2012-05-12 TSC WGM Minutes

From HL7 TSC
Jump to navigation Jump to search

TSC Saturday meeting 2012May WGM in Vancouver BC CAN

back to TSC Minutes and Agendas

TSC WGM Agenda/Minutes

HL7 TSC Meeting Minutes

Location: Orca

Date: 2012-05-12
Time: 9AM-5PM local time
Facilitator: Austin Kreisler Note taker(s): Lynn Laakso
Attendee Name Affiliation
x Calvin Beebe HL7 SSD SD Co-Chair
x Woody Beeler HL7 FTSD Co-Chair
x Giorgio Cangioli HL7 Affiliate Representative
x Lorraine Constable Q2
Bob Dolin HL7 Board Vice-Chair (member ex officio w/o vote)
x Freida Hall HL7 TSS SD Co-Chair
Chuck Jaffe HL7 CEO (member ex officio w/o vote)
x Tony Julian HL7 FTSD Co-Chair
x Austin Kreisler (Chair) HL7 ad-hoc member
x Lynn Laakso (scribe, non-voting) HL7 HQ
x Patrick Loyd HL7 T3SD Co-Chair
x Charlie Mead HL7 ArB Chair
Don Mon HL7 Board Chair (member ex officio w/ vote)
regrets Ravi Natarajan HL7 Affiliate Representative
x Ron Parker HL7 ArB Alternate
x Eric Prudhomm'eaux Semantic Web and FHIR
regrets John Quinn HL7 CTO (TSC member ex officio w/vote)
x Helen Stevens HL7 Ad-Hoc Member
x Ed Tripp HL7 DESD Co-Chair
x Pat Van Dyke HL7 SSD SD Co-Chair
x Mead Walker HL7 DESD Co-Chair
Quorum Requirements (Co-chair +5 with 2 SD Reps) Met: yes

Agenda Topics

Q1 - Roadmap and HL7 Strategic Issues: 9 am to 10:30 am

  1. Roll Call and Introduction of visitors (including declaration of interests)
  2. Additions to, and acceptance of, agenda:
  3. Link to Interim decision review since last WGM
  4. Strategic Initiatives discussion
  5. FHIR
    • Governance, methodology and management


Q2 - Architecture and Tooling: 11 am to 12:30 pm

  1. Semantic Web and FHIR - Charlie Mead and Eric Prud'hommeaux (W3C)
  2. SAIF IG and Tooling Strategy
  3. ArB
  4. Tooling

Q3 - TSC Project Review: 1:30 pm to 3 pm

  1. Motion: Approve Project Scope Statement for Cross-Paradigm Interoperability Implementation Guide for Immunizations, for SOA WG of FTSD, cosponsored by PHER of DESD and CDS FTSD at Project Insight # 863 and TSC Tracker # 2256.
  2. TSC Projects
    • 647 - HL7 Product Quality Plan
    • 763 - HL7 SAIF Implementation Guide
    • 799 - HL7 Strategic Initiatives Dashboard Project
    • 828 - Risk Assessment and Governance for SAIF Architecture Program
    • 751 - SAIF Architecture Program
    • 764 - SAIF Pilot Coordination
    • 478 - TSC Product Visibility Project
    • 749 - TSC Retrospective Self-Assessment Based on T3F Recommendations
    • 631 - TSC Work Group Visibility Maintenance
  3. TSC Continuous Improvement objectives
    • Product Strategy Project (Project Insight # 413)
    • T3F Strategic Initiative Review

Q4 - TSC Planning and Open Issue Review: 3:30 pm to 5pm

  1. (45 mins) Review Open Issues List
    • #2231 From 2012-04-09 Informative publication request for Patient Care: HL7 Version 3 Detailed Clinical Models, Release 1 (body weight and body height) - status on publishing the other two of the five?
    • #2265 TSC Definition of Domain Analysis Models and Functional Profiles - ARB DAM definition in Q2, what of the FPs?
    • #1815 Request for TSC to develop guidelines on what should be Informative vs. DSTU vs. Normative - any further action needed?
  2. Approve DSTU Publication Request for ArB's HL7 Service-Aware Interoperability Framework: Canonical Definition Specification, Release 2, at Project Insight 807 is requested by ArB for publication for 24 months at #2258
  3. Next WGM Planning - next two WGMs -
  4. (May) Elect TSC Representative to Nominations Committee (Per GOM Section 10.06.01)
  5. (May) Review TSC Three-Year Plan
  6. (May) Review TSC Communications Plan - how are we doing against it?
    • Maintenance project: Work Group Visibility
  7. (Sept) Review and re-confirm ArB membership (even numbered years)
  8. (Sept) Review and confirm ORC liaison assignment
  9. #2041 For 2012 post-Jan WGM: 2012-2013 TSC Chair nomination and election - GOM Revision Cycle 1201 Peer Review already announced; need to establish recommendation for next cycle.
  10. Formation of TSC Nomination Committee

