2009-11-09 TSC Call Minutes
Jump to navigation Jump to search
TSC - Technical Steering Committee
Monday, November 9, 2009 11:00 AM (US Eastern Time, UTC -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
- Ken McCaslin
- Ioana Singureanu
Meeting Attendance - :
|x||Calvin Beebe||HL7 SSD SDfirstname.lastname@example.org|
|x||Woody Beeler||HL7 FTSD Alternateemail@example.com|
|Kevin Coonan||invited Guest, Patient Care WGfirstname.lastname@example.org|
|x||Bob Dolin||invited Guest, HL7 Chair-elect||BobDolin@gmail.com|
|William Goossen||invited Guest, Patient Care WGemail@example.com|
|Ed Hammond||invited Guest, HL7 Chairfirstname.lastname@example.org|
|Charles Jaffe||HL7 CEO||cjaffe@HL7.org|
|x||Austin Kreisler||HL7 DESDemail@example.com|
|x||Lynn Laakso (scribe, non-voting)||HL7 HQfirstname.lastname@example.org|
|x||Patrick Loyd||Guest, T3SD, GPI||Patrick.email@example.com|
|Ken McCaslin||HL7 TSS SD||Kenneth.H.McCaslin@QuestDiagnostics.com|
|x||Charlie McCay (chair)||HL7 TSC Chairfirstname.lastname@example.org|
|Charlie Mead||HL7 ArB||Charlie.email@example.com|
|x||Ravi Natarajan||HL7 Affiliate||Ravi.Natarajan@nhs.net|
|x||Ron Parker||HL7 ArB Alternatefirstname.lastname@example.org|
|x||John Quinn||HL7 CTOemail@example.com|
|x||Gregg Seppala||HL7 SSD SD Alternatefirstname.lastname@example.org|
|Ioana Singureanu||HL7 FTSDemail@example.com|
|x||Helen Stevens||HL7 TSS SD Alternatefirstname.lastname@example.org|
|x||Ed Tripp||HL7 DESD Alternate||Edward.email@example.com|
|Karen Van Hentenryck||HL7 HQ||karenvan@HL7.org|
|D. Mead Walker||invited Guest, HL7 FTSD Alternatefirstname.lastname@example.org|
- Accept Agenda – no discussion, agenda accepted.
- DCM issues, see TSC Issue # 890, on Consistency of Clinical content and overlap
- No one from Patient Care on the call; Woody reports their ballot looks more like a DAM or abstract model than they other DCM. Helen notes their updated scope statement has not yet been approved – Austin reports it is in committee en route to being approved.
- Approve Minutes from 2009-11-02_TSC_Call_Minutes – Minutes approved with vote 6/0/1, Ron Parker abstains.
- Review action items –
Standing Committee Reports/Approvals
- CEO Report – none available.
- CTO Report -
- last week attended HITSP F2F outside Wahington DC, may be the last F2F. Current contract with sec’y HITSP with HIMSS expires January 2010 and will not likely be renewed. Customer for HITSP is ONC; d not currently have new head of standards announced to take over role. Request came in Ed Larson and Gregg at ISO US TAG meeting with requirement for IG of scheduling messages V2.x. There is no HIE profile associated with this, looking to outsource. V2.5.1 scheduling. Gregg asks how to do this within HL7. Scheduling WG rolled into PA; email discussion with Hans. Multiple ways to do things within V2; will schedule some time at Phoenix. John will create project for this and put under PA.
- PHR as ISO/JIC project: Ed is handing over representation in ISO/JIC and will come to John. Don Mon proceeding with PHR in ISO, will need to ensure we have project defined for this.
- For 20091102: Document the process of ArB Nomination and confirmation. Draft for consideration by Ron and Charlie; Charlie will be back in two weeks. Postpone discussion to 11/23.
- EA IP Update: FHA committee within ONC regarding proposal by NIH as their architecture framework. Ad hoc set of services created in NHIN prototypes do not have a framework in OpenCONNECT software by NHIN. John asking to defer due to timing of Charlie’s return.
- Update status of alpha projects next week. Ron’s team meets Thursday.
- ArB Report – focus now is DITA for structuring content of SAEAF book. Karen Smith doing outline and technical writing. Model under review. Communications plan proposed and on wiki site. (Patrick Loyd arrives).
