Concall-20080204

TSC - Technical Steering Committee

Monday, February 5th, 2008 11:00 AM (US Eastern Time, GMT -5)
To participate, dial 702-894-2444 and enter pass code 1244667#
GoToMeeting at https://www.gotomeeting.com/join/822618174
GoToMeeting ID: 822-618-174 

back to TSC Minutes and Agendas

Attendance

Expected

• 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

invited

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

Agenda

1. Meeting Admin
   1. Roll Call - Quorum was established with the following members on the call: Woody Beeler, Chuck Meyer, Austin Kreisler, Calvin Beebe, Charlie McCay, Gregg Seppala, Charlie Mead, Ken McCaslin, Jim Case (late), Ioana Singureanu, John Quinn, Helen Stevens (late), and Karen Van Hentenryck
   2. Accept Agenda - Singureanu suggested that approval of the project scope template be added to next week’s agenda as there won't be time to address it today. McCay noted that GOM review should be added to this week’s agenda. Meyer responded that he hopes the Board will approve the GOM today, and thus comments from the TSC should be sent directly to Meyer and Van Hentenryck so that we can get them on the work item list.
   3. Approve Minutes Concall-20080107- MOTION by Singureanu: To approve the Jan 7 minutes; seconded by McCaslin. Motion approved unanimously. Concall-20080128 - MOTION by Beebe: To approve the Jan 28 minutes; seconded by McCaslin. Request to change D. Harding reference in Standard committee reports item 8 to Dick Harding. Motion to approve minutes with that change were approved unanimously. - Jan WGM minutes - MOTION by McCaslin: To approve the minutes from Jan 13 meeting; seconded by Beeler. Motion passed unanimously. MOTION by McCaslin: To approve the minutes from Jan 15 meeting; seconded by Beebe. Motion passed unanimously. ACTION ITEM: Van Hentenryck to update the issue tracker to add an action item to update the DMP reference to reflect current GOM (when approved).
2. Standing Committee Reports
   1. CEO Report - Jaffe was not on the call.
   2. CTO Report - Quinn reported that he continues to work with Jane Curry on the user requirements for the OHT project. The need for algorithms (functional requirements to the level of algorithms) for tooling has been brought to the ArB’s attention. Quinn spoke with Curry this morning and she is scheduled to have a project plan delivered to Quinn by the end of the week, with the requirements finalized by end of March. Quinn will be providing a CTO report to the Board today and is hopeful that the Board will approve a peer review process to vet the user requirements. One Board member wants a formal ballot, but Quinn feels this is overkill and would set the project back by two months. Requirements, when done, likely belong in the HDF and he’s put some pressure on ArB to investigate this.
   3. ARB report - C. Mead reported that the ArB has convened two meetings since their organization in January. Three to four major topics have emerged and the ArB needs some specific prioritization from the CTO/TSC. Absent of that, the ArB will try to work on all four project simultaneously, which is likely not ideal. The current topics are: (1) Specify an architecture, but there is not agreement on whether the requirement is to document the current architecture of what the architecture should be; (2) Dynamic model (3) Specifying boundaries of core committees, determining what committees are working on, and identifying gaps; (4) Writing their vision/mission/goals statement. Mead asked the CTO and TSC to give the ArB marching orders. Tooling is part of defining the current architecture. Beeler committed to Jane Curry to undertake this task. Beeler agrees that the current architecture, to the degree that there is one, is broadly defined in the HDF (now 8 years old) and to some extend in some of the documents being prepared for ballot in the upcoming ballot cycle. We can’t justify the architecture we want while ignoring the architecture that we have. C. Mead wonders whether the tooling part of the architecture is the responsibility of the Tooling committee. ArB needs to help us understand the technical architecture underneath the tools. Quinn feels the Tooling Committee is responsible for the Tooling portion of the architecture. The bigger issue in the Tooling space is the static models and publishing. If the need for static models is consistent in the future, then finalizing the dynamic model is a deliverable for 60 days in the future. McCay asked TSC members to ponder the value of what the ArB is doing as that might help prioritize their tasks, Delivering a tooling specification that can be signed off in March is one concrete milestone. The activity of issue resolution is a continuing goal of the ArB. To accomplish those two item, documentation of the underlying architecture would be useful. Documenting the current architecture at the level of the static model and the dynamic model to help