Sunday

Port Alberni room
- ArB Report

Tuesday lunch

MEETING CHANGE  Port Alberni room now Pavilion Ballroom C
  1. Patient Care representatives invited to discuss DCM work and relation to CIMI
  2. WGM Planning - agenda setting next two WGMs - agenda links
    • 2012-09-08_TSC_WGM_Agenda 26th Plenary and WGM, Baltimore, MD USA
    • 2013-01-12 TSC WGM Agenda 2013 Jan WGM, Phoenix AZ USA
    • Schedule:
      (January) Review TSC Mission and Charter, Decision Making Practices
      (January) Review TSC Decision Making Practices
      (May) Review TSC Three-Year Plan
      (May) Review TSC Communications Plan
      (September) Review TSC SWOT

Supporting Documents

Minutes/Conclusions Reached:

Q1 - Roadmap and HL7 Strategic Issues: 9 am to 10:30 am

  1. Roll Call and Introduction of visitors (including declaration of interests) no visitors present this quarter.
  2. Additions to, and acceptance of, agenda: Patrick notes that there may be some shuffling through the week to provide coverage to OO and there may be regrets in advance.
  3. Link to Interim decision review since last WGM
  4. Strategic Initiatives discussion - what is missing, what is no longer an issue.
      • Ed notes that the review cycle is a concern, where they are reviewed annually at more of a tactical level. Helen adds that if we have to review or revise them annually they are not at as strategic a level as they should be.
      • Charlie notes that FHIR needs to be part of SAIF as a strategic level. Austin notes that if we can talk about intents and goals without naming specific projects we may be more appropriately strategic.
      • First change is in 2.1.4 - concern that the strategy is represented as a goal statement as compared to a tactical plan.
      • Helen notes that in 2.1.5 the grammatical correctness of "Key international stakeholder groups" is more correct than 'key stakeholder groups internationally' have been identified.
      • Austin leads the group through a review of the changes identified from the last ballot comments, and planned for next ballot, and reminds the TSC to think about what is missing.
      • Freida suggests we consider putting the review cycle on the year when the chair of the HL7 Board is up for election, so every three years.
      • Austin notes that another document at a more tactical level is updated annually. Freida moves and Helen seconds that the TSC recommend to the Board that we do strategic initiatives every two years coinciding with the election of an incoming Board Chair. Further, the review of the strategic initiatives is at the discretion of the incoming chair and may be waived. Charlie suggests we start working on it before the election and have a document ready for January ballot. Tactical strategy can be addressed annually. With a chair election, they are elected to chair-elect during the second year of the existing chair's term. At the expiration of the chair term the prior chair becomes immediate past chair.
      • Vote: unanimously approved.
      • Austin suggests the specific text changes be reviewed on an upcoming call and vote to make final recommendation.
      • Ron asks about measuring progress; the TSC dashboard only measures some tactical progress. It would be the role of the Board to measure strategic progress. Once the dashboard is available we will present it to the Board on a regular basis, perhaps as part of the TSC report on Tuesday night Board meetings at the WGM.
    • Review draft initiatives on Strategic Initiatives TSC Dashboard
    • Continue refinement of initiative criteria - Mead is to work on industry responsiveness and easier implementation; Mead's not prepared to work on this issue today.
    • WGM Effectiveness - we have some draft measures we need to start counting them up and seeing if we are learning anything from them. Austin asks how we roll up the various categories into a red-green-yellow status. This would be grading each WGM, but might be trended over time. US locations might have one set of numbers and international meetings with a separate set of numbers. Calvin suggests another rolling average. Need to separate the bootstrap process from the long term process, to know what data we want or need to capture and start measuring from now rather than attempting going back to obtain measurements for historical purposes without data.
      • WGs who get agendas posted in an appropriate timeframe is one measure that needs clarification to operationalize. ACTION ITEM: Patrick, Austin and Lynn will get together to talk about the measurements for WGM Effectiveness.
