2017-09-11 FGB WGM Agenda

From HL7 TSC
Jump to: navigation, search
HL7 TSC FGB Meeting Minutes

Location: Palmero

Date: 2017-09-11
Time: 12:30 PM
Facilitator: Note taker(s): Anne W.
Quorum = Chair plus 2 yes/no
Co-Chair/CTO Members
x Lorraine Constable x Grahame Grieve David Hay
x Dave Shaver x Ewout Kramer Cecil Lynch (ArB)
x Wayne Kubick x Calvin Beebe x Lloyd McKenzie (FMG)
observers/guests
x Anne W., scribe
Lisa Nelson
x Chris Bickford
x Paul Knapp
x Kevin Sheckleton
x Josh Mandel


Agenda

  • Roll call -
  • Agenda Review
  • Approve minutes of 2017-08-28_FGB_concall
  • Action Item review:
    • Grahame will create position statement on State Machine Alignment for review and eventually publication on the CDA page under interoperability considerations on the FHIR page.
  • Discussion Topics
    • State Machine Alignment
  • FMG update -
  • Methodology update-
  • Review precepts, associated governance points and risks
  • Next steps: Define and Resource other Governance processes.

Minutes

  • Dave chairing
  • Roll call -
    • Guests noted in attendee list
  • Agenda Review
    • Paul notes an item from SGB: FGB vitality
    • Lorraine adds conference call time
  • Approve minutes of 2017-08-28_FGB_concall
    • MOTION to approve: Lorraine
  • Action Item review:
    • Grahame will create position statement on State Machine Alignment for review and eventually publication on the CDA page under interoperability considerations on the FHIR page.
      • Add to upcoming agenda
  • Discussion Topics
    • Conference call time
      • Will move to 4:00 pm Eastern starting 2017-09-25 for 30 minutes every other week
    • FGB Vitality
    • SGB has been discussing vitality. The bulk of the work that FGB has been doing doesn’t seem to be governance. What we are seeing is that there is value generated by the group being offered back out to the work. Thinking that this is more advisory-type function. Trying to figure out where in the organization that would fit. Grahame: Some of the things we do are advisory but some are governance. Paul: It depends on how you define governance. Is it things that govern our activity? That is more management. In HL7, governance is setting precepts. Grahame states that is what we’re doing, such as the lifecycle discussion from last week. Calvin states that is the first governance issue brought up in a year that wasn’t kicked back to SGB. Lorraine: Early on we addressed precepts, before SGB formed. Discussion over relationship between MnM, FMG, FGB. Calvin: We see there’s discussion going on that adds value, we’re just questioning how much precept setting is happening. Governance is really just setting rules – not telling management how to manage. Grahame agrees that most of what we do is advisory and that governance reduces as product matures; but SGB can do standards governance and FGB does FHIR governance and those are different things. There’s governance over how the product is produced and what it says, and then over the product itself. The SGB is responsible for all the standards but doesn’t have deep technically connected individuals who understand the domain governance challenges. The people who have that context and knowledge are too busy to be involved in generic standards governance board. Paul: Other families are being stood up at the same time with similar kinds of needs. CIMI is likely to go through similar. Need to understand architecturally how to go about this. Dave: We need to look at our mission and charter and make sure it’s still appropriate.
      • Lorraine notes we need to get FHIR Life Cycle document edited and posted.
    • State Machine Alignment
      • Lisa Nelson here to discuss. Grahame reiterates the verbiage that will go in the positions statement that will be developed from conversation on the 2017-08-14 call. Lisa asks how we’ll do the mapping from entry templates to FHIR resources. Grahame asks if she’s looked at the mapping language in FHIR? Lisa confirms that she hasn’t yet. Grahame suggests that she look at that. How do we confirm that all the states in CDA are represented on the FHIR side? Entry level templates should be able to be mapped to FHIR resources in most cases, and you should be able to map between them; it does depend on the resource and the entry level template. In some cases there is no proper answer, such as medication statement and medication administration. Can’t properly map the content from CDA to FHIR in that case. But in most cases an entry level template maps to a FHIR resource and the state is determinate. If there are things you can’t map that are real world things, then those are issues for the FHIR resources. Lisa notes that perhaps they just have to go through and try and come up with questions. Grahame confirms. Lisa: It creates a confusing situation for users who are trying to understand and use both of the standards. Lloyd: Implementers had issues with CDA state machine where there were states that didn’t align with business processes or were confusing, or where the terminology used wasn’t consistent with what was common in the domains. FHIR does not include RIM terminology with what goes over the wire. Abstract language of the CDA RIM status codes doesn’t match all businesses and create arbitrary rules. There are mappings between the RIM status codes and the canonical status codes in the current build. Displayed build.fhir.org/valueset-observation-status.html and then to the canonical status codes that MnM continues to work on. Calvin: Some of these don’t fit in the mapping because amended and corrected would change the class. Grahame will address/discuss at facilitator’s roundable.
  • Adjourned at 1:42 PM

Next Steps

Actions (Include Owner, Action Item, and due date)
Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items


Back to FHIR_Governance_Board

© 2017 Health Level Seven® International. All rights reserved.

Copyright © Health Level Seven International ® ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. The reproduction of this material in any form is strictly forbidden without the written permission of the publisher.