2014-06-02 TSC Call Minutes

From HL7 TSC
(Redirected from 2014-06-02 TSC Call Agenda)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

TSC Agenda/Minutes

Meeting Info/Attendees

HL7 TSC Meeting Minutes

Location: call 770-657-9270 using code 985371#
NEW GoToMeeting ID: 426-505-829

Date: 2014-06-02
Time: 11:00 AM U.S. Eastern
Facilitator: Ken McCaslin Note taker(s): Lynn Laakso
Quorum = chair + 5 including 2 SD represented yes/no
Chair/CTO ArB International Affiliate Rep Ad-Hoc
x Ken McCaslin x Tony Julian x Jean Duteau regrets Austin Kreisler
x John Quinn x Lorraine Constable x Giorgio Cangioli .
Domain Experts Foundation and Technology Structure and Semantic Design Technical and Support Services
. Melva Peters x Woody Beeler x Calvin Beebe x Freida Hall
x John Roberts x Paul Knapp regrets Pat van Dyke x Andy Stechishin
ex officio Invited Guests Observers HL7 Staff
. Stan Huff (HL7 Chair) w/vote x Lloyd McKenzie x Emily Cortez x Lynn Laakso
. Don Mon (Vice Chair) vote x Catherine Chronaki x Virginia Riehl .
. Chuck Jaffe (CEO) vote . x Mark Roche .

Agenda

Housekeeping

  1. Introduction of visitors (including declaration of interests)
  2. Agenda review and approval -
  3. Approve Minutes of 2014-05-19 TSC Call