      • Tutorials, number of people attending tutorials, not necessarily 'students'. Number of quarters with which a WG had quorum can be as part of the post-WGM co-chair survey: how many quarters did you meet, how many quarters did you achieve quorum.
      • Giorgio asks about out-of-cycle meetings - these are not part of these measurements. Patrick notes that RIMBAA meets out of cycle but doesn't have interim conference calls so we may want to measure their OOC meeting participation statistics within WGM effectiveness. Profit or loss operationalization will also be tricky.
      • Austin notes that Work Group Health should also align with strategic initiatives, so are there any changes to WGH that would also align? None identified but such review is important.
      • Review of Rolling average of normative cycles to ANSI publication - the rolling average is problematic when a trimester has no publications. Helen suggests we only highlight the items that published in the current cycles that are out of range. Calvin suggests we go with a collective average based on a whole year. Helen is concerned to wait a year before getting feedback on cycles. What if we highlight individual projects that took more than 3 cycles to normative. That's more on the PBS Metrics report. We may want to do just the last trimester's statistics and the annual average. Calvin moves the reporting be simplified to report each trimester's values from the publications that are made normative that trimester. Patrick seconds. Vote: unanimously approved. Helen requests we not use trimesters but by ballot cycle.
      • Requirements traceability dashboard metric is discussed next. Thermometer graphic used as draft, but fuel gauge or other graphic is available. Patrick cautions that after the third item we may not see any progress on this for some time.
      • Cross artifact consistency will be addressed by Pat and Lynn this week to draft changes to the publication request.
      • Publishing has not yet addressed metrics for a dashboard on the Product ballot Quality. Woody notes that we have a bunch of metrics, invalid terminology bindings and so on and need to be classified for the purposes of the dashboard. A longitudinal study is not feasible, you have about 12 such entries each cycle but they're all on different ballots, more grouped on a product. Calvin asks if this is on publication quality but more on technical correctness. This does not have to do with negative comments on the content; it's about static model validation. It also produces product quality when the schemas validate. You want to encourage constructive negative comments and not count comments related to business requirements as part of ballot quality, but editorial comments based on ill-formed constructs or major negatives for having a schema not validate may be had to differentiate. Woody notes that the automated validation is only for V3, not IGs, not CDA. Helen's concern is automated ballot QA as with V3, so for the Functional Model where they have some automated checks to filter out mistakes. Helen notes that Product quality already measures number of ballot cycles. It may mean you have a very technical specification, or may have a weak specification. Calvin notes that big ballots having lots of interest bring many comments and lots of participation. You may need to factor the number of balloters in areas where there are few balloters. Calvin notes we push back lots of specification into the implementation guide space which is more in Word. Helen notes that the ballot process is a QA process. Patrick notes that ballot quorum has to have cross-membership type participation where Don will send out an email saying we are light on vendor participation for example. Calvin notes that number of people who write comments, not just referring to someone else's comments. If you clone a comment 6 times it may not be counted as 6 different comments. Helen asks how to measure how many individual people contributed to a single comment. Mead mentions that having something pass in the first ballot is also a risk, to have confidence that it's been sufficiently reviewed. Woody notes the small quorum pools are also a problem.
      • Ed adds another measure of traceability back to requirements are important to measure ballot quality.
      • Austin notes that the initiative is on product quality not ballot quality and the focus has changed from measuring product quality to developing processes to insure quality. Calvin notes we should look at what statistics we have and seeing if they have something to tell us about our balloting. Austin suggests a review of PBS metrics to see what we've got so far.