- Affiliates Report – Ravi had feedback.
- Feedback from HL7 Canada:
- Minutes from WGMs not being posted in a timely manner
- Unclear and confusing member transition management
- e.g. To determine who is balloting. Need a provision in the GOM for how to address substitution of voting member when individual leaves organization and previously voted with a comment that needs to be withdrawn. John will follow up with Karen.
- Agendas not being available far enough in advance of WGMs
- What are the guidelines? Cochair handbook recommends set agenda for next WGM at current WGM, but details are not generally available until shortly before the WGM. Ron notes that content drives attendance and need to have the agenda by registration. Helen notes that attendance may drive the agenda for those attending wishing to present topics. Agendas are usually posted on wikis, and brochure going to printer well in advance. Degree of change is committee by committee issue, and can be driven by committee members. Charlie McCay suggests it’s an element of Work Group Visibility. A new measure for when they have final agenda posted? Ed notes they have a wiki posting of the next WGM before they leave the current WGM, but the agenda evolves. It has to be promoted within each WG. Lynn can capture concrete recommendations from HL7 Canada. (Helen leaves).
- Feedback from HL7 Canada:
- Domain Experts –
- Foundation & Technology – Woody had nothing to report.
- Structure & Semantic Design –
- Motion by SD: Structured Documents: Reaffirmation of CDA R2 Standard request at TSC Tracker #1349; major releases run a five-year cycle so R2 probably not deprecated until R4 available. Unanimously approved.
- Motion by SD - Structured Documents Project Proposal: Implementation Guide for CDA Release 2, Unstructured Documents at TSC Tracker # 1348; how to reference external files or other types (.TIF, etc). Ron Parker notes WARM (web access request management) in the ISO space, focused on Diagnostic Image Reporting, has uncovered some unusual issues. Ron will forward info to Calvin who will provide to group. Unanimously approved.
- Motion by SD Structured Documents Project Proposal: CDA Template Tooling Pilot at TSC Tracker # 1347; Not creating tools, but providing evaluation and feedback on tooling available for CDA IGs. Will produce an assessment, perhaps even an informative document or report to membership. Bob spoke of the need to produce requirements for template tooling. Detailed project plan has not been developed yet; could review with the TSC. Charlie wondered if a peer review process would be useful. Unanimously approved.
- May have a couple items next week out for EHR right now.
- Technical & Support Services –Patrick Loyd notes there is nothing to report for TSS.
- Quality Improvement discussion thread from listserv - suggestion for inclusion of conformant examples in every ballot
- V2 world used to have this as part of the publishing process, John recalls. Woody notes there are few examples currently in the V3 space. This requires a great deal of manpower. Abstract specifications make this difficult. Ravi’s discoveries are due to vagaries in the ballot cycles, with material that is changing. Messaging wrappers that deprecate earlier standards not completed in balloting are not truly deprecated. Perhaps those decisions should not be made here. Bob asks why not require conformant examples? If we do, we will have nothing to ballot; Woody states – it’s a matter of time and energy. Ravi understands the ballot is a moving target. Woody notes that people implement from the ballot site in error. That’s why stale material will be stripped out of the ballot site. Woody asks HL7 Canada how many specs go out with examples? Patrick offers that since maintenance release have about 95% coverage but some specs don’t have complete examples. Bob asks if perhaps only for normative ballot, not necessarily retrospectively. Woody notes that the need is greater for the retrospective material. Woody also notes that we should have a more complete evaluation process not just as a reaction to Gunther’s email. Charlie McCay notes, what are the quality criteria and concerns that surround the ballot. What is the input from the stakeholder community? What is the implementer’s perspective? We need a quality program in place. Which specifications do we need examples for? Who will provide resources to do it? Ravi suggests we pursue some low-hanging fruit, basic quality procedures for publishing models. Patrick adds, you need design rules for the examples, OIDs, value sets, codes for localized bindings.
Charlie McCay notes we’re over time, table discussion to next week. Adjourn 12:02PM
For Review 20091116:
- Informative only: January 2010 Ballot Cycle document available for review, with approval of each individual item anticipated at next week's meeting (16 Nov 2009).