Governance

  1. Discussion topics: FHIR Registry (Lloyd)

Management

  1. Review action items –
    • TSC Definition of Domain Analysis Models and Functional Profiles TSC Tracker 2165 (Pat and Tony)
    • Ken will clarify with Karen on permissibility of dot releases with ANSI and approaches for technical corrections.
    • Need to extract the errata publication guidance from the 2013-01-12 minutes and TSC Tracker 2403 and review and make available.
    • the International Council was told the TSC would identify the next conformance profiles and the TSC should discuss further. Ken to speak to Chuck about it.
    • Woody report back on 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.
    • 2585 Define list of machine-processable artifacts for membership benefit - Ken will follow up with Stan on who is the Marketing committee chair and the Board's intent with the list
    • Freida will draft PSS for Positioning Security Risk Analysis standard within HL7 and circulate to TSC; next steps?
    • Ken and Calvin will address the potential for a survey on conformance profile development - see https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/WKNZSYM.
  2. Approval items for discussion referred from e-vote:
    • Project approval request of International Patient Summary template for SDWG of SSD SD at Project Insight # 1087 and TSC Tracker #3231
      • Giorgio writes "There are relationship among “projects dependencies”, “external collaborations”, “scope of the project” and timeline that I’d like to clarify a little bit. " Other votes were 7/0/0 in favor.
    • Project Approval request of Common Product Model (CPM) Release 2 Normative and Structured Product Labeling (SPL) Release 6 Normative for OO of SSD SD cosponsored by RCRIM of DESD at Project Insight # 1114 and TSC Tracker #3306
      • Jean writes "This is another project that intends to use the old datatypes and I am personally opposed to that and would like to know the process that projects need to undertake to get granted license to use the old datatypes."
    • (defer for further discussion by FGB) Project Approval request of Patient Care WG Develop FHIR resources and profiles for the second DSTU release for Patient Care WG of DESD at Project Insight # 1105 and TSC Tracker #3277
      • Austin writes: "I believe adding FHIR profiles based on C-CDA to the project scope is a major scope change and it also turns this project into a hybrid Universal/US Realm project (C-CDA is clearly US Realm specific). Dows the TSC want these sorts of hybrid projects for FHIR? If so, then just about every FHIR project moving forward that includes C-CDA in scope needs to now also go through the US Realm Task Force. I think FMG has unwittingly made a mistake in pushing work groups to add C-CDA to the scope of their base FHIR resource development projects. This needs TSC discussion on how US Realm vs. Universal projects should be managed"
    • Project Approval request of Health Care Devices to Develop FHIR resources and profiles for the second DSTU release for Health Care Devices WG of DESD at Project Insight # 1103 and TSC Tracker #3278
      • FMG discussions on requiring WG FHIR projects to include work on CCDA profiles calls into question any WG FHIR projects.
    • (postpone) Project Approval request of Electronic Health Record-System (EHR-S)Functional Requirements Documentation for Laboratory Interoperability Transactions – EHR-S Functional Requirements Implementation Guide for Lab Orders Interface (LOI) for OO WG of SSD SD cosponsored by EHR of SSD SD and CGIT of DESD at Project Insight # 1096 and TSC Tracker #3308
    • (postpone) Project Approval request of Electronic Health Record-System (EHR-S)Functional Requirements Documentation for Laboratory Interoperability Transactions – EHR-S Functional Requirements Implementation Guide for Lab Results Interface (LRI) for OO WG of SSD SD cosponsored by EHR WG of SSD SD and CGIT of DESD at Project Insight # 1095 and TSC Tracker #3309
      • Austin writes "These two scope statements state that they are not constraining an existing standard. From my perspective, that means these two projects are developing guidance documents that do not qualify to be on the normative track. That means neither of these qualify as a DSTU either. They instead should be balloted as Informative not DSTU. These two proposed projects bear some resemblance to the C-CDA Companion Guide document that was balloted as Informative. That document provides additional guidance on implementing C-CDA without providing additional constraints on the standard."
      • Update: OO has reviewed again and changes are pending to clarify - anticipate e-vote again next week
  3. Approval items from e-vote ended 2014-05-23: Approved 8/0/0 with Ad-Hoc, ARB, 2 Affiliate, and DESD, FTSD, SSD SD, and T3SD voting
  4. Approval items from e-vote ended 2014-05-30: 8/0/0 with Ad-Hoc, 2 Affiliate, ARB, DESD, FTSD, SSD SD & T3SD participating
  5. Approval items for e-vote next week:
  6. Discussion topics:
    • Review of definition of 'implementation guide' and 'conformance'
      • Final Definitions
        • Implementation Guide
          An implementation guide is often created to organize a collection of conformance profiles, functional requirement specifications, or templates for specifying a set of related interactions described in a use case or use cases. Implementation guides typically describe broader conformance requirements such as application behavior. Such requirements may include how a set of interactions (messages, documents, etc.) are to be used to enact certain application functionality among applications (actors).
        • Conformance
          Conformance is defined as the fulfillment of a product, process, or service of specified requirements [ISO-17000, OASIS]. The concept of conformance is essential to any standard for providing an objective measure of how closely implementations satisfy the requirements defined in the standard.
    • Review of action item to define relationship between help desk and WG cochairs
    • BAM review
    • TSC Three-year planning - do we need to review it?
    • WG Health – Impact on SD project approval
    • Determine the next 2-4 profiles for Conformance Testing (candidate topics: LRI, CDA R2, EHR-S FM, EHR-S FPs).
  7. Reports: (attach written reports below from Steering Divisions et al.)
    • Congratulations to RCRIM WG on their request for Normative publication of HL7 Version 3 Standard: Structured Product Labeling, Release 5 at Project Insight # 325.
    • Co-chair deadline awareness
  8. Open Issues List

Minutes

Minutes/Conclusions Reached:

  1. Introduction of visitors (including declaration of interests) see attendance

Governance

  1. Discussion topics: FHIR Registry (Lloyd) - Furore still writing up their offer; intention is for a value sets, namespaces, conformance profiles, conformance statements and potentially other registries with human readable interfaces and a FHIR back-end API. Curation would be public "vote-up" and "vote-down" with reputation providing the outcome rather than human-curated. Organization and element registries also being considered. If multiple people register namespaces, people would up-vote one and down-vote another to indicate which one was in use. Woody notes that it does not enforce sub-tree assignment within an OID tree for value sets. Lloyd reports they are not issuing OIDs, but registering namespaces and the scope does not include the OID registry. Woody notes that that scope was anticipated. Lloyd notes that you register your IDs and value sets but the current process for obtaining an OID for something would happen externally. Paul notes that the requirements and definitional stuff need to be reviewed; Lorraine notes that these requirements have been put forth to ES but may need review for business process. FHIR repository will not issue an ID, or an OID but document the existence of an entry in the registry; they will not cross check the OID to ensure it is valid. Refer to FMG to address the issues. Tooling liaison for FMG should be involved (which is Lloyd). Woody suggests the FGB might take this up on their call today. Lloyd will bring back the result of that discussion.
  • Tony leaves

