2009-08-31 TSC Call Minutes

From HL7 TSC
Jump to navigation Jump to search

TSC - Technical Steering Committee

Monday, August 31, 2009 11:00 AM (US Eastern Time, GMT -5)
To participate, dial 770-657-9270 and enter pass code 124466#
GoToMeeting at https://www.gotomeeting.com/join/165215206
GoToMeeting ID: 165-215-206 

back to TSC Minutes and Agendas



  • Austin Kreisler
  • Ravi Natarajan
  • Gregg Seppala
  • Ioana Singureanu

Meeting Admin

Roll Call - The following individuals joined the call:

At Name Affiliation Email Address
x Calvin Beebe HL7 SSD SD cbeebe@mayo.edu
x Woody Beeler HL7 FTSD woody@beelers.com
Jim Case HL7 Ad-Hoc jtcase@ucdavis.edu
Bob Dolin HL7 Chair-elect BobDolin@gmail.com
John Koisch HL7 ArB jkoisch@guidewirearchitecture.com
Austin Kreisler HL7 DESD austin.j.kreisler@saic.com
x Lynn Laakso (scribe) HL7 HQ lynn@hl7.org
x Ken McCaslin HL7 TSS SD Kenneth.H.McCaslin@QuestDiagnostics.com
x Charlie McCay (chair) HL7 TSC Chair charlie@ramseysystems.co.uk
x Charlie Mead HL7 ArB Charlie.mead@booz.com
Ravi Natarajan HL7 Affiliate Ravi.Natarajan@nhs.net
x John Quinn HL7 CTO jquinn@hl7.org
Gregg Seppala HL7 SSD SD gregg.seppala@va.gov
Ioana Singureanu HL7 FTSD ioana@eversolve.com
Helen Stevens Love HL7 TSS SD helen.stevens@shaw.ca
x Ed Tripp HL7 DESD Edward.tripp@estripp.com
  1. Accept Agenda – agenda accepted
  2. Approve Minutes from 2009-08-24_TSC_Call_Minutes –unanimously approved

Question on previous meeting item: GOM revision cycle question, does it require a vote from TSC. The item has been moved to a later revision cycle, no action needed from the TSC.

  1. Review action items – none for review today.

Standing Committee Reports/Approvals

  1. CEO Report – none available
  2. CTO Report: John in Sarajevo at MIE conference. John doing Chuck’s presentation and panel on CIIC tomorrow. Last week he was at HITSP and SCO meeting. Last minute appeal at HITSP to replace CCR with CDA met with resistance. We need to make CDA more usable. At SCO they recognized ONC as a primary customer. Standards need to be look and be used the same way by their customer, to harmonize the unharmonizable (V2/V3/CCD). Tacit agreement within SCO with clinical information they need to be harmonized with the RIM to be included with CDA.
    • Ken recounts at HITSP there was a need for a place for Order documents, e.g. RX, Lab. When does it make sense to be a message and when a document, or a service to envelop either paradigm. NCPDP SCRIPTS Into CDA document is a project upcoming. Woody says CDA has no behavioral/dynamic model. Charlie Mead chimes in that this makes a good intro to his report. Do we need a dynamic model for Documents, and does the TSC need to take a stand? Calvin reports that Austin has been attending the Struct Docs meeting to provide help in the discussion.
  3. ArB Report –
    • Charlie met with Marc Koehn on plans for ArB support of the EA IP two days ago. Marc was going to send a note to Charlie McCay as TSC Chair, we are well-positioned for Service projects, and O&O project at Canada Infoway have message projects. There needs to be a Structured Documents project; Marc’s email will read, if we want Documents as an interoperability paradigm to go forward we need to have it aligned with SAEAF. After discussions in Kyoto it seemd that Struct Docs understood the need for Behavioral Framework and dynamic design. So far the ArB has not been successful in getting a Documents project. Marc and Charlie would like to recommend the TSC consider formally stating that some WG of fundamental importance must be required to participate. Calvin states that alpha project timelines don’t work for CDA. He doesn’t think that it would be inappropriate to state that CDA R3 would be SAEAF but it doesn’t meet the alpha project timeline. Charlie states the TSC needs to weigh in on that. Woody’s perception was that StructDocs wanted to proceed faster than SAEAF compliance would allow, but understands that to be incorrect. He suggests we cast the perception that alpha projects don’t necessarily have to deliver by, for example, March 2010; Charlie says the definition of ‘up and running’ may be simply to commit and start efforts by 2009Sept WGM. Could Calvin get StructDocs to say that CDA R3 will be an alpha project by the WGM? Resolution of the two EHR standards in U.S. are causing some problems. Hope that ECCF will help the resolution. Marc’s recommendation will be both Struct Docs and EHR be told to participate. Charlie McCay says a rollout project needs to run alongside the alpha projects. If we said all projects by a particular date had to be SAEAF – compliant, all ballots by a particular date have to be SAEAF compliant. What is the broader rollout strategy beyond the alpha process? We’re 18 months into the process. Need a clear plan in a more permanent fashion to converge into the SAEAF; perhaps discuss at the WGM. John says we may reverse the approach to say what projects are we needing to make this happened. Set the critical areas and seek out appropriate projects. Calvin agrees the TSC should agree on some projects to be SAEAF compliant rather than as alpha projects. Need to gain Bob Dolin’s assistance. Will this bring additional resources to the project? There remains the existence of a static component in addition to the efforts to define a dynamic model.
    • Charlie Mead says the current assumption of the ArB for all specifications, the stack conceptual row will have the same artifacts for any interopera\bility paradigm. Row 2, logical specs PIM, will start to see divergence, when you get to the PISM implementable, not implementation, will see further diversion. If behavioral semantics matter, then there will be additional work. How to get reuse across specification stacks across the EA, where do paradigms surface at what level. CDA R3 needs to go through the discipline of the process. Charlie McCay asks if Charlie Mead wants the TSC to make a motion. Or tables the discussion. Straw poll on approach that we want to identify project that must be SAEAF-aware, Ed adds we need a “because” clause. Let’s try to identify three projects for next week to vote on and draw up a because statement. Let’s have candidate motions for next week.- well since no meeting next week, then for the following week.
  4. Affiliates Report – no report.
  5. Domain Experts –
  6. Foundation & Technology –
  7. Structure & Semantic Design –
  8. Technical & Support Services –
    • motion to approve Project Services proposal on process WGs should follow to update SWOT and Three-Year Plans, carried unanimously.

Discussion topics

Product Visibility Project

  • TSC Tracker # 319: originally brought up with wrappers R2 and ITS work. Last update from GForge this week. Suggest closure. MnM is following a detailed plan to convert to datatypes R2 in the coming week. Vote for closure unanimously approved
  • TSC Tracker #332 unanimously approved for closure.

2009SeptWGM agenda

Add to Q3 the SAEAF discussion combining current Q3 and Q4 into Q4. New members coming on the TSC in January – shall we invite them to Atlanta meetings? Jim Case is also still an ad-hoc member currently. Motion: to end Jim Case's ad-hoc term moved by Woody, Ken seconds; quorum rechecked, Calvin offers a friendly amendment to thank him for his service. All unanimously approved. Charlie McCay will write an email to thank him.

Please send suggestions on the WGM agenda, next week’s call is cancelled. (will send out email that it’s cancelled)

Meeting adjourned 12:00 PM EDT

Future Agenda item list

Click for TSC Action Item List