2015-10-07 TSC WGM Agenda

From HL7 TSC
Jump to navigation Jump to search

TSC Wednesday meeting for Atlanta WGM

back to TSC Minutes and Agendas

TSC WGM Agenda/Minutes

HL7 TSC Meeting Minutes


Date: 2015-10-07
Time: 12:30 pm Eastern
Facilitator: Ken McCaslin Note taker(s): Anne Wizauer
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 HL7 ARB Vice Chair
Regrets Jean Duteau HL7 Affiliate Representative
x Freida Hall HL7 TSS SD Co-Chair
x Stan Huff HL7 Board Chair (member ex officio w/ 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 Ken McCaslin (Chair)
x Anne Wizauer (scribe, non-voting) HL7 HQ
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
? Sandy Stuart HL7 T3SD Co-Chair-Elect
? Pat Van Dyke HL7 SSD SD Co-Chair (HL7 Board Chair-elect)
x Austin Kreisler – Ad Hoc
x Grahame Grieve - Guest
Quorum Requirements (Co-chair +5 with 2 SD Reps) Met: (yes/No)


  1. Approval Items from this week for discussion:
  2. Approval Items from this week's evote, currently 3/0/0:
  3. Discussion Items:
    • Report on referencing external documents - 40 minutes (Paul, Pat)
    • Finalization of ballot naming - remaining questions (Freida)
    • ArB
    • BAM
    • FHIR
      • Review and vote on MOTION by Paul from 2015-10-03 TSC meeting to modify guidance on DSTU naming to allow for a major release number, a minor release number, and revision number (major.minor.revision). Revisions are set by instance of publication and don’t change the lifecycle of the specification. We should amend our guidance to align with that. Second by Lorraine.


  • Called to order at 12:48 pm
  • CIMI WG Formation: Some kinks have been ironed out. They will try to create logical bundles in which to ballot things. It will be somewhat of a new product family; they are creating relationships for things.
    • Lorraine: if it is a new product family, have we gone through that process? Stan: CIMI is trying to create detailed models for heart rates, blood pressures, head circumference, etc. that the RIM enables but they don’t actually create. An observation resource exists in FHIR, but to make the observation interoperable you need additional codes. CIMI is creating logical models with the addition of explicit binding to standard terminologies. Goal is to be able to take those logical models and make FHIR profiles in XML, JSON, RDF, etc.
    • Woody: what if you come out with something that Pharmacy doesn’t like, for example. Stan: we aren’t looking to create things in absence of interested WGs.
    • Austin: Is this more of a methodology type group? Stan: we have a set of rules by which we make the models, and we’ve adopted modeling formalisms (ADL and UML). But we do go on and actually make a repository of the content. Melva states that she believes it belongs in DESD. Stan states the place they belong may not be overly clear and is happy to go to DESD.
    • Calvin states that in a startup mode, the coincidence of methodology and management almost always happens because there is no existing methodology or production. We may want to think about startup as opposed to steady state. What is the relationship of what they’re producing to ANSI status? Will these be ANSI standards? Stan: We’d love them to be ANSI standards but not sure that what they’re doing fits. They are creating terminology as opposed to a specification. An idea is that they could ballot the high level models in a more standard way.
    • Woody: Does DCM go away from patient care? Stan: we need to decide. Does CIMI become the focus for this level of detailed models, or does it have a reason to live independently? The thinking was to get established and then negotiate how we want to proceed.
    • Melva: will CIMI follow all the same processes we have around projects? Yes.
    • . Discussion over whether or not they really do belong in FTSD vs. DESD.
    • MOTION by Woody to approve the formation of the WG with the caveat that we need more information about harmonization with WGs and the WG may need to move to another steering division in the long term. Second by Lorraine. Lorraine amends the motion to state that they should be very clear in their mission and charter regarding their relationship with other WGs.
    • Lynn asks if this brings in ISO 13606? Stan states that no, it won’t.
    • VOTE: all in favor
  • GOC naming convention questions:
    • What else needs to be required? Family name? Product name?
    • MOTION to curly bracket everything from family name down to product name by Calvin. Second by Freida.
    • VOTE: All in favor
    • MOTION to remove FHIR steward by Paul; second by Freida
    • VOTE: all in favor
    • Grahame mentions that he would prefer that ballots do not spell out the words that make up the acronym FHIR; everyone knows it as FHIR and it’s clunky. Discussion over the merits of each option and how they relate to the naming convention. Lynn agrees with Grahame in that FHIR is now a registered trademark – it is it’s own thing. Calvin recommends that FMG should vote on it before any change is made. Calvin feels we should document this.
    • MOTION that the TSC will review a product family management group request for specification naming to approve the pattern which will be applied for that family.
    • VOTE: all in favor
  • Grahame: in closing up the ballot, we’ve solicited a request for outstanding issues with the process, and then we will report back to the TSC. Grahame welcomes any comments from members of the TSC. Ken notes that the process allowed things to be orphaned accidentally. Grahame states they’d heard that from several people. Lorraine: should the feedback go through on the wiki page? Grahame will check with FMG and get back to TSC members on how to submit.