Recessed 10:49 AM PDT for break


Q2 - Architecture and Tooling: 11 am to 12:30 pm

Reconvene 11:03 PDT

  1. Semantic Web and FHIR - Charlie Mead and Eric Prud'hommeaux (W3C)
    • Charlie introduces Eric and his experience with W3C, FHIR, Semantic Web. After discussion with him what problems FHIR is trying to solve, wish to explore whether it would be enhanced with options for use of Semantic Web technology. Eric reviews a slide presentation at http://www.w3.org/2012/04/FHIR/slides.
    • The intersection at the linked data platform seems the FHIR opportunity. Data and its relationships based on the RIM are stored in RDF but exposed using REST instances. (slide 9). The repositories are FHIR instances, not FHIR models.
      • Calvin cautions against data moving to a graph representation, for example, loses the distinction of the models on which the data was based, in the transform. John Q has sought an RDF representation of the RIM for a while; a subset exists from Cecil for use with BRIDG. Ron notes that such links of heterogeneous environments implies sole source. Proliferation of data outside of source system creates meta-architectural problems. Proficiency to reach into a broad range of repositories escalates the problem of knowing which data is duplicative. Semantic query capabilities across heterogeneous environments is one challenge. Metadata for the provenance of the data in an 'exchange' environment is also problematic. Eric adds that such graph queries they are intended to have metadata associated with them but you have to write a chain of custody to maintain provenance.
      • Charlie notes Lloyd suggested supporting RDF representations as FHIR resources will have a burden associated with it, but how great a burden, and developers that must shoulder it. Mead asks if that people who think this is a good idea should step up and contribute to it. Charlie notes that there's not a lot of experience out there in these core technologies. The TSC might actively encourage this to attract people or have HL7'ers join HCLS to learn the stuff. Predisposition to UML compared to openness to RDF is non-trivial. Calvin notes it looks like another ITS tacked on to the back end of FHIR and it's not even out yet. Ron reports Lloyd is interested in ensuring it's ready for that conversation. There is caution to not overburden FHIR with demands like the ITS at such an early stage. Calvin noted that the US Govt's NIEM XML ITS has potential alignment with FHIR to be very attractive to that stakeholder.
      • Eric then asks how much FHIR work can be pushed out into commodity RDF libraries? It would be a significant benefit to the volunteer community with HL7. ACTION ITEM: Charlie and Calvin will work together to craft a motion regarding this interaction that will be informative to but not a burden to the FHIR developers and implementers, assess the degree of the impact.
      • Woody notes that we may want to do specific sets of V3 artifacts represented in FHIR rather than try to crate a complete set of resources. Eric notes he may be able to provide some tools. The transformations will be important.
  2. Tooling Strategy - Austin reports from Jane that a number of Tooling projects, some of which are volunteer driven need to move from a strategy of commissioning people to perform projects to a strategy of participation in other tooling efforts to build tools that work for us as well. The SAIF IG project for example in a similar strategy identifies how HL7 will use SAIF. The project from MnM has ground to a halt, because of lack of participation as well as resources diverted to interest in FHIR. This is halting progress on some of the other SAIF AP projects. The clear path is probably to fund this effort.
    • Patrick and Lorraine have begun drafting a plan to accelerate the SAIF IG, to fund a team to write the initial draft and then out of cycle meetings to review and refine it. IG proposal SAIF IG Proposal reviewed. Estimates are potentially low, using the heroism and passion correction factor (CM).
    • Woody asks if the artifact definition part was considered - it is referenced as source documentation but not estimated for development. Estimate is 1500 hours, roughly $200k.
    • Austin cautions that FHIR must be in scope for this and these figures do not include that in scope. Patrick identifies that we need to maintain scope to what they think they can succeed at.
    • Calvin is noting that the SAIF implementation experience is not known; Patrick says they are working on it in OO but it's not written down yet, still in progress within the group.
    • Ed asks what forecast there is for Lloyd's attention to return to SAIF efforts? Not really. Woody notes that MnM needs to step but we need to bring some 'old blood' back and attracted new, highly engaged individuals and have run out of bandwidth.
    • Mead feels that FHIR is trying to solve the problems that the SAIF IG is scoping.
    • Calvin raises concern that SAIF IG and FHIR may have some overlap, not just alignment. Charlie recommends FHIR plus the OO project if you have to choose between. Helen asks what we can do to roll out across the organization that is bite sized and can help the various work groups in the next 6 months. She compares SAIF and FHIR to these architectural clouds poorly understood by the membership and would we be able to see something small and concrete? Patrick notes that ArB just defined a DAM - the first pieces are to define the artifacts and methodology to develop proper DAMs. Helen would like to see a tutorial on DAMs in September. Mead notes that from the original use case models in the MDF; they inserted storyboards into the V3 process instead. Documentation of explicit traceability on requirements is a tough sell.
    • Woody fears V3 messaging projects might convert to FHIR resources. Need a SAIF artifact definition for an EHR functional model. Information model on an EHR FM tied in to the ArB definition of a DAM would advance that understanding as well. Most of the V3 implementations are not based on Universal realm specs. Helen reiterates a small product that improves the life of the work groups today to help them by showing them that DAM development adds 10 hours but cuts 50 hours off of later work. Austin notes that we could develop a SAIF IG which would bring V3 development to a halt, which he is trying to avoid. Same with FHIR. We don't want to put SAIF and FHIR on a collision course. Austin notes that SAIF is how we develop standards, but FHIR is a standard we'll develop. Woody notes that the organization votes with its intellect, which is going towards FHIR right now.
      • Ron notes that we should find a project, identify where they are in their life cycle, and determine where they are in SAIF, and how to incorporate that idea into where they are right now. The ArB would mentor and guide a specific project in that effort, with projects selected by the TSC for example. Calvin notes that we may be needing to develop an architecture around FHIR, rather than enveloping both V3 and FHIR. Woody adds we still need a behavioral framework. If the intellectual interest is in FHIR then we do a FHIR-based SAIF IG.

