2014-05-03 TSC WGM Minutes

TSC Saturday meeting for 2014May WGM in Phoenix AZ USA

Guests are asked to make alternate arrangements for the noon meal, or respect the opportunity for TSC members to dine first as the food provided is for elected TSC members and invited guests noted on the agenda

back to TSC Minutes and Agendas

TSC WGM Agenda/Minutes

HL7 TSC Meeting Minutes Location:		Date: 2014-05-03 Time: 9 AM- 5 PM
Facilitator: Ken McCaslin		Note taker(s): Lynn Laakso
Attendee	Name	Affiliation
x	Calvin Beebe	HL7 SSD SD Co-Chair
x	Woody Beeler	HL7 FTSD Co-Chair
regrets	Giorgio Cangioli	HL7 Ad-Hoc Member, Affiliate Representative
regrets	Lorraine Constable	HL7 ArB Vice Chair
x	Jean Duteau	HL7 Affiliate Representative
q3, q4	Katherine Duteau	HL7 Affiliate Representative Jr.
q3	Rick Haddorff	invited guest
x	Freida Hall	HL7 TSS SD Co-Chair
	Stan Huff	HL7 Board Chair (member ex officio vote)
	Chuck Jaffe	HL7 CEO (member ex officio w/o vote)
x	Tony Julian	HL7 ARB Chair
x	Paul Knapp	HL7 FTSD Co-Chair
x	Austin Kreisler	Ad-hoc member
x	Lynn Laakso (scribe, non-voting)	HL7 HQ
x	Ken McCaslin	HL7 TSC Chair
	Don Mon	HL7 Board Vice-Chair (member ex officio w/o vote)
x	Brian Pech	visitor
x	Melva Peters	HL7 DESD Co-Chair
x	John Quinn	HL7 CTO (TSC member ex officio w/vote)
x	John Roberts	HL7 DESD Co-chair
regrets	Andy Stechishin	HL7 T3SD Co-Chair
x	Pat Van Dyke	HL7 SSD SD Co-Chair
Quorum Requirements (Co-chair +5 with 2 SD Reps) Met: (yes)

Agenda Topics

Homework

• unballoted DSTU update refresher - review DSTU guidance
• Naming conventions for ballot items - GOM 12.02.02 review GOM Manual
• reference material on the ISM - two powerpoint decks
  • one with the ISM matrix from the SAIF document,
  • one with an example Keith filled out when working with CDS and the quality measurement folks.
• Security Assessment Cookbook

1. Link to Interim decision review since last WGM

Q1 - Governance - 9 am to 10:30 am

Roadmap and HL7 Strategic Issues:

1. Roll Call and Introduction of visitors (including declaration of interests)
2. Additions to, and acceptance of, agenda:
3. Strategic Initiatives discussion
4. Security issues: policy, reporting, and publication support materials
5. (May) Review TSC Three-Year Plan
   • Maintenance project: Work Group Visibility
6. Lessons learned and next step recommendations that were documented by Duteau Design as part of the Conformance Profile development
   • Determine the next 2-4 profiles for Conformance Testing (candidate topics: LRI, CDA R2, EHR-S FM, EHR-S FPs). Help Desk expansion topics include: FHIR, V2.x OO, V2.x ADT, V2.x Meaningful Use

Q2 - Governance continued: 11 am to 12:30 pm

TSC Review and Planning

1. Next WGM Planning - next two WGMs - agenda links
2. (Sept) Review and confirm ORC liaison assignment
3. Ballot Naming Conventions (see homework above) - Do we need to expand the names available (Freida Hall/Lorraine Constable/Tony Julian)
   1. The section in the GOM is 12.0.2.0.2.
4. (45 mins) Review Open Issues List
   • TSC Definition of Domain Analysis Models and Functional Profiles at TSC Tracker 2165
   • Define list of machine-processable artifacts for membership benefit at TSC Tracker 2585 (to be reviewed by BOD on Monday)

Q3 - Governance continued: 1:30 pm to 3 pm

TSC Project Review

1. • TSC Review of projects > 5 years old at TSC Tracker 2788
2. FHIR DSTU status check
3. TSC Conference call May 12, 19, 26 - (McCaslin/Quinn)
   • McCaslin - out due to surgery May 13 ~ June 13
   • Quinn - Traveling to ISO (Tokyo) May 16 - 23 (Beeler also)
   • US Holiday - Monday May 26
   • What is the best path forward for the three dates in May for the TSC call
4. SAIF Architecture - archiving - (Austin Kreisler/Rick Haddorff)
   • 751 - SAIF Architecture Program
   • 763 - HL7 SAIF Implementation Guide
   • 764 - SAIF Pilot Coordination

