Difference between revisions of "2015-06-22 TSC Call Agenda"

From HL7 TSC
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 107: Line 107:
 
**Paul wonders how existing committees are reviewing the process such as tooling, etc. And also who and/or what is FHIR.org? Chuck: The coordination of the registry efforts is under the TSC. FHIR.org content is under the purview of the FHIR WG in HL7. Paul states it’s not under their scope. Chuck: We could have yet another initiative or change the scope. FHIR.org is a website which Grahame created and is part of HL7. Lorraine’s understanding is that FHIR.org is intended to be a site to support the community of implementers. Paul clarifies that it is not a corporate entity and Chuck confirms. Chuck will take any concerns on ownership back to Grahame. Paul states his discomfort is not on having additional websites – it’s that FHIR.org discussions sounded like it was a separate corporate entity. Overall concern is the message to the membership on what it is and what it’s doing.
 
**Paul wonders how existing committees are reviewing the process such as tooling, etc. And also who and/or what is FHIR.org? Chuck: The coordination of the registry efforts is under the TSC. FHIR.org content is under the purview of the FHIR WG in HL7. Paul states it’s not under their scope. Chuck: We could have yet another initiative or change the scope. FHIR.org is a website which Grahame created and is part of HL7. Lorraine’s understanding is that FHIR.org is intended to be a site to support the community of implementers. Paul clarifies that it is not a corporate entity and Chuck confirms. Chuck will take any concerns on ownership back to Grahame. Paul states his discomfort is not on having additional websites – it’s that FHIR.org discussions sounded like it was a separate corporate entity. Overall concern is the message to the membership on what it is and what it’s doing.
 
*Paul on UDI:  
 
*Paul on UDI:  
−
**Paul describes the history of the work by the task force. Pat asks if there is anything published around a three-way agreement between organizations regarding passing it as a string. Paul states the joint agreement is on hold currently but is planned for the future, but the draft agreement does state that. Discussion on where to go next – should UDI continue to be a task force?  Who should do this work? What other information needs to go with the UDI? Ken asks why HL7 must drive this when it should be driven by subject matter experts based on a well-defined use case? Paul says O&O has the SMEs. O&O needs to create the project; address the multiple format; coordinate with other SDOs; and maintain UDI consistency within HL7 standards.  
+
**Paul describes the history of the work by the task force using powerpoint slides. Pat asks if there is anything published around a three-way agreement between organizations regarding passing it as a string. Paul states the joint agreement is on hold currently but is planned for the future, but the draft agreement does state that. Discussion on where to go next – should UDI continue to be a task force?  Who should do this work? What other information needs to go with the UDI? Ken asks why HL7 must drive this when it should be driven by subject matter experts based on a well-defined use case? Paul says O&O has the SMEs. O&O needs to create the project; address the multiple format; coordinate with other SDOs; and maintain UDI consistency within HL7 standards.  
−
**Should we continue to have the task force, or disperse the work effectively to other places? Ken states that he feels that this should go through the existing WG process to help drive a domain issue – we need a good use case that articulates the whole IG. Not a stand-alone standard, a component within a message. Lorraine states that the communication across standards bodies needs to sit somewhere. Paul: so we agree on points one and two, but we need clarity on 3 and 4. Coordination with other SDOs could go through the Organization Relationship Committee (an HL7 Board committee).  
+
**Should we continue to have the task force, or disperse the work effectively to other places? Ken states that he feels that this should go through the existing WG process to help drive a domain issue – we need a good use case that articulates the whole IG. Not a stand-alone standard, a component within a message. Lorraine states that the communication across standards bodies needs to sit somewhere. Paul: so we agree on points one and two, but we need clarity on #3 (Coordination with other SDOs from an HL7 perspective) and #4 (Maintain the UDI representation consistency within HL7 standards). Coordination with other SDOs could go through the Organization Relationship Committee (an HL7 Board committee).  
 
**'''ACTION''': John Q. will take back #3 to the EC for discussion. Paul says it shouldn’t go there until the project is further along. #4, maintaining consistency – Ken suggests leaving that up to the participants? Lorraine states that in the long term it would be a Standards Governance Board issue. Paul agrees. Paul states with this input we can dissolve the task force.
 
**'''ACTION''': John Q. will take back #3 to the EC for discussion. Paul says it shouldn’t go there until the project is further along. #4, maintaining consistency – Ken suggests leaving that up to the participants? Lorraine states that in the long term it would be a Standards Governance Board issue. Paul agrees. Paul states with this input we can dissolve the task force.
 
*Ken: we have a major benefactor dropping membership because of disappointment with RCRIM. Ken asks if someone on TSC with knowledge of RCRIM could reach out to him to discuss.
 
*Ken: we have a major benefactor dropping membership because of disappointment with RCRIM. Ken asks if someone on TSC with knowledge of RCRIM could reach out to him to discuss.
 
*Call adjourned at 12:04.
 
*Call adjourned at 12:04.
−
 
  
 
===Next Steps===
 
===Next Steps===
Line 118: Line 117:
 
|-
 
|-
 
|colspan="4" |'''Actions''' ''(Include Owner, Action Item, and due date)''<br/>
 
|colspan="4" |'''Actions''' ''(Include Owner, Action Item, and due date)''<br/>
−
* .
+
*John Q. will take the issue of UDI coordination with other SDOs to the EC for discussion
 
|-
 
|-
 
|colspan="4" |'''Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items'''<br/>
 
|colspan="4" |'''Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items'''<br/>

Latest revision as of 18:08, 25 June 2015

TSC Agenda/Minutes

Meeting Info/Attendees

Standing Conference Calls

TSC will hold a Conference Call at 11AM Eastern time, each Monday except during scheduled face-to-face Working Group Meetings unless otherwise noted at TSC_Minutes_and_Agendas.

