2013-03-18 TSC Call Minutes

From HL7 TSC
Jump to navigation Jump to search

TSC Agenda/Minutes

Meeting Info/Attendees

HL7 TSC Meeting Minutes

Location: call 770-657-9270 using code 985371#
GoToMeeting ID: 273-848-837

Date: 2013-03-18
Time: 11:00 AM U.S. Eastern
Facilitator: Austin Kreisler Note taker(s): Lynn Laakso
Quorum = chair + 5 including 2 SD represented yes
Chair/CTO ArB International Affiliate Rep Ad-Hoc
x Austin Kreisler . Charlie Mead x Ravi Natarajan .
x John Quinn x Ron Parker x Jean Duteau
Domain Experts Foundation and Technology Structure and Semantic Design Technical and Support Services
x Melva Peters x Woody Beeler regrets Calvin Beebe x Freida Hall
. Mead Walker x Tony Julian regrets Pat van Dyke x Andy Stechishin
ex officio Invited Guests Observers HL7 Staff
. Don Mon (HL7 Chair) w/vote . x Brian Pech x Lynn Laakso
. Bob Dolin (Vice Chair) vote . . . obs2 .
. Chuck Jaffe (CEO) vote . . . .

Agenda

Housekeeping

  1. Introduction of visitors (including declaration of interests)
  2. Agenda review and approval - Austin Kreisler
  3. Approve Minutes of 2013-03-11 TSC Call Agenda

Governance

  1. Approval items:
  2. Discussion topics:
    • Filtering criteria on machine-processable artifacts available to non-members (30 minutes)

Management

  1. Review action items –
    • #2400 Consolidation of approaches for submitting enhancement requests - (last update: revisit after illumination from the board on the plans for a help desk)
    • organize SAIF AP vitality assessment pre-kickoff call (Ron)
    • Austin, Charlie and Calvin will work offline to draft the precise measurement of a new metric around WGH regarding cochairs;
    • Jean will establish and schedule the ANSI/GOM Review Task force, with Freida, Pat and Calvin -
    • Pat will obtain the FP definition from Helen. Charlie offers to review it using terms such as the ArB recommendation for a DAM.
      • Submitted at TSC Tracker 2165
        A profile is a constraint of the model on which it is based. To be considered conformant, a profile must adhere, according to the normative constraint requirements of the model to the rules of the base model. If a derivation of an existing profile; then a profile must adhere to the normative constraint requirements of the base model and to the existing profile from which the profile is derived. A profile may be more restrictive but not less restrictive than the base model. Because a profile is created to solve a business need, the profile may include additional functions and criteria that satisfy the business needs of the scope of the profile. A profile is backward compatible to the model on which it is based and for those functions/criteria which are associated with the base model or profile of which it is derived.
    • Austin and Woody will draft language for a recommendation on consideration of HTTP compliance to US conformance criteria on EHRs for character set display.
    • Jean will work with Dave on what the number of cycles for the rolling average on which the WGM Effectiveness improvement threshold is measured.
    • Austin and Calvin will take a look at some draft metrics for mid-tier governance and management group health.
  2. Approval items:
  3. Discussion topics:
  4. Reports: (attach written reports below from Steering Divisions et al.)
    • Announcement: HL7 Version 3 Standard: Immunization Messaging, Release 1 at Project Insight # 309 by PHER of DESD has submitted their request for normative publication (no TSC approval required). Congratulations!
    • Announcement: Retrieve, Locate, and Update Service (RLUS) - Service Functional Model Specification, Release 1, balloted as Resource Location and Updating Service (RLUS), Release 1 requests publication as a normative specification, from Project Insight 268. Congratulations to the SOA WG!
  5. Open Issues List


Minutes

Minutes/Conclusions Reached:

  1. Introduction of visitors (including declaration of interests) Brian is observing
  2. Agenda review and approval - Austin Kreisler; approved by general consent
  3. Approve Minutes of 2013-03-11 TSC Call Agenda approved 6/0/1(Ron)

