From HL7 TSC
Jump to navigation Jump to search

TSC - Technical Steering Committee

Monday, September 8, 2008 11:00 AM (US Eastern Time, GMT -5)
To participate, dial 770-657-9270 and enter pass code 124466#
GoToMeeting at
GoToMeeting ID: 822-618-174 

back to TSC Minutes and Agendas



  • CTO: John Quinn
  • Domain Experts: Jim Case (primary), Austin Kreisler (alternate)
  • Foundation & Technology: Ioana Singureanu (primary), Woody Beeler (alternate)
  • Structure & Semantic Design: Calvin Beebe (primary), Gregg Seppala (alternate)
  • Technical & Support Services: Ken McCaslin (primary), Helen Stevens Love (alternate)
  • Affiliate: Frank Oemig,
  • ARB Chair: Charlie Mead
  • HQ: Karen Van Hentenryck


  • Charles Jaffe (CEO); Ed Hammond (HL7 Chair); Chuck Meyer (HL7 Vice Chair)


  • Ken McCaslin


  1. (5 min) Meeting Admin
    1. Roll Call - The following individuals joined the call: Frank Oemig, Woody Beeler, Jim Case, Charlie McCay, Calvin Beebe, Gregg Seppala, Ioana Singureanu, John Quinn, Helen Stevens Love, and Karen Van Hentenryck
    2. Accept Agenda -
    3. Approve Minutes from concall-20080825 - Minutes approved unanimously.
  2. (20 min) Standing Committee Reports/Approvals
    1. CEO Report - Jaffe submitted the following report via emial [1]. No comments or questions were raised regarding the CEO report.
    2. CTO Report - Quinn submitted the following report via email [2] - No comments or questions were raised regarding the CTO report. Quinn noted that Larsen attended the three ArB meetings because he has suggesting the SOA approach to HITSP. Quinn noted that he will distribute the slide decks from the ArB meetings if they are updated today. The raw minutes are available on the ArB site. Stevens Love asked about tooling progress. Quinn responded that there is activity going on and a set of decisions that the TSC will need to make some decisions on how to proceed, leveraging the work of the OHT. Hammond, Quinn and Jaffe have been meting with the other SDOs. At the last meeting, it was agreed to find a number of areas where X12 and HL7 could get some cooperation. One of the things that was suggested was for the X12 folks to become more familiar with the RIM. Quinn has suggested that X12 put together a team of people to attend the Intro to V3 classes in Vancouver. If TSC has other ideas, please let Quinn know.
    3. ArB Report - No report was provided, although Quinn provided some reporting above. ArB has provided a framework on how to approach the architecture. There is work to be done to turn those into something useable. There is also work that needs to be done to develop a process and timetable to get this work done. This will be discussed at the Saturday TSC meeting. ## Affiliates Report - Nothing to report.
    4. Domain Experts - Case reported they are having a vote on mission/charter revision for CBCC. As requested at last WGM, they are collecting SWOTs and 3 years plans to present as aggregated plan. Beeler suggested that he wishes to discuss this at the WGM. Beeler wants to discuss whether we want to analyze or approve these, or just make them available. Singureanu asked if missions/charters are being carefully reviewed by the Work Groups and Steering Divisions. Case feels that Domain Experts SD is carefully reviewing these. Singureanu thinks we should ensure that the Work Groups are carefully reviewing and approving the mission/charters. ACTION ITEM: On Saturday, review the impacts of architecture on WG and SD structure. Work Group plans should inform the Roadmap document and to get a better sense of what the organization is delivering. Singureanu noted that there is no migration plan to our future state (SOA architecture). Quinn noted that some of this is covered in the ArB materials. Planning includes not only approval of the ArB work, but discussion on how it will be approved and migration plans.
      • MOTION by SD: To approve publication of PHR-S Functional Model as a DSTU [3]- Motion unanimously approved.
      • MOTION by SD: To approve publication of HL7 EHR Lifecycle Model as a DSTU [4]- Motion unanimously approved.
      • MOTION by SD: To approve publication of HL7 Implementation Guide for CDA Release 2: Reference Profile for EHR Interoperability as a DSTU [5]- Motion unanimously approved.