Q4 - Management - 3:30 pm to 5pm

SAIF AP summary (Rick Haddorff) - present the findings as well as formalizing the shutdown of the SAIF AP as well as closing out the following projects:

• 751 - SAIF Architecture Program
• 763 - HL7 SAIF Implementation Guide
• 764 - SAIF Pilot Coordination

Publication Request forms

• Normative publication - requiring a publication request (e.g. V2.8)
• Update to the publication request template

Architecture and Tooling:

1. Tooling

Sunday

1. ArB
   1. (Sept) Review and re-confirm ArB membership (even numbered years)
2. BAM
3. FHIR
4. Ballot Naming Conventions (see homework above) - Do we need to expand the names available (Freida Hall/Lorraine Constable/Tony Julian)
   1. The section in the GOM is 12.0.2.0.2.
5. (45 mins) Review Open Issues List
   • TSC Review of projects > 5 years old at TSC Tracker 2788

Wednesday lunch

1. WGM Planning - agenda setting next two WGMs - agenda links
   • Schedule:

     (January) Review TSC Mission and Charter

     (January) Review TSC Decision Making Practices

     (May) Review TSC Three-Year Plan

     (September) Review TSC SWOT

Minutes/Conclusions Reached:

Q1 - Governance - 9 am to 10:30 am

Roadmap and HL7 Strategic Issues:

1. Roll Call and Introduction of visitors (including declaration of interests) Lorraine ill this morning and may join later, Brian joins in Q1
2. Additions to, and acceptance of, agenda: Paul wishes to add an item on WGH metrics
3. Strategic Initiatives discussion - no updates to the SI are available
4. Security issues: policy, reporting, and publication support materials
   • Security Risk assessment cookbook reviewed
   • applicability to standards versus applicability to implementers discussed and the perspective of the XSLT as part of the standard
   • Calvin suggested using the SAIF framework to categorize artifacts; suggest which artifacts should require Security Risk Assessment i.e. Use of ISM in publication request and if implementable level artifacts are checked to ask if they have done a security risk assessment on the artifacts.
   • discussion on the inclusion in the PSS so that project teams are aware that development of implementable artifacts needs security risk assessment before you publish.
   • Artifacts can still bridge multiple boxes.
   • SDWG is now treating their XSLT deliverables as tooling managed in GForge, and released with each publication.
   • Motion: Freida moves and Austin seconds (see below for motion later amended)

     Make following changes to PSS:

     • Add checkbox to PSS to ask if project will be creating implementable or executable artifacts. FAQ – this is informative, changing would not require change to scope statement. However, will require Security Risk Assessment prior to publication.
     • Instructions: If project has implementable/executable deliverables will need to do a Security analysis prior to publication request.

     Make the following changes to Publication Request:

