Difference between revisions of "T3F Agenda item list"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
WoodyBeeler (talk | contribs) |
Charliemccay (talk | contribs) |
||
| (6 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | [''''' | + | ['''''This is a place for T3F members to list or amend items that may (should) be used as Agenda items for a T3F Conference Call or Meeting'''''] |
| + | * '''Architecture Project Proposal''' - Goal to define a project proposal for submission and adoption, as soon as feasible. Include - major steps, participants, level of detail, schedule. Three pieces - Models of Function, Static information, and Requirements (business). | ||
| + | * '''Model/pattern Harmonization''' - Sibling models for Clinical Statement; Role of CMETs. (From Cologne) | ||
| + | * '''"Dynamic" Model''' - its generality, for future alignment with Architecture | ||
| + | * '''How to fit Functional Models into HL7 Framework''' | ||
| + | * '''Quality Issues of Ballot Content''' - Need to advise, oversee, understand and seek solutions. This agenda item arose out of a particular problem with the schemas, with an appeal being made to the T3F that more resource be assigned to short term identification and resolution of these issues. | ||
| + | * '''Review TD responsibilities for potential processes''' | ||
| + | * '''Revise TD foundation document''' | ||
| + | * '''Who is a member of a committee?''' | ||
| + | * '''Communication plan above and beyond the Wiki''' How do we expose what we are working on, and the conclusions reached. Also how to we find out what is causing most frustration in the working group, and thus warrents T3F/TD attention. Need to establish a [[formal mechanism for raising an issue with the TSC]] / T3F so that it can be tracked, and a timely abnd visible resolution reached. The ballot quality issue above is an example of this. | ||
| + | * '''Liaison between HL7 and other SDOs (Role of TD ''vis a vis'' the Board)''' | ||
| + | * '''Quality Assessment criteria''' - how do we know if the deliverables from HL7 are at the desired level and addressing the expectations and requirements of the users. (Relates to the quality gates of Project Life Cycle team.) | ||
Latest revision as of 16:57, 29 May 2007
[This is a place for T3F members to list or amend items that may (should) be used as Agenda items for a T3F Conference Call or Meeting]
- Architecture Project Proposal - Goal to define a project proposal for submission and adoption, as soon as feasible. Include - major steps, participants, level of detail, schedule. Three pieces - Models of Function, Static information, and Requirements (business).
- Model/pattern Harmonization - Sibling models for Clinical Statement; Role of CMETs. (From Cologne)
- "Dynamic" Model - its generality, for future alignment with Architecture
- How to fit Functional Models into HL7 Framework
- Quality Issues of Ballot Content - Need to advise, oversee, understand and seek solutions. This agenda item arose out of a particular problem with the schemas, with an appeal being made to the T3F that more resource be assigned to short term identification and resolution of these issues.
- Review TD responsibilities for potential processes
- Revise TD foundation document
- Who is a member of a committee?
- Communication plan above and beyond the Wiki How do we expose what we are working on, and the conclusions reached. Also how to we find out what is causing most frustration in the working group, and thus warrents T3F/TD attention. Need to establish a formal mechanism for raising an issue with the TSC / T3F so that it can be tracked, and a timely abnd visible resolution reached. The ballot quality issue above is an example of this.
- Liaison between HL7 and other SDOs (Role of TD vis a vis the Board)
- Quality Assessment criteria - how do we know if the deliverables from HL7 are at the desired level and addressing the expectations and requirements of the users. (Relates to the quality gates of Project Life Cycle team.)
