[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Issues/comments disposition
Hi, As per the discussion in today's meeting, I went back to check the disposition of the .70 comments and came across a few things to consider. First, I had a ss of 'unreviewed comments'. There are not many, but some of them are of interest to the ISC now, since they detail some of the questions raised then by Sun as it was going through their implementation. I recall at the time, Bill, you said the Sun person wasn't expecting a response and that you'd been in touch, so those didn't get additional responses. I will forward this on to ISC, though, since it would be useful to review there based on what we've seen so far in other implementations. The only others in this ss are from members of ttsc/clsc and are part of the ongoing discussion in with the submitters participating. Now comes the list of comments that went to ndr. I've attached that ss because some of them have dispositions of 'look at for 1.0', so I thought we may want to revivew. Most of these submitters were tc/sc participants so I didn't give them a formal response, especially since many of the items were evolving discussions that had not come to resolution, and they were participating in the discussions. For the others, though they did get responses - the liaison comments received responses usually through the meetings discussionn, but otherwise , as with hl7, when they didn't attend, via email. The only ones on this list that I'm not sure of were non-liaison submitters, such as gefeg (:)) and Anders Rundgren's comment which, was tied to David Burdett's comment. I did respond to David - it was more of a discussion and getting him involved, but Anders was dropped somewhere along the way. So that's two we didn't get. Regarding the EEG1 submission, I did find that we had for some reason separated those out in to a different spreadsheet file during the F2F. I don't recall why, but I think at that point I probably lost track of it and focused on the ndr and main comments ss. And since EEG1 was not a liaison organization, that may have been peripheral to our other discussions (although it houldn't have been). I don't see any evidence that I sent them a response or that we got further on the disposition of their items than is shown in the attached ss. This is the ss that I found with the final version of comments from them with disposition status. Several of the AIs were for Mike. Perhaps Stephen you can review this and see if anything is still valid? I hate to drag these things up again, but in looking at the overall comments ss I see that there are quite a few items we deferred, and I'm wondering if it would be good to take a quick look though to make sure we haven't missed anything that came up then that we though we should address. We really haven't looked at these since London and although we said 'let's do this later', we never tracked (to my knowledge) whether or not we did. So, I've attached the very last version I have of that comments ss (op70_issues_20030612.doc). Thanks, -Anne
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]