Recessed at 12:37 PDT

Q3 - TSC Project Review: 1:30 pm to 3 pm

Reconvened 1:39 PM PDT

  1. FHIR and SAIF - Charlie reports that he and Calvin and Ron have a motion with which to respond to Eric's presentation relative to FHIR. Motion: Calvin moves that the TSC will endeavor to make available resources (personnel and training) to the group working on FHIR to provide education about other endeavors with which they could consider alignment such as Semantic Web technology or NIEM, with the goal of ensuring we maximize downstream integration capability with projects outside HL7. Charlie seconds. ACTION ITEM: Calvin takes an action item to obtain a resource person to share information about NIEM. Charlie notes that Eric is willing to point a Boston resource in our direction for 5 weeks. For 8 weeks July and August he'll be near Charlie where the W3C will fund his participation to work with him. This is education/augmentation. Vote: unanimously approved.
  2. Charlie further reports makes a motion Motion: The TSC transfer the responsibility for the SAIF IG to the ArB, who will take responsibility for recruiting the right people; and that the SAIF IG be re-scoped to the OO project and FHIR. Seconded by Ed.
    • Organization-wide implementation guide fractures focus; let's do something useful at a practical level with focused substantivity.
    • Patrick notes that using OO as scoping mechanism uses all parts of SAIF and may not be a limiting factor. Re-casting it under the ArB may not be as helpful.
    • Mead liked the prior proposal to fund the creation of a draft, rather than outsourcing it to ArB. Limiting scope to OO and FHIR is problematic as it doesn't give rules for the whole organization to follow.
    • Woody notes we took SAIF IG under TSC wing to put SAIF framework 'on the road' into HL7. That still seems to be the course we want to take, rather than now taking the ArB down into the details rather than having focused on the framework.
    • Helen doesn't see the advantage; that ArB members can participate in the work if they wish. However she'd like to see a smaller slice of SAIF IG that covers the organization broadly. She'd like to see something that can be discussed in September as education on concrete process.
    • Charlie agrees we need to determine if we want to do a thin slice across the organization or a focused project. He feels we've tried this already with SAIF over the past few years to cover broad spectrum; so now he feels we need to focus on an engaged group now. He adds if the TSC can hold the ArB responsible, whether they feel that MnM has or has not been successful.
    • Helen feels it's a transfer of knowledge from ArB to MnM. They're not the same people, notes Charlie.
    • Ed adds that change of responsibility from MnM to ArB is bandwidth; and ArB may be tasked with recruiting people to help MnM. He further adds that such funding is very scarce for the IG project unless both demand and need.
    • Austin notes that the SAIF IG Project (763) is sponsored by TSC, and its project facilitator Lloyd has lost participation in the project and is working on FHIR. Helen notes that we must first find a project facilitator and then ask that resource which group it should be sponsored by.
    • Charlie withdraws the motion
    • Austin notes that we first need to identify a project leader. What about the funded project idea Patrick described, but Ed noted that funding was unlikely. How do we need to slice that to be palatable? That may not be worked out today. Calvin posits that the funded project might be simply addressing the V3 portion of the SAIF IG; Helen agrees.
    • Austin notes that ArB and MnM need to do a candidate search for a project lead. ACTION ITEM: ArB and MnM need to do a candidate search for a project lead.
    • Austin notes that Grahame has asked the TSC to enact and enable governance processes around FHIR. Woody notes you can define governance for SAIF artifacts without getting into the framework. Patrick notes that if FHIR gets too far down the path without alignment with SAIF methodology it is difficult to bring it back in. Grahame is developing lab resources without interaction with OO, not using the content specialists. Charlie reminds the group that the SAIF IG defines review and approval of artifacts, which is essentially what governance is. Patrick notes that SAIF used Behavioral framework modeled on AUS lab processes and not the universal guides. Woody agreed that we don't want work that negates the work of the other work groups.