Governance

  1. Approval items:
  2. Discussion topics:
    • Filtering criteria on machine-processable artifacts available to non-members (30 minutes)
      • List of machine processable artifacts generated for the Board, discussed last week, revealed additional direction from Board Chair on how the list is to be used. Need TSC recommendations on utility of list for membership benefit. Essentially everything we distribute is electronic and therefore machine processable at some level. 'Tool enabling' suggested phrasing by Woody. Is it worth developing some criteria for distinction, and what would that distinction be? Schemas, MIF contents are designed for representation of structures is one distinction. HTML view versus excel view. Presentation versus structural representation may be a distinction. How to elaborate the gray zone (excel). We can assign everything to one category or another but not automatically. Distinction between license and copyright and what it means is an issue for understanding. What is the licensing flexibility to this free IP? V2 is strictly PDF not Word. Most CDA packages include a pdf'ed Word document, XML documents and examples, schematron file, and a manifest. Sometimes IGs are just PDF documents. RIM and DAMs also have machine detailed representation of models in a tooling language (e.g. EA, Rational). Woody wasn't sure if we distribute those with DAMs. EA files are certainly eligible with DAMs.
      • May be a useful exercise and categorize the artifacts into presentation versus 'tool enabling' or 'structural representation'. Woody notes that for some products we may want to allow tool-enabling variants like MIF-lite artifacts. Woody wants MIF schemas to be open to encourage tool development. Lynn suggests we review the list of artifacts not only for membership benefit eligibility but also for ECCF positioning in relation to SAIF artifact definition. We may want to also tie to the Product Line Architecture in terms of producers versus consumers. Things essential to the art and science of producing artifacts should be in a members space, but the representation of the products should be in the public, notes Ron. We retain value to attract people that want to shape standards, or better insight on what goes into the standards. Austin cautions that Gello and CCOW we don't really know and makes the list incomplete. Ron notes we want to avoid forking and segmentation in the market also. It is not meeting the spirit and intent of the IP release to allow proliferation of variants of the standards. Austin notes if the intent is to make implementation easier that is also a benefit to our members, as with schemas. Woody agrees the benefit of membership to provide those things to enable competitive advantage is an intent. You can also change your minds later.
      • Austin calls the discussion on time for review again next week. ACTION ITEM: Austin will send the list and an extract of email threads/list discussions to the TSC for review.

Management

  1. Review action items –
    • #2400 Consolidation of approaches for submitting enhancement requests - (last update: revisit after illumination from the board on the plans for a help desk) no progress
    • organize SAIF AP vitality assessment pre-kickoff call (Ron)
    • Austin, Charlie and Calvin will work offline to draft the precise measurement of a new metric around WGH regarding cochairs; No progress
    • Jean will establish and schedule the ANSI/GOM Review Task force, with Freida, Pat and Calvin -
    • Pat will obtain the FP definition from Helen. Charlie offers to review it using terms such as the ArB recommendation for a DAM.
      • Submitted at TSC Tracker 2165
        A profile is a constraint of the model on which it is based. To be considered conformant, a profile must adhere, according to the normative constraint requirements of the model to the rules of the base model. If a derivation of an existing profile; then a profile must adhere to the normative constraint requirements of the base model and to the existing profile from which the profile is derived. A profile may be more restrictive but not less restrictive than the base model. Because a profile is created to solve a business need, the profile may include additional functions and criteria that satisfy the business needs of the scope of the profile. A profile is backward compatible to the model on which it is based and for those functions/criteria which are associated with the base model or profile of which it is derived.
    • Austin and Woody will draft language for a recommendation on consideration of HTTP compliance to US conformance criteria on EHRs for character set display. No progress
    • Jean will work with Dave on what the number of cycles for the rolling average on which the WGM Effectiveness improvement threshold is measured. No progress
    • Austin and Calvin will take a look at some draft metrics for mid-tier governance and management group health. Austin sent a draft to Calvin
  2. Approval items:
  3. Discussion topics:
  4. Reports: (attach written reports below from Steering Divisions et al.)
    • Announcement: HL7 Version 3 Standard: Immunization Messaging, Release 1 at Project Insight # 309 by PHER of DESD has submitted their request for normative publication (no TSC approval required). Congratulations!
    • Announcement: Retrieve, Locate, and Update Service (RLUS) - Service Functional Model Specification, Release 1, balloted as Resource Location and Updating Service (RLUS), Release 1 requests publication as a normative specification, from Project Insight 268. Congratulations to the SOA WG!


Adjourned 11:48 AM EDT

Next Steps

Actions (Include Owner, Action Item, and due date)
  • Austin will send to the TSC what he sent to the Board for the list and an extract of email threads/list discussions to the TSC for review.
Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items


© 2013 Health Level Seven® International. All rights reserved.

Retrieved from "https://tscwiki.hl7.org/w/index.php?title=2013-03-18_TSC_Call_Minutes&oldid=11209"