We already allocated up to OM4-17 for eDOS so it looks like it should be OM4-18, not OM4-15. Do we need to lock in, or not? If so, need to review sequence with other proposals.
We will follow-up with Michael Martin.
eDOS Update – Ken McCaslin
Objective is for Ken to run through the doc before we can submit for ballot cycle
We want to allow for the reader to see the document with change marks relative to the ACLA version, as well as clean. The problem is that when published in PDF, the change marks are permanent (or not available), so should we provide 2 documents (one pdf with changes visible and one without).
We should turn on line numbering to help people to make comments.
The coversheet has a hyperlink to HL7OO leadership (links to current changes) front page.
If anyone is currently active implementing v3 for blood bank – if yes, need to move forward, if not can shelve.
Once v2 is completed we can review the v3 documents to compare and then update before moving to DSTU, when demand for v3 implementation is clear.
Proposal for v3 is embryonic and too open to interpretation and so hard to implement.
Austin: Thought early version was in use in Mexico. DSTU is often not a complete scope.
Hans: No one can say you cannot use any standard – a government organization can endorse a statement to say : Do not use this standard, but use v2.8 document instead.
Austin: What happens to project if it is on shelf?
Hans: Need to inform ANSI that we are no longer pursuing the v3 standard at this point and close the project, suspect we will not go normative with the v3 document unless we have completed the v2 work.
Blood Bank V2 Update – Jonathan Harber
Will blood bank still meet the Sept ballot timeline – we could always submit and pull out later, but we would need to have everything ready.
Have to answer v3 question – Hans: Can take this completely out of this.
Hans will send the dates to Jonathan and link as well – need to know the gaps in the v2 work