    • TSC assigning resource development to work groups is uncomfortable at this point - we need to bring out the management of FHIR. We will all have the opportunity to learn more about it tomorrow and may have a better informed discussion in 24 hours. Patrick notes that for OO to make it happen they had to exclude governance so they could avoid churn. This still is the way it has played out. The OO piece with funding to come in and write the IG, the BF, etc. SAIF will create more thorough documentation; more work and more time to do but the product will be far ahead of what we produce now. Mead asks what the DAM on the OO piece involves; Patrick notes it's a low-hanging fruit they should be able to exercise the ArB definition of a DAM. Helen notes that then the TSC can choose to approve projects based on their assertion of conformance to the SAIF IG; Austin adds that we can also only approve DAMs wishing to ballot as normative if they conform to the IG.
    • Patrick suggests they have SAIF AP approve the SAIF IG proposal and leave them separate. Governance pieces should be owned by ArB. Woody wants to hear what the organization around FHIR has to say first, in a week. Patrick can have the proposal ready for the SAIF AP meeting on Wednesday Q4.
    • Woody reminds that the question is not what the governance should be but what are the points in the process at which governance occurs. Charlie adds it's about risk management and you have governance processes to manage the risk. FHIR as a new process will have different spots for governance if left on their own track. ACTION ITEM: Patrick can have the SAIF IG proposal ready for the SAIF AP meeting on Wednesday Q4.
    • The TSC project on risk assessment and governance, facilitated by Jane (PI # 828) already has been defined.
  3. Motion: Approve Project Scope Statement for Cross-Paradigm Interoperability Implementation Guide for Immunizations, for SOA WG of FTSD, cosponsored by PHER of DESD and CDS FTSD at Project Insight # 863 and TSC Tracker # 2256.
    • Identification as a new product was discussed; would rather see it as an implementation guide that has several product types in documents, services and messages. This was out for comment this past cycle. This was approved by FTSD in January but did not advance due to confusion on having multiple Steering Division approvals, so just coming to the TSC now. If it is indeed a new product we need a better description of what the product category is and how it relates to other existing products; alternatively, it may be characterized as an IG covering V2, V3, and Services paradigms. Helen calls it a 'multi-product implementation guide'. Patrick moves to approve with those caveats, and Ed seconds. Vote: Unanimously approved.
  4. TSC Projects - some of which we have talked about so far
    • 647 - HL7 Product Quality Plan - metrics for SI Dashboard discussed
    • 763 - HL7 SAIF Implementation Guide - already extensively discussed
    • 799 - HL7 Strategic Initiatives Dashboard Project - discussed
    • 828 - Risk Assessment and Governance for SAIF Architecture Program - discussed; governance piece in accord with the risk profile. This has not advanced within the SAIF AP. Patrick and Austin recommend the TSC get involved. Perhaps the ArB should take on responsibility for invigorating that effort. Tony reports he's received a couple of queries from outside HL7 about Dr Mead and this SAIF thing and does anyone really care… to which he replied affirmatively. Motion: Patrick moves ArB take responsibility for running with the project while TSC retaining ownership of the project, with the ArB finding a facilitator and executing the project. Helen seconds. Vote: unanimously approved.
    • 751 - SAIF Architecture Program - the framework under which we coordinate a variety of projects has not changed.
    • 764 - SAIF Pilot Coordination - Project Services project - working with the material they have…
    • 478 - TSC Product Visibility Project - Motion: Patrick moves and Calvin seconds we close the project. Vote: unanimously approved.
      • Noted that in closing a TSC project as we're opening more than we close, the Steering Divisions should be encouraging and requiring PSS on the latest template including the PBS Metrics review to ensure the Work groups can handle the work.
    • 749 - TSC Retrospective Self-Assessment Based on T3F Recommendations: Woody does not have something this cycle. He believes there is value in some of the review. Review next cycle.
    • 631 - TSC Work Group Visibility Maintenance - this is not a real project, but a three-year plan maintenance project placeholder. Calvin suggests a line to exemplify projects with start and end dates as compared to maintenance.
  5. TSC Continuous Improvement objectives
    • Product Quality Plan (#647) as part of SAIF AP led by Austin. It's part of Strategic Initiatives now. Ed moves we close the project as it's been absorbed into activities with the Strategic Initiatives. Patrick seconds. Vote: Unanimously approved.