    5. Foundation & Technology - Singureanu noted that they did not reach quorum on the last call so they could not reach a decision on updated mission/charters. She suggests getting more of the work done off line and move documents ahead. Case noted that this is an ongoing problem with the Domains Experts Steering Division as well. Stevens Love feels the TSC needs to address the responsibilites of the co-chairs. The responsibility to participate is there and co-chairs need to understand the responsibility ACTION ITEM: TSC to consider this prior to Saturday and discuss briefly on Saturday.
    6. Structure & Semantic Design - Beebe reported on the following motion:
      • MOTION by SD: To approved request to form new Clinical Statment Work Group [6] - Case spoke in favor of this motion. It would be a positive steps to formalize the work of this group. Stevens Love support it but is concerned about the bandwidth of the individuals who are involved in the effort. Beeler is in support of this, but he felt that rather than having another WG, we should instead be moving to projects that have the same clout as WGs. TermInfo is another example. Oemig asked what the impact would be to other Work Groups. ACTION ITEM: TSC to spend some time on Saturday discussing organziation changes within and between Steering Divisionns, including formation of new Work Groups. Result: Motion passed unanimously. ACTION ITEM: Beebe will distribute the spreadsheet that captures the activities of the Work Groups within this Steering Divisions. Other Steering Divisions may attempt to put together similar reports.
    7. Technical & Support Services - Helen Stevens posted the following report to the TSCadmins listserv:
      • The Technical And Support Services SD met on August 28th. Reviewed SWOT, Mission/charter statements and Strategic Plans for Electronic Services Committee. Mission was approved, SWOT was approved with minor adjustments. Feedback provided on Strategic Plan - requesting that work items be more clearly identified so that there is better understanding of what each track of work is. Strategic plan will be returned for approval on September 11th.
      • Publishing, PIC and Education committee materials were not ready for approval yet and have been scheduled for September 11th SD meeting.
      • SD would like the Roadmap to be published so that they can review and provide input.
      • Project Services would like TSC to pilot 4 schedule templates: The PS WG reviewed the Project Lifecycle process (which stemmed from the HDF) with Chuck Meyer. Based on this review the work group created 4 schedule templates;[7] each of which depict the major tasks that a ballotable project needs to perform and track during the project’s life. The PMO will enter these 4 schedule templates into Project Insight. New projects added to Project Insight can be assigned one of the templates and a schedule is automatically created with the respective tasks for that project. The attached spreadsheet contains the 4 schedule templates. Also attached is the Product Life Cycle Process Document for your reference [8]. ACTION ITEM: Discuss the templates at the Saturday TSC meeting.
      • Next T3S SD meeting is scheduled for September 11th.
  3. (30 min) Discussion topics
    1. Web stats 20080901 [9]- TSC members should review these prior to the Saturday meeting. TSC should be reviewing these on a monthly basis.
    2. Issues raised RE RCRIM ballots - McCay provided some background on this issue. Beeler noted that there are two issues. One is the content of a couple of their projects. Do you need an affirmative vote on the DAM before you can go forward on message design. Beeler feels this is an RCRIM decision - that the material be harmonzed with the BRIDG model before moving forward. He is unsure whether a formal action relative to this has been taken by RCRIM. Stevens Love asked if the tSC could say that given the quality issues, the TSC could rule that the document be re-balloted. This related to the quality of our products. Stevens Love noted that we could let them go forward and they don't receive a number of negatives, the TSC could step in and ensure that the document gets reballoted. This is difficult because we don't have much quality control at this point.[10]

Call adjourned at 12:04 pm ET

Agenda item list (our sand box for future meetings)

Click for TSC Action Item List