     • Add ISM to Publication Request
     • Require projects to identify physical deliverables is a simple process such as check box and listing. Instructions to include example: executable, implementable artifact, (other TBD)
     • Ask follow on questions (TBD in collaboration from Structured Documents and Publishing)
   • Revisions to motion discussed:
     • Needs to be related security risk assessment for implementable/executable components of their product family
     • Group formed to deal with this needs to be define which artifacts require risk assessment, level of detail required.
     • "TBD" - work with Structured Documents and Publishing (or project team).
   • Discussion:
     • Austin stated at one time considered inserting the ISM to Publication Request.
     • Tony mentioned ISM is 3-D graphic, not 2-D; DoD has "Rubik" cube presentation
     • Pat mentioned in the list of artifacts, consider some artifacts are member only; some are with license after 90 days; Calvin mentioned that this may be a different project since it requires Board input. This will not be listed in project charter.
   • Revised Motion (after discussion): Create project team to develop PSS for Security Planning; project title: Positioning Security Risk Analysis standard within HL7.
     • Vote: unanimously approved. (ed: see also Project Insight # 996)
     • Project team includes Don, Karen or Dave from staff, TSC representative can find a project facilitator, etc. Freida will represent TSC and bring this to PSC to be the primary sponsor and try to corral Dave. JohnQ and Paul will also participate. Austin and Calvin will find an SDWG representative to participate. Need participation from Security and Publishing WGs. Freida will draft PSS for Positioning Security Risk Analysis standard within HL7 and circulate to TSC
5. Lessons learned and next step recommendations that were documented by Duteau Design as part of the Conformance Profile development
   • Melva narrates a slide show
   • Calvin asks about lack of domain expertise in the review of deliverables. Melva describes the RFP wording as being unclear for V2 HL7 experts compared to Immunization clinical experts they sought. JohnR commends the team for their effort, plus the IG on which this is based is not an HL7 IG but a CDC publication. Good examples of clarification of optionality in an IG include LRI. JohnR clarifies the IG is intended to be broad enough for any of the states to implement; the CDC does not actually receive immunization messages but created the IG for use on a state by state basis.
   • Discussion ensued on the template for a conformance profile; it's in the V2 chapter 2 and also the workbench.
   • Governance structure will be needed for going forward.
6. Determine the next 2-4 profiles for Conformance Testing (candidate topics: LRI, CDA R2, EHR-S FM, EHR-S FPs). Help Desk expansion topics include: FHIR, V2.x OO, V2.x ADT, V2.x Meaningful Use
   • [Survey results reviewed. Survey questions reviewed and for example CCDA for Attachments was offered as a primary topic and the other CCDA IGs were included parenthetically. The items were mostly rolled up from various publications in the topic. There were 12 items in the survey and the top five are reviewed. Rankings were done by both "very interested" and "somewhat interested" indicators by the 45 participants from the webinars.
   • A top result was on FHIR but conformance to FHIR is like saying conformance from all of V3. Top result for ADT v2.5.1 in which there are no Implementation Guides available. Syndromic Surveillance is a top interest in the industry and the CDC has an IG on that but not HL7. Second was CCDA, for which we do have implementation guides.
   • Calvin notes the quality efforts are killing us for effort. HQMF was on the survey but few were very interested, 62% were somewhat interested.
   • Selection criterion must include adequate specificity of constraint in IG. (ADT does not qualify)
   • Another criterion suggested is for use between organizations, not an internally-used spec.
   • Yet another criterion is to ensure it is an HL7 balloted and published document. Immunization was not published by HL7, balloted once as comment only and then pulled from HL7 to avoid IP conflicts.
   • Next step timeline reviewed. JohnQ can't really predict until after the Monday cochairs meeting as it has financial implications to fund the effort.

Recessed at 10:38

Q2 - Governance continued: 11 am to 12:30 pm

Re-convened at 11:00 AM

1. (continued) Determine the next 2-4 profiles for Conformance Testing (candidate topics: LRI, CDA R2, EHR-S FM, EHR-S FPs).
   • if the conformance testing were free to members would nonmembers join? That was not a question on the marketing research.
   • Schedule for the next conformance pilot and the launch for the conformance testing program reviewed. Funding available, the conformance program would be launched at the plenary.
   • candidates for the next pilot include ELR (Public Health), CCDA, another V2 IG, and further immunization work
     • Motion: Austin moves and JohnR seconds recommendation to the Board for the immediate next phase, a set of criteria to include
       1. Adequate specificity of constraint in IG or the cost to develop such constraint
       2. IG use between organizations, not an internally-used spec
       3. IG must be HL7 balloted and published document unless already being used in conformance
       4. Adequate size of community of interest to justify effort

       And a further recommendation of the next set of items to include V2.5.1 Lab IG, a CDA IG, and further cases in the Immunization IG (further cases beyond the 2 of 9 done so far) as candidates for recommendation, with market research needed to weight the Board selection for: size of community of interest, recognition of need in the community of interest, and forecasted cost to develop testable conformance profiles for the IGs.