GoToMeeting at https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/426505829 using VOIP
For those without access to microphone/speakers:
US: +1 (224)501-3318
Canada: +1 (647)497-9379
Italy: +39 0 230 57 81 80
Access Code: 426-505-829
GoToMeeting ID: 426-505-829
HL7 TSC Meeting Minutes

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

Date: 2015-06-22
Time: 11:00 AM U.S. Eastern
Facilitator: Ken McCaslin Note taker(s): Anne Wizauer
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 .
x John Quinn x Lorraine Constable . Giorgio Cangioli .
Domain Experts Foundation and Technology Structure and Semantic Design Technical and Support Services
x Melva Peters Regrets Woody Beeler x Calvin Beebe Regrets Freida Hall
. John Roberts x Paul Knapp x Pat van Dyke x Andy Stechishin
. x Russ Hamm . .
ex officio Invited Guests Observers HL7 Staff
. Stan Huff (HL7 Chair) w/vote . Lloyd McKenzie . obs1 . Anne Wizauer
. Chuck Jaffe (CEO) vote . . . obs2 .


. . . . .

Agenda

Housekeeping

  1. Introduction of visitors (including declaration of interests)
    • Lloyd McKenzie - Review list of items that are being transitioned to FHIR Infrastructure WG and FHIR Core WG
  2. Agenda review and approval -
  3. Approve Minutes of 2015-06-15 TSC Call Agenda

Governance

  1. Approval items:
  2. Discussion topics:
    • Management of inquires from ONC and Homeland Security update (John Q. 10 Min)
    • UDI Review and Discussion (Paul - 20 Min)

Management

  1. Review action items –
    • Discuss of FHIR registry (Chuck - 20 min)
  2. Approval items from last week's e-vote: Approved 6/0/0 with ArB, DESD, T3SD, SSD-SD, and both International affiliates voting
  3. Discussion topics:
  4. Reports: (attach written reports below from Steering Divisions et al.)
  5. Open Issues List

Minutes

  • Meeting minutes from last week approved by general consent
  • John Quinn on ONC and Homeland security update: Potential disruption with introducing NEEM patient demographics for lab transactions. John states there is no easy quick mapping between V2.5.1 and NEEM and advised them as such. John will ask for official documentation for posting on the TSC page.
  • Chuck on FHIR Registry:
    • Chuck obtained funding through Argonaut for the registry. Opportunities for multiple registries exist. Concern is confusing stakeholders if we have too many. However, we need to sufficiently distinguish amongst the technologies or specifications which are included within each registry. What we’ve established is that we don’t want the concerns that were raised when we had the Trifolia registry with the source of truth. There are registries that may emerge in other communities such as the effort that Furore is undertaking.
    • Paul wonders how existing committees are reviewing the process such as tooling, etc. And also who and/or what is FHIR.org? Chuck: The coordination of the registry efforts is under the TSC. FHIR.org content is under the purview of the FHIR WG in HL7. Paul states it’s not under their scope. Chuck: We could have yet another initiative or change the scope. FHIR.org is a website which Grahame created and is part of HL7. Lorraine’s understanding is that FHIR.org is intended to be a site to support the community of implementers. Paul clarifies that it is not a corporate entity and Chuck confirms. Chuck will take any concerns on ownership back to Grahame. Paul states his discomfort is not on having additional websites – it’s that FHIR.org discussions sounded like it was a separate corporate entity. Overall concern is the message to the membership on what it is and what it’s doing.
  • Paul on UDI:
    • Paul describes the history of the work by the task force using powerpoint slides. Pat asks if there is anything published around a three-way agreement between organizations regarding passing it as a string. Paul states the joint agreement is on hold currently but is planned for the future, but the draft agreement does state that. Discussion on where to go next – should UDI continue to be a task force? Who should do this work? What other information needs to go with the UDI? Ken asks why HL7 must drive this when it should be driven by subject matter experts based on a well-defined use case? Paul says O&O has the SMEs. O&O needs to create the project; address the multiple format; coordinate with other SDOs; and maintain UDI consistency within HL7 standards.
    • Should we continue to have the task force, or disperse the work effectively to other places? Ken states that he feels that this should go through the existing WG process to help drive a domain issue – we need a good use case that articulates the whole IG. Not a stand-alone standard, a component within a message. Lorraine states that the communication across standards bodies needs to sit somewhere. Paul: so we agree on points one and two, but we need clarity on #3 (Coordination with other SDOs from an HL7 perspective) and #4 (Maintain the UDI representation consistency within HL7 standards). Coordination with other SDOs could go through the Organization Relationship Committee (an HL7 Board committee).
    • ACTION: John Q. will take back #3 to the EC for discussion. Paul says it shouldn’t go there until the project is further along. #4, maintaining consistency – Ken suggests leaving that up to the participants? Lorraine states that in the long term it would be a Standards Governance Board issue. Paul agrees. Paul states with this input we can dissolve the task force.
  • Ken: we have a major benefactor dropping membership because of disappointment with RCRIM. Ken asks if someone on TSC with knowledge of RCRIM could reach out to him to discuss.
  • Call adjourned at 12:04.

Next Steps

Actions (Include Owner, Action Item, and due date)
  • John Q. will take the issue of UDI coordination with other SDOs to the EC for discussion
Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items


© 2015 Health Level Seven® International. All rights reserved.

Retrieved from "https://tscwiki.hl7.org/w/index.php?title=2015-06-22_TSC_Call_Agenda&oldid=15421"