Recessed at 3:05 PM

Q4 - TSC Planning and Open Issue Review: 3:30 pm to 5pm

Reconvened at 3:30 PM

  1. (45 mins) Review Open Issues List
    • #2231 From 2012-04-09 Informative publication request for Patient Care: HL7 Version 3 Detailed Clinical Models, Release 1 (body weight and body height) - status on publishing the other two of the five? - on Tuesday's agenda. When Mead reached out to them on this topic William noted that it was very difficult to proceed. ACTION ITEM: Ed and Mead will reach out again to Patient Care cochairs to attend the Tuesday lunch.
    • #2265 TSC Definition of Domain Analysis Models and Functional Profiles - ARB DAM definition in Q2, what of the FPs?
      • Charlie wasn't comfortable with a full DAM having static informational and behavioral dynamic semantics. Separation of levels of completeness versus correctness resulted, with subjective perspectives being "sufficient" or "complete" for domain experts, and suitable for informative ballot. Objective perspectives with expressed "correctness" allow such DAMS to go to normative ballot.
      • Woody notes that behavioral models between many DAMs are very similar and may not be scoped to review in development of a DAM, e.g. order fulfillment life cycle. Charlie accedes that a normative DAM must have a behavioral model and informational model but may not be defined within that DAM. Other DAMs may reference some prior behavioral model already published. Need sufficient capacity for a group to go forward and produce artifacts without supposition that their DAM is sufficient for all purposes.
      • Charlie notes the collection of artifacts at the conceptual level that define static semantics of a domain and behavioral dynamics.
      • Woody also notes that this lacks a conformance statement typically requested of normative items. This will be needed to allow traceability from a DAM all the way down to the implementation. Ed asks why we need to define any DAM as normative; some members and clients desire such artifacts as normative. Calvin asks if you separated out a dynamic artifact DAM, with minimal statics you could just call them static DAMs and dynamic DAMs. If you create DAMs as a building block to building standards then you have an argument as a normative artifact. However organizations often wish to bring in their information modeling requirements without any behavioral component.
      • Charlie accedes that a DAM definition that allows normative status need to have conformance statements that assert conformance to the DAM. Traceability of requirements is also part of the DAM's place in the specification. Mead asks how traceability is going to be measured. Calvin notes that some portion of a spec may have traceability but if only one element holds traceability - can the whole spec be normative? Charlie notes that BRIDG model in its first 6 years was built from use cases. Static semantics from participants bringing them were incorporated. Setting the boundaries of the domain of interest is important as described by one or more requirements. Woody adds for a DAM to claim normative, they can't derive it, it has to be traceable. Process instances were confused with capabilities notes Charlie.
      • Austin notes that he heard someone say FPs were a specialized DAM? FPs want to add a mini information models that act as mini-DAMs. Ed adds that CTR&R R2 coming from RCRIM; may want to touch base with AMS to talk about adding traceability for a pilot.
      • We have an ArB definition of a DAM, and the SAIF Artifact definition of a Domain Informational Model without behavior. Charlie notes that at the conceptual level they ought not be dictating representation be it class diagram or RDF Graph. That has to be in the SAIF IG.
      • EHR FPs are just a profile constraint of the EHR-S FM. There are rules on how you create a profile. You can constrain and then extend. EHR, list of functions is a profile, in V2, a list of constraints is a profile. ACTION ITEM: Pat and Helen will draft a definition of a FP for review on the 2012-05-29 teleconference.
    • #1815 Request for TSC to develop guidelines on what should be Informative vs. DSTU vs. Normative - any further action needed? - it's been referred to Project Services, will be released in next version of Project Scope statement, close this action item.
  2. Approve DSTU Publication Request for ArB's HL7 Service-Aware Interoperability Framework: Canonical Definition Specification, Release 2, at Project Insight 807 is requested by ArB for publication for 24 months at #2258 Patrick moves approval Calvin seconds approval - Vote: unanimously approved
  3. Next WGM Planning - next two WGMs - if you have something for us to discuss outside the normal agenda, let us know.
  4. (May) Elect TSC Representative to Nominations Committee (Per GOM Section 10.06.01) Calvin notes that as the chair of the Finance committee he's not eligible for nomination to the Board and so could serve in this capacity. Approved by general consent.
  5. (May) Review TSC Three-Year Plan - need a placeholder for the FHIR Program, Mead suggests governance rules. If we have opportunity to discuss again Tuesday lunch for additional items.
  6. (May) Review TSC Communications Plan - communication plan project is closed, but as header for WGH
    • Maintenance project: Work Group Visibility - Work Group Health reporting will continue, of course.
    • International Council would like all Work Groups to do short presentations on what they do and work on, like mini ambassador programs. It was discussed that the morning slides before the general session ought to suffice and are made available after the WGM. Communications and marketing vehicles for the internationals into their own realms. It may not be the TSC's purview to request or enforce these submissions. Could a note from the TSC go out to the Work Groups? Helen's response will be that there are HL7 web sites, morning slides from the WGMs and if they have specific recommendations on what those morning slides should contain they can offer feedback to Mary Ann at HQ.
  7. (Sept) Review and re-confirm ArB membership (even numbered years)
  8. (Sept) Review and confirm ORC liaison assignment
  9. Formation of TSC Nomination Committee - TSC members not up for re-election, so Mead, Woody, Calvin, Freida, and Ravi. Helen volunteers to be on the committee and to chair. The basic job is to try to ensure at least one candidate is available and potentially identify two candidates for each race.
  10. #2041 For 2012 post-Jan WGM: 2012-2013 TSC Chair nomination and election - GOM Revision Cycle 1201 Peer Review already announced; need to establish recommendation for next cycle.
    • Currently Austin as an ad-hoc member which allowed two co-chairs for each steering division. To ensure continuity if we can create an immediate past chair to allow the prior chair to provide advice. However it was discussed that we can do it by acclamation. However with TSC membership described in the GOM that is where the change would be. Immediate past TSC chair would continue as an ex officio member with vote, eligible for subsequent election as chair (as compared to other ex officio members that may be excluded). There is no prohibition of ex officio members to be elected chair so there is no conflict. Helen moves we have the immediate past-chair as an ad-hoc member with vote for one year following their turn seconded by Woody. He notes that we can add that to our decision practices or formalized statement that such is our intention. Freida objects to having such organizational statements in decentralized locations. Vote: Motion approved. T3SD voting negative. Passes 6/1/0.