       • Paul asks what is the size of the community of use - needs thousands of implementers to be viable; Austin notes that CCDA has that market. Market research is needed to weight the recommendations.
       • Jean notes that HealthEWay had interest and would there be a pay-to-play mentality
       • Calvin notes there may be costs to produce further constraints to existing standards to the appropriate level of detail to meet a conformance scenario if selected by the marketing research.
       • Comparison of NIST tool use for this prospect discussed - if the NIST tool already provides conformance sufficient for the market we should not reproduce - we don’t need to create grief. The selection must reduce interoperability friction between users. Are we solving a problem of conformance versus driving membership?
       • Clarification that future phases may include other IGs based on HL7 balloted standards but not for this phase.
       • John adds that LOI and LRI are also strong candidates.
   • Vote: 5/2(Julian-ArB, Beebe-SSD SD)/1 (Duteau-Int'l) with Jean abstaining and Melva abstaining and ceding her vote to JohnR to carry the DESD vote.
     • Further discussion on the negative votes resulted. Calvin notes that we provide a criteria and a recommendation at the same time which would imply we have applied the criteria to the recommendation which we have not done but the Board will assume we have done.
     • JohnR states that he evaluated the criteria against the recommendations. Austin notes there is a great deal of narrowing down to reach a certain IG from CCDA as there are quite a few of them, as with V2 Lab IGs. Ken asks if JohnQ will be comfortable with the understanding of the motion presented. JohnQ notes he will have support and understanding of several TSC members at the Board meeting. Pat adds that if we risk the Board making assumption we could simply add some language. Pat moves to amend the recommendation to add verbiage needed to make it very clear that the suggested criteria for measurement have not been applied to the suggested set of standards listed to identify the specific IGs. Paul seconds. JohnQ asks if we are recommending to the Board they have a certain action to proceed or they need to make a decision if work continues in this area as part of an overall membership building effort. JohnQ also mentions that such a decision on the specific selection should still be a TSC decision and that is not the level of decision making the Board should be involved in.
     • Calvin suggests we add the offer for the TSC to create such a recommendation and the amendment was accepted to add "If the Board so wishes the TSC is willing to evaluate and recommend specific IGs based on the criteria identified."
   • Vote: 7/0/1 (Duteau-Int'l) with Jean abstaining and Melva abstaining and ceding her vote to JohnR to carry the DESD vote.
   • Final motion -
     • Recommendation to the Board of a set of criteria to include
       1. Adequate specificity of constraint in IG or the cost to develop such constraint
       2. IG use between organizations, not an internally-used spec
       3. IG must be HL7 balloted and published document unless already being used in conformance
       4. Adequate size of community of interest to justify effort

       And a further recommendation of the next set of items to include V2.5.1 Lab IG, a CDA IG, and further cases in the Immunization IG (further cases beyond the 2 of 9 done so far) as candidates for recommendation, with market research needed for size of community of interest, recognition of need in the community of interest, and forecasted cost to develop testable conformance profiles for the IGs to weight the Board selection. Suggested criteria for measurement have not been applied to the suggested set of standards listed to identify the specific IGs. If the Board so wishes the TSC is willing to evaluate and recommend specific IGs based on the criteria identified.

   TSC Review and Planning

2. (Sept) Review and confirm ORC liaison assignment - Motion: Woody moves and Freida seconds Melva to continue as ORC liaison. Freida noted that there is an action to develop responsibilities for the ORC liaison for which a draft has been sent to Melva. Melva voices concern over the health of the ORC. Vote: Unanimously approved
3. (May) Review TSC Three-Year Plan
   • Maintenance project: Work Group Visibility
     • Paul has an issue with the WGH metrics. Frequency with participation in ballots is at issue. TSC Tracker 3152 also created. Issue with the V2.8 publication which all cosponsors were 'dinged' for non-timely publication. Pharmacy got dinged on V2.8 because they were cosponsors but weren't asked nor took a vote to be a cosponsor. This process has been fixed that WGs must vote to agree to cosponsor PSSes now.
     • The issue is with ballots like V2 and FHIR where contributors to the standard are not listed as cosponsors on the project. The group in charge of the ballot should be the only one to get dinged notes Jean. Woody notes you sometimes need the recalcitrant work group that did not provide their information and ding all the WGs in order to provide peer pressure. If a WG is contributing content, and you want to have that contribution count, your WG should be a cosponsor on the project. FHIR resource contributions are coming from WGs that are not cosponsors of the FHIR project and we're not making the link between a top-level project with child projects where the ballot is conducted using the PSS of the top level project.
     • Motion: Paul moves 1) the process for inclusion of information into all ballots, in order to contribute content on the ballot, you must be a cosponsor or sponsor of the ballot project; 2) the WGH measures of ballot participation or PBS metrics on unpublished ballot material will be assessed on cosponsors and sponsors of ballots. Calvin seconds.
     • JohnR notes why would a WG agree to cosponsor when a participant can just be on the project and contribute individually. Woody notes they don't want to re-approve PSS each time a cosponsor changes. Nor do you want to rely on dependencies in the PSS system which may refer upward or downward. Woody thinks it needs to be tied to the publishing process and not to the project insight record.
     • Calvin suggests that every WG that wants to claim balloting credit should have a PSS. Lynn notes she cannot track PSSes that have contributed to the ballot but have no ballot artifacts tied to that PSS.
     • Paul withdraws the motion in favor of finding a solution that allows for contributions at the project level and not the reference from the ballot project.
   • Revisit at a call after we can talk to Dave and Don about how we can make this work.