Management

  1. Approval items for discussion referred from e-vote:
    • FHIR Profile PSSes
      • (defer for further discussion by FGB) Project Approval request of Patient Care WG Develop FHIR resources and profiles for the second DSTU release for Patient Care WG of DESD at Project Insight # 1105 and TSC Tracker #3277
      • Project Approval request of Health Care Devices to Develop FHIR resources and profiles for the second DSTU release for Health Care Devices WG of DESD at Project Insight # 1103 and TSC Tracker #3278
      • FMG discussions on requiring WG FHIR projects to include work on CCDA profiles calls into question any WG FHIR projects.
      • Austin writes: "I believe adding FHIR profiles based on C-CDA to the project scope is a major scope change and it also turns this project into a hybrid Universal/US Realm project (C-CDA is clearly US Realm specific). Dows the TSC want these sorts of hybrid projects for FHIR? If so, then just about every FHIR project moving forward that includes C-CDA in scope needs to now also go through the US Realm Task Force. I think FMG has unwittingly made a mistake in pushing work groups to add C-CDA to the scope of their base FHIR resource development projects. This needs TSC discussion on how US Realm vs. Universal projects should be managed"
    • Discussion:
      • Austin's concern was that SDWG should be cosponsored with each FHIR resource that is working on CCDA. Adding CCDA into FHIR projects as well would require US Realm Task Force.
      • Another suggestion was brought to OO, notes Lorraine, for an umbrella project for FHIR work on CCDA profiles that would cover work done by each WG.
      • Lloyd notes that the individual work groups developed their own PSSes to cover the work done in the Work Groups and not in SDWG. Lorraine notes that the WGs need opportunity to weigh in on whether they accept that charge. Lloyd notes that the content of each profile is already fixed with CCDA and there are no real 'design' decisions to be made in the WGs. The WGs would do some of the work and additional volunteers would be sought to work on the remainder as the profiles are not evenly spread across the organization.
      • Lloyd conveys the intent to teach WGs how to do profiles as the development of resources will have the bolus of work done soon and profiles will be the ongoing work. It's not really domain expertise needed per-se as the functional constraints are already described in CCDA, but to encourage the WGs to participate and learn about development.
      • Lorraine notes that FMG tabled the approval of the Patient Care project pending update to scope to include CCDA.
      • Paul notes that we might dovetail the availability and use of the profile registry and editor to the WG work on profiles. Lloyd disagrees and indicates that the registry should be independent from the WG work on the profiles. We have the same tooling to author profiles as there is to author resources, available to those who wish to use it.
      • What is the feeling for allowing FMG to require work on CCDA profiles with each FHIR project. Jean notes that he has not seen a direct need for the profiles for Patient Care or Pharmacy. They are unaccustomed to being told by a governance group what they need to work on. Ken suggests we defer to FGB for their direction. Jean would like to see an explicit documentation of who the stakeholder group that is requesting the CCDA profile work. Lorraine notes that there are other profile work of higher priority to other groups e.g. LOI and LRI for OO.
      • Defer to FGB
  2. Review action items –
    • TSC Definition of Domain Analysis Models and Functional Profiles TSC Tracker 2165 (Pat and Tony) - defer
    • Ken will clarify with Karen on permissibility of dot releases with ANSI and approaches for technical corrections.
      • Dot-releases: ANSI doesn't care; need to update our naming conventions and DSTU release guidance; ACTION ITEM: Paul will edit and bring this back in two weeks.
    • Need to extract the errata publication guidance from the 2013-01-12 minutes and TSC Tracker 2403 and review and make available.
    • the International Council was told the TSC would identify the next conformance profiles and the TSC should discuss further. Ken to speak to Chuck about it.
    • Ken and Calvin will address the potential for a survey on conformance profile development - see https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/WKNZSYM.
      • Survey reviewed. John Q adds that he noted at the EU e-health forum a couple weeks ago there were questions on whether CCDA was sufficient for EPSOS and Trillium bridge and would they use it for their own continuity of care.
      • Paul asks if we need questions on intra-organization interoperability? If you're having difficulty exchanging CDA within your organization.
      • Edits made to include question on internal organizational interoperability. JohnR asks about the Version 2 Immunization Registries, specificity with respect to LOI and LRI and ELR. Use cases beyond the one message specified in MU2 already done (VXU). ACTION ITEM: Ken will send to Karen to issue the survey to her list.
    • Woody report back on 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.
    • 2585 Define list of machine-processable artifacts for membership benefit - Ken will follow up with Stan on who is the Marketing committee chair and the Board's intent with the list
    • Freida will draft PSS for Positioning Security Risk Analysis standard within HL7 and circulate to TSC; next steps?
  3. Approval items for discussion referred from e-vote: (continued)
    • Project approval request of International Patient Summary template for SDWG of SSD SD at Project Insight # 1087 and TSC Tracker #3231
      • Giorgio writes "There are relationship among “projects dependencies”, “external collaborations”, “scope of the project” and timeline that I’d like to clarify a little bit." Other votes were 7/0/0 in favor.
      • Giorgio describes his concerns that dependencies with EU decision making make the timeline tight. Ken notes that the TSC doesn't govern whether they think a WG can get a project done in time unless their PBS Metrics or WGH indicate otherwise. Giorgio's concern that the EU feedback will not be available in time to contribute to the project, resulting in lack of participation outside the US.
      • Mark Roche notes there are other projects across the world to develop international templates, but this is specifically comparison between epSOS and CCDA. He adds that graphical representation of the data elements indicates there are very few differences. A patient summary form that can be implemented in reality and ready for use is the goal.
      • There being no further objection, the project is approved by general consent.
    • Project Approval request of Common Product Model (CPM) Release 2 Normative and Structured Product Labeling (SPL) Release 6 Normative for OO of SSD SD cosponsored by RCRIM of DESD at Project Insight # 1114 and TSC Tracker #3306
      • Jean writes "This is another project that intends to use the old datatypes and I am personally opposed to that and would like to know the process that projects need to undertake to get granted license to use the old datatypes."
      • Paul had an email response that described it as a follow on to the existing project that was approved. R2B was to be around for only 5 years so this normative standard would only available for three years. Upgrade of the standards for Datatypes with respect to ISO requires further discussion.

