2009-09-21 TSC WGM Minutes
Jump to navigation Jump to search
- 1 Co-Chairs Dinner and Meeting for 2009Sept WGM
- 1.1 Monday, Sept 21, 5:15-8:30pm CoChairs Meeting
Co-Chairs Dinner and Meeting for 2009Sept WGM
back to TSC Minutes and Agendas
Monday, Sept 21, 5:15-8:30pm CoChairs Meeting
Update from HQ
- New ISO/JIC ballot process web page
- Handout distribution of Work Group Health summaries by Steering Division, available at TSC Gforge site for
CTO Report – John Quinn
Open Mic comments:
- Abdul-Malik Shakir (AMS) had a comment on the composition of the SCO, John acknowledged the edit needed to the slide.
- Gunther Schadow – if it’s too expensive why must we do it? People are using the specs now, those that understand it can implement it.
- NHS Ken Lunn spoke to the tools available and the costs are business change costs rather than technical costs.
- Cecil Lynch: what happened to the NIST and other government funding efforts? John reports that Chuck Jaffe is working on that initiative. It will be dependent on our ability to produce standards for them. They are asking us for information, which is a good sign.
TSC Chair Report – Charlie McCay
Open Mic comments:
Project Services Work Group / Project Management Office Update
- Slide presentation
Electronic Services Update – Ken McCaslin
- New website landing page, look and feel, at HL7.org, a second revision after the initial release. Look for the quick references to key items at the very bottom of the screen.
- Open Mic
- AMS – would like to be notified when it is updated so that screen shots for tutorials can be up to date. An e-News was sent out with five days’ advance notice.
- Jane Curry – what post-implementation review will be done to receive feedback? Ken agrees that is a great idea. Not sure how we do that but something we should do.
- Dale Nelson – need a more usable search function to include content on GForge and the wiki. Ken remarks that GForge was recently re-hosted so that was not feasible but it’s on the list of things to do, and the new staff member Josh is helping.
- Helen Stevens asks how we make comments – email firstname.lastname@example.org
- Jane Curry – why don’t we take advantage of GForge for bug trackers and so on for the website project. Ken noted that the project management for the website releases used Project Insight.
- John Quinn notes that we had a denial of service attack shortly after the new hosting of GForge but it’s been resolved.
Methodology and Harmonization Report – Woody Beeler
2010 Ballot Cycles
- Normative Edition 2010 will have all previous content converted to Data Types R2, and this will be the first NE based entirely on DT R2, with exception of CDA R1 and R2.
- RIM finished reconciliation today, will be balloting RIM R3 beginning Jan or May, goal to complete in September 2010.
- Publishing calendar: 2011Jan will have three weeks fewer time for ballot preparation.
- Open Mic
- Dale Nelson: should include ITS, or are we keeping our standards away from implementation material
- AMS: why can’t CDA go to Datatypes R2? Schema based- locked in when the schema is published.
- Gunther Schadow: clear backwards incompatibility using new datatypes, will they no longer be in the edition? Normative editions are the implementation package, for Datatypes R1 will have to use Normative Edition 2009 or earlier. Gunther notes it will cause a problem for existing implementations. SPL may be a case similar to CDA.
- Jason Rock: if you need to make a change to an existing implementation do we need to go to Datatypes R2? Woody reports the NE will be self-consistent. Adding a telephone number would requri3e to go to Datatypes R2 and change the implementation, it would be a new release of the specification. Does that make sense to implementers? Woody responds we do not have the wherewithal to manage that level of complexity.
- Gunther adds that he has repeatedly voted negative on Datatypes R2 due to its lack of backwards compatibility, and HL7 has a history of maintaining backwards compatibility. We want to spend $3 million on tooling but we can’t fix this backwards compatibility issue.
- Mead Walker notes a comparison to ICSR. Implementers need to use batching, and the only batching we could find was in an InM ballot that was not yet normative. Woody indicates that we do publish CMETs that are non standard wrappers.
- Hugh Glover asks for more specific estimate of when NE2009 will be out. Woody hopes by the Jan WGM if they get the content.
- Lise Stevens: ICSR has pushed the limits on a lot of issues. What she’s hearing will make her life more complicated so that she can represent the right version of the HL7 standard for ISO as they’re not ‘buying’ the HL7 Normative Edition. Woody says we need to know what it means to take a transport specification to ISO. Woody agrees this may be a special case as it’s in transition between two ballots. Lise asks if she needs to be participating in the publishing calls? Woody says she or Mead needs to work with them to figure out their models.
- AMS – Announced that education WG is having a breakfast meeting tomorrow, calling all tutorial speakers for three agenda items. CMEs, faculty development, and international affiliate education coordinators.
Adjourn 7:20PM to Steering Division breakouts