Recessed at 12:37

Q3 - Governance continued: 1:30 pm to 3 pm

Convened 1:30PM

• SAIF Architecture - archiving - (Austin Kreisler/Rick Haddorff)
  • 751 - SAIF Architecture Program
  • 763 - HL7 SAIF Implementation Guide
  • 764 - SAIF Pilot Coordination
  • Rick describes his slides. He thanks Austin, Dave Hamill and Lorraine for their contributions. Discussion on loss of resources to work on the projects, artifact definition, etc. Cross paradigm immunization references to behavior are synonymous with interactions. CDA R3 would have needed to set up a templating governance framework. It would have also have provided changes to the RIM and datatypes not just aligning CDA with other V3 content. CDA R3 exercise to place artifacts into ISM was actually R2. CDA IGs were the product family proposed. ECCF ISM may be useful in the PSS and publication request edits discussed this morning. Shifting focus attributed to discovery process during the pilot coordination project. Also as the pilot projects changed the coordination project team wasn't always aware of changes to shift their expectation. FGB has not quite gelled yet but is now moving in the right direction.
  • Austin moves and Freida seconds closure of three projects
    1. SAIF Architecture Program (PI 751)
    2. HL7 SAIF Implementation Guide (PI 763)
    3. SAIF Pilot Coordination (PI 764)
    • Most of the other projects are still moving forward. SAIF publication project still moving forward and SAIF CD may incorporate some information. It is the "Architecture Program" that is wrapping up as well as the SAIF IG. Woody asks what the next steps are. The last slide is reviewed.
    • Woody notes if we pruned expectations on the ISM and streamlined artifact definition port of HL7's SAIF IG it would gain traction. Concern on EHR-S FM as a healthcare enterprise SAIF IG is not an approved project. Project 763 is moved for closure; should it be closed? If not who will work on it, versus waiting until someone will reopen it with the resources needed to advance it.
    • Review of ISM documents as Woody proposes reducing ISM to 3x3
  • Austin withdraws closure of 763 from his motion. Freida also accepts. Woody notes that he expects to reach a definitive change or withdrawal by the September WGM.
  • Vote: Unanimously approved.
  • Motion: Seek collaboration with ARB and MnM to narrow the scope of the SAIF IG to allow completion of the project in a reasonable period of time. Freida seconds.
    • ISM in its updated scope could be used in project 996 for incorporation into the pub request.
    • Vote: Unanimously approved. Woody is assigned the report-back.
  • Review of two ISM homework grids reviewed. Subset of the information as the focus of the HL7 SAIF IG generally agreed. Austin recounts a secret of the ECCF from Charlie Mead that you don't have to get the artifacts parsed just right but just to get them parsed so that you understand the differentiation. Woody adds that some artifacts span all three levels. Only may need to do the security risk assessment in the bottom right corner box(es). Computational/behavioral modeling level for the quality efforts are still in process for becoming more clarified. They may be regarded as tools, perhaps. Engineering and technology viewpoint may also be regarded as tooling.
• Ballot Naming Conventions (see homework above) - Do we need to expand the names available (Freida Hall/Lorraine Constable/Tony Julian)
  • The section in the [www.hl7.org/permalink/?GOM GOM] is 12.0.2.0.2.
  • Document classifications are not fully described. Only "standard" or "implementation guide" are defined, but we have recently approved an "informative document" and we also have "domain analysis models". We have lost any rigor in naming, with the 2014Jan ballot including "HL7 Specification: Clinical Quality Common Metadata, Release 1" and "HL7 Specification: Characteristics of a Value Set Definition, Release 1" in 2014May.
  • There is also an HL7 Templates standard…
  • Does the slot that the artifact falls into in the ISM offer guidance? Discussion ensued.
  • We need an artifact terminology management mechanism, notes Calvin. Freida agrees, and the process if they were to request a change to the GOM is not being used. She offers a spreadsheet for comparison of ballot naming conventions.
  • What about "other document" identifiers - who maintains the taxonomy. Pat suggests it be related to the 19 artifacts in the SAIF CD artifact definition effort; Woody adds the 19 are more granular than the ballot/publication titles.
  • Freida suggests removing the naming standards from the GOM and defining them by the TSC.
  • Tony suggests decomposition of the naming into the artifacts - instead of balloting "car", we ballot "tire" and "engine", etc. Woody notes that the V3 artifacts in a domain are too interdependent working together to be named and balloted independently.
  • Alternates are to start looking at the most recent ballot list, or work on requests from WGs in every single call.
  • List from most recent ballot to be reviewed after the break. Austin adds we need to address release numbers. FHIR release numbering change has also been proposed by Grahame.