Being at time preceding the Board call, the meeting adjourned 12:01PM, remaining discussion deferred.


  1. Approval items from e-vote ended 2014-05-23: Approved 8/0/0 with Ad-Hoc, ARB, 2 Affiliate, and DESD, FTSD, SSD SD, and T3SD voting
  2. Approval items from e-vote ended 2014-05-30: 8/0/0 with Ad-Hoc, 2 Affiliate, ARB, DESD, FTSD, SSD SD & T3SD participating
  3. Approval items for e-vote next week:
  4. Discussion topics:
    • Review of definition of 'implementation guide' and 'conformance'
      • Final Definitions
        • Implementation Guide
          An implementation guide is often created to organize a collection of conformance profiles, functional requirement specifications, or templates for specifying a set of related interactions described in a use case or use cases. Implementation guides typically describe broader conformance requirements such as application behavior. Such requirements may include how a set of interactions (messages, documents, etc.) are to be used to enact certain application functionality among applications (actors).
        • Conformance
          Conformance is defined as the fulfillment of a product, process, or service of specified requirements [ISO-17000, OASIS]. The concept of conformance is essential to any standard for providing an objective measure of how closely implementations satisfy the requirements defined in the standard.
    • Review of action item to define relationship between help desk and WG cochairs
    • BAM review
    • TSC Three-year planning - do we need to review it?
    • WG Health – Impact on SD project approval
    • Determine the next 2-4 profiles for Conformance Testing (candidate topics: LRI, CDA R2, EHR-S FM, EHR-S FPs).
  5. Reports: (attach written reports below from Steering Divisions et al.)
    • Congratulations to RCRIM WG on their request for Normative publication of HL7 Version 3 Standard: Structured Product Labeling, Release 5 at Project Insight # 325.
    • Co-chair deadline awareness
  6. Open Issues List

Next Steps

Actions (Include Owner, Action Item, and due date)
  • Lloyd will bring back the result of the FHIR registry discussion with FMG and FGB.
  • Paul will edit naming conventions and DSTU release guidance and bring this back in two weeks (6/16)
  • Ken will send the survey to Karen to issue to her list
Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items


© 2014 Health Level Seven® International. All rights reserved.

Retrieved from "https://tscwiki.hl7.org/w/index.php?title=2014-06-02_TSC_Call_Minutes&oldid=13549"