with the Tooling initiative sounds like the highest priority. Drafting the ArB's mission/goals is a requirement. Determining core committee roles/mission is the purview of the Domain Experts steering division. The reason defining the roles/responsibility of core commtitee emerged as a topic of discussion with the ArB is that they thought specification of the dynamic model was being done by MnM. If the ArB is going to expand its role and be something more than it has been in the past, it is important to understand and document the purview of the ArB, InM, MnM, etc. Beeler noted that the dynamic model was the MnM's purview, but not really, because pieces fall into InM, SOA, etc. Mead, concluded the discussion by noting that developing the Tooling algorithms have been deferred to the Tooling committee so they can remove this from their agenda and prioritize the remaining issues.
   4. Affiliates Report - Nothing to report
   5. Domain Experts - Case Jim reported that there are a number of project scope statements that the Domain Experts steering division will review on their next call. The Clinical Guidelines group has disbanded and their work has been subsumed by the Clinical Decision Support work group. HQ is working to archive the Clinical Guidelines minutes and other documents as directed by the former co-chairs of that committee.
   6. Foundation & Technology - Singureanu reported that the Foundation and Technology steering division approved two project scope statements that are on today's agenda for approval.
   7. Structure & Semantic Design - Beebe reported that the Structure and Semantic Design steering division has not met since the WGM but they also have a number of scope statement to be brought forward for TSC approval.
   8. Technical & Support Services - McCaslin reported that the Technical and Support Services steering division has not met since the Jan WGM.
3. Project Scope statement Approvals
   1. Core Properties Project Approval - scope statement document- Beeler provided backgroup information on the project proposal, noting that it came forward from MnM. There are 3 core models around which the rest of V3 specifications are built: RIM, Vocab and Data Types. They hope to have first ballot on this project in the upcoming ballot cycle. Case asked why this would be normative. Beeler noted that this is similar to the localization rules and will either be published in the HDF or as a companion document to the HDF. MOTION by McCaslin that the TSC approve the project; seconded by Case. Discussion: McCaslin noted that this project has been reconciled with Project Insight, to ensure that it will be covered in a single location. Beebe asked if there was anyone working with CDA involved with this work. Beeler indicated that they have tried to reconcile this with CDA and it has been developed on the Mayo wiki. Motion passed unanimously
   2. Security Terminology Project Approval scope statement document-MOTION by Beeler: That the TSC approve this project; seconded by Beebe. Discussion Kreisler saw under project dependency that it was dependent on HITSP, which makes him think it is realm specific. Beeler questions this as well. ACTION ITEM: Beeler to seek clarification on whether this is universal or realm specific and then re-visit this next week. MOTION by Case: To postpone motion; seconded by McCaslin. Motion to postpone passed unanimously.
   3. project scope statement approval process and relationship with publication planning - Beeler will undertake this with Don Lloyd and Dave Hamill
   4. Tooling Requirements approval process Quinn already reported on this earlier but asked the TSC to confirm his recommendation that the user requirements for the OHT project should be vetted via a peer reivew process. The TSC confirmed Quinn's approach.
   5. Criteria for out of cycle ballot decisions - Van Hentenryck suggested that the group have some email discussion of this topic prior to next Monday's call.
   6. ISO/CEN/HL7 harmonisation projects - [1] - McCay asked for email discussion on this topic as well
   7. Ballot resolution issue being progressed by ARB V3 Medical Records-Data Access Consent, R1 [2]- Van Hentenryck noted that Charlie Mead is aware of this issue as he had acknowledged it via email when Van Hentenryck added the issue to the TSC issue tracker.

The call adjourned at Noon ET

Agenda item list (our sand box for future meetings)

• Approval of project scope statement template
• Approval of Security and Terminology project scope statement (after determining from work group whether this is realm specific)
• Review HITSP projects
• Review ISO/CEN/HL7 joint projects
• Review draft document outlining work group collaboration
• Review draft document outlining processes for bringing JIC projects into HL7
• Review four project proposals from Structure & Semantic Design steering division
• Discuss V2: (1) will it be delivered as a DSTU (2) coverage for all v2 chapters