ||
 * EnableCare || Robert Dieterle || Yes (suggest we change organization legal name to "Organization Legal Name or Organization Endpoint Name) to permit endpoints in organizations that are not legal entities (e.g. a role in a department or a department itself) ||  ||
 * GE Healthcare || John Moehrke ||  ||   ||
 * Georgia Tech || Steve Rushing ||  ||   ||
 * Health-ISP || John Williams ||  ||   ||
 * Health Market Science || Michael l. Nelson || Yes ||  ||
 * Holon Solutions || Sandra Schafer ||  ||   ||
 * Iatric Systems || Mary Moewe ||  ||   ||
 * IBM || Karen Witting || Yes, with concerns || Concerned that the Digital Certificate and Electronic Service Information Objects are needlessly complicated.
 * IBM || Mary-Sara Jones ||  ||   ||
 * IBM || Nitin Jain ||  ||   ||
 * IBM || Deanna Nole ||  ||   ||
 * IFMC || Stan Rankins ||  ||   ||
 * Indiana Health Information Exchange || John B. Sanchez ||  ||   ||
 * Informatics Corporation of America (ICA) || Ryan Balsick ||  ||   ||
 * Informatics Corporation of America (ICA) || Tim Dunnington ||  ||   ||
 * Inpriva, Inc. || Don Jorgenson ||  ||   ||
 * Inpriva, Inc. || Patrick Pyette ||  ||   ||
 * Louisiana Health Care Quality Forum || Al Manint ||  ||   ||
 * Massachusetts eHealth Institute || Dawn Heisey-Grove ||  ||   ||
 * Massachusetts eHealth Institute || Kris Cyr ||  ||   ||
 * McKesson || Marian Reed ||  ||   ||
 * MedAllies, Inc || Vincent Lewis || Yes ||  ||
 * Medicity || Eric Heflin ||  ||   ||
 * Medicity || Steve Tripp ||  ||   ||
 * MedPlus || Scott Chapin ||  ||   ||
 * Military Health System || Steve Hufnagel ||  ||   ||
 * NaviNet || Laurance Stuntz ||  ||   ||
 * NEHEN || Daniel Kearney ||  ||   ||
 * NeHII || Joni Bass ||  ||   ||
 * Newborn Coalition || Annamarie Saarinen ||  ||   ||
 * Newborn Coalition || Jim Bialick ||  ||   ||
 * NextGate || Les Marcum ||  ||   ||
 * OZ Systems || Ken Pool || Yes ||  ||
 * Secure Exchange Solutions, NIEM || Boris Shur ||  ||   ||
 * Secure Exchange Solutions || Dan Kazzaz ||  ||   ||
 * Secure Exchange Solutions || Michelle Darnell ||  ||   ||
 * SHAPE HITECH, LLC || Lester H Keepper || Yes ||  ||
 * SHAPE HITECH, LLC || Ernest W. Grove || Yes ||  ||
 * Siemens Healthcare || David Tao ||  ||   ||
 * Siemens Healthcare || Dan Huber || Yes - Typo in cell C25 in Object Data Set Worksheet. Fou should be Four. ||  ||
 * Social Security Administration || Marty Prahl ||  ||   ||
 * Social Security Administration || Shanks Kande ||  ||   ||
 * SYSNET International, Inc. || Odysseas Pentakalos, Ph.D. ||  ||   ||
 * Techsant Technologies LLC || Sri Koka ||  ||   ||
 * Tennessee Office of eHealth || Will Rice ||  ||   ||
 * Tennessee Primary Care Association (TPCA) || Mara Robertson ||  ||   ||
 * Tunitas Group || Bill Pankey ||  ||   ||
 * US Dept of Veterans Affairs || Galen Mulrooney ||  ||   ||
 * New York eHealth Collaborative || Nick VanDuyne ||  ||   ||