2010-01-04 TSC Call Minutes

From HL7 TSC
Jump to navigation Jump to search

TSC - Technical Steering Committee 

Monday, January 4, 2010 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

Agenda

Apologies

  • Charlie McCay

Meeting Admin

Meeting Attendance - :

At Name Affiliation Email Address
x Calvin Beebe HL7 SSD SD cbeebe@mayo.edu
x Woody Beeler HL7 FTSD woody@beelers.com
x Kate Hamilton Guest, Alschuler Associates, SDWG Kate.hamilton@verizon.net
Marc Koehn invited Guest, HL7 EA IP PM marc.koehn@gpinformatics.com
x Austin Kreisler HL7 DESD austin.j.kreisler@saic.com
x Lynn Laakso (scribe, non-voting) HL7 HQ lynn@hl7.org
x Ken McCaslin HL7 TSS SD Kenneth.H.McCaslin@QuestDiagnostics.com
Charlie McCay (chair) HL7 TSC Chair charlie@ramseysystems.co.uk
Charlie Mead HL7 ArB Charlie.mead@booz.com
x Ravi Natarajan HL7 Affiliate Ravi.Natarajan@nhs.net
x Ron Parker HL7 ArB Alternate rparker@infoway-inforoute.ca
x John Quinn HL7 CTO jquinn@hl7.org
x Gregg Seppala HL7 SSD SD Alternate gregg.seppala@va.gov
x Mark Shafarman Templates WG mark.shafarman@earthlink.net
x Helen Stevens HL7 TSS SD Alternate helen.stevens@shaw.ca
Ed Tripp HL7 DESD Alternate Edward.tripp@estripp.com
D. Mead Walker HL7 FTSD Alternate dmead@comcast.net

Call to order 11:06 am

  1. Accept Agenda – accepted by general consent
  2. Approve Minutes from 2009-12-21_TSC_Call_Minutes – Helen moved, Woody seconded, unanimously approved
  3. Review action items –

Standing Committee Reports/Approvals

  1. CEO Report – none available
  2. CTO Report - no real developments
    • EA IP Update: Blueprint 2015 charter to be approved by ArB. Ron reported Marc provided some changes to how we promote at the WGM. Weds Q4 will be more a shared experience meeting rather than a public report.
  3. ArB Report –
    • Making progress on SAEAF material. ECCF to be discussed this week, behavioral framework ready to be discussed. DITA work is up to date and on target. Karen Smith is anxious to know what the downstream tooling might be. Meeting with HQ on implications for publishing DITA in HTML is planned. Need to discuss how to maintain the DITA tooling for maintenance. Woody would like to be included.
    • Document the process of ArB nomination and confirmation, see TSC Tracker #1340 –
  4. Affiliates Report – no updates
  5. Domain Experts – nothing specific; piling up stuff for face to face votes in Phoenix
  6. Foundation & Technology –
    • Templates Registry Pilot project, at TSC Tracker # 1374; Helen asks if it is a reference implementation or implementation software. Mark says it’s a pilot implementation and will be a reference if it goes to DSTU. Is it prototype to be enhanced, or disposed? As proof of concept is tooling committee involved if this should become permanent? Mark notes that Jane Curry is their link to Tooling, but it is not part of Tooling work plan at this point. It would be decided separately based on the result of the pilot. Woody notes that the Steering Division wanted to see it an OHT Charter project, for permanence versus the OHT Forge project on the sidelines of the OHT process. Ravi noted the IP issues to a charter project are much stricter. As a learning project or proof of concept it will inform a later charter project. Helen offers a friendly amendment to include that intent as learning project. John cautions on HL7 taking on a role with OHT as a donor, rather than a user. Mark notes the Business Process Requirements are quite clear on the HL7 IP. Ken asks why is it not hosted on HL7 instead of external host? John notes the NHS toolset is on OHT and we’re wrestling with putting the RIM into the toolset without putting it on OHT. Mark notes the registry needed implementers for the DSTU, so Glen is hosting. Austin clarifies this is not producing a standard so not really a DSTU project. Discussion ensued on whether it should be hosted on HL7 resource. Helen suggested a checkpoint when the pilot reached a certain point to come back and review hosting and maintenance and other IP questions. Ron notes that before we finalize the management context the pilot must validate the business requirements. Mark notes that after the pilot, a separate project would take the information learned form the pilot and form the checkpoint for review prior to a full implementation. Ron would like to see a recommendations piece as part of the deliverables statement, for the next step. Mark would add statement at end of scope statement that at end of project will develop a set of recommendations for next steps and development. Lynn added the amendment online for review on GoToMeeting. Helen moved to approve. Calvin seconded. Motion passed unanimously.
  7. Structure & Semantic Design –
    • Project Approval request for Ambulatory Oncology EHR Functional Profile at TSC Tracker # 1375
      • Helen notes, this is my day job; can answer questions. It will follow the same format as the other EHR Functional Profiles. Helen moved, Woody seconded; unanimously approved.
    • Project Approval request for PHR Alteration White Paper by EHR WG at TSC Tracker # 1376
      • Discussion revolved around concern over the US Realm format, where the white paper is setting policy not focusing on standards. This is not a technical project, but political and the TSC should seek guidance from the Board. Motion by Woody to find this project inappropriate as a technical project as appears to be related to policy; Proponents can take this up with the Board if they desire. Seconded by Ravi. Suggested it be forwarded to CTeam to discussion. Helen suggests we report to John and Don (EHR cochairs) that they should email it to Chuck John and Bob for further consideration. Gregg noted that the original proposal was about recommending policies but that language was withdrawn which changed his vote. Ron discussed what he’s done in the past with projects that suggested what ‘could’ be done. Woody reiterates that he feels this activity should be done, just not as a technical project. Ken thinks they should reformulate as a position statement for Board consideration and not as a project.
      • Motion by Woody to find this project inappropriate as a technical project in the vein that TSC has previously reviewed. Presence of project impacts organization above and beyond technical work program. Should more properly be handled by other decision making bodies, through Board-designated processes whatever those may be. Return to committee with suggestion they proceed through those channels. Second by Ravi. Motion approved unanimously.'
    • SDWG would like to request the publication of HAI 4 with an updated UTI design; a change suggested based upon the construction of the Schematron files. Original version approved for publication on 14 December 2009 per TSC Tracker # 1368.
      • Kate spoke to the changes on the HAI R4 and request to publish. How should this be accomplished? Woody suggests it could be approved as a technical correction. Calvin moves it be approved as technical correction. Ravi asks if the content changed or rules changed. Noted that they changed a Boolean to a tri-state. Publication will have a note at the top to identify the change. Woody moves, Helen seconds. Unanimously approved.
  8. Technical & Support Services -

Adjourned 12:02 pm.

Agenda topics not addressed

Open Issues List

For Review 20100104:

  • DCM FAQ brainstorming session (see TSC Tracker #890).
    Questions for FAQ - See [1]
    Detailed planning for where DCM issues will be addressed in Phoenix

Phoenix TSC Agenda Review

Future Agenda item list

Click for TSC Action Item List

Retrieved from "https://tscwiki.hl7.org/w/index.php?title=2010-01-04_TSC_Call_Minutes&oldid=6529"