Q4 - Management - 3:30 pm to 5pm

Convene at 3:24 PM

• TSC Conference call May 12, 19 (Victoria Day and ISO Meeting), 26 (Memorial Day) - (McCaslin/Quinn)
  • McCaslin - out due to surgery May 13 ~ June 13 - surgery postponed
  • Quinn - Traveling to ISO (Tokyo) May 16 - 23 (Beeler also)
  • US Holiday - Monday May 26
  • May 12, just after WGM, John Q not available, cancel the call.
  • May 19 no DESD, Jean, JohnQ, Woody but can still have quorum - hold the meeting
• May 26 no chairs - cancel the call
• Ballot sheet naming convention review
  • Arden Syntax called out specifically that the document title does not match the ballot title or publication (product) title - need to review
  • HL7 Implementation guide for <product family>… might be a clearer naming. Switch order on family and document class? V3 would be all screwed up.
  • Do not use "Specification" as a Document Class. Informative Document, Standard, Implementation Guide etc is ok.
  • Including "DSTU Release 1" etc on some ballots is used for clarification against existing published releases of normative or informative specs.
  • Product family of DAM might be added instead of "cross-paradigm".
  • Section 12 wording to be revisited.
  • 12.02.02.03 to refer to the TSC guidance on "dot-releases". Dot releases on informative documents registered with ANSI of concerned. ANSI dislikes dot releases in the normative documents, and Calvin and Austin voice a concern to the SDWG intent to release a CDA R2.1 for backwards compatibility in addition to work on an R3. ACTION ITEM: Ken will clarify with Karen. The TSC straw poll supports the use of a dot-release. Woody points out that the ANSI designations on a couple of dot-releases have an "R1.1, Release 1" in the ANSI designation. ACTION ITEM: Andy is assigned review of the GOM on naming conventions with Publishing. Review again in September.
  • Naming on products page not matching title of document, e.g. HL7 Virtual Medical Record for Clinical Decision Support (vMR-CDS) Logical Model, Release 2, January 2014, HL7 DSTU Ballot
• FHIR DSTU status check
  • Any outstanding questions? Woody notes that separating the reference implementations from the specification has resolved the issue. Woody moves that it's done, seconded by Paul. Need a statement of what is a DSTU and what is supporting content, in general beyond FHIR.
  • Where is the documentation of the publication of an errata or technical correction?
  • DSTU update without anyone's approval e.g. FHIR was a recent development. In V2, Tony notes, we don't change the documents in the package but an errata readme was inserted into the package.
  • Tony recalls another instance where significant changes are made between ballot reconciliation and publication by editors without reballot. The approval for edits cannot be left up to only the publishing facilitator.
  • Discussion of technical correction, typo and errata differentiation ensued.
  • Need to extract the errata publication guidance from the 2013-01-12 minutes and TSC Tracker 2403 and review and make available. Woody describes the different timeframes for these typos and technical corrections in conjunction with the Publishing WG and the contributed WGs prior to publication that should not require intervention by the CTO. Paul asks what ANSI's perspective is on technical corrections? Ken will ask Karen what ANSI's perspective would be on a definition of a technical correction and their acceptance.
• Product naming for
  • HL7 Virtual Medical Record for Clinical Decision Support (vMR-CDS) Logical Model, Release 2 became HL7 Version 3 Standard: Virtual Medical Record for Clinical Decision Support (vMR-CDS) XML Specification, Release 1.

Publication Request forms

• Normative publication - requiring a publication request (e.g. V2.8)
• Update to the publication request template
  • some changes made for review

Adjourned 5:11PM

Actions (Include Owner, Action Item, and due date) Ken will clarify with Karen on permissibility of dot releases with ANSI and approaches for technical corrections. Andy is assigned review of the GOM on naming conventions with Publishing. Review again in September. Need to extract the errata publication guidance from the 2013-01-12 minutes and TSC Tracker 2403 and review and make available.

Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items 2014-05-04_TSC_WGM_Agenda TSC Definition of Domain Analysis Models and Functional Profiles at TSC Tracker 2165 Define list of machine-processable artifacts for membership benefit at TSC Tracker 2585 (to be reviewed by BOD on Monday)