Adjourned 5:10 PM PDT

Actions (Include Owner, Action Item, and due date)
  • Patrick, Austin and Lynn will get together to talk about the measurements for WGM Effectiveness.
  • Charlie and Calvin will work together to craft a motion regarding this interaction that will be informative to but not a burden to the FHIR developers and implementers, assess the degree of the impact.
  • Calvin takes an action item to obtain a resource person to share information about NIEM.
  • Patrick can have the SAIF IG proposal ready for the SAIF AP meeting on Wednesday Q4.
  • Ed and Mead will reach out again to Patient Care cochairs to attend the Tuesday lunch.
  • Pat and Helen will draft a definition of a FP for review on the 2012-05-29 teleconference.


Sunday

Port Alberni room
- ArB Report

Tuesday lunch

MEETING CHANGE  Port Alberni room now Pavilion Ballroom C
  1. Patient Care representatives invited to discuss DCM work and relation to CIMI
  2. WGM Planning - agenda setting next two WGMs - agenda links
    • 2012-09-08_TSC_WGM_Agenda 26th Plenary and WGM, Baltimore, MD USA
    • 2013-01-12 TSC WGM Agenda 2013 Jan WGM, Phoenix AZ USA
    • Schedule:
      (January) Review TSC Mission and Charter, Decision Making Practices
      (January) Review TSC Decision Making Practices
      (May) Review TSC Three-Year Plan
      (May) Review TSC Communications Plan
      (September) Review TSC SWOT
Retrieved from "https://tscwiki.hl7.org/w/index.php?title=2012-05-12_TSC_WGM_Minutes&oldid=9778"