2011-02-14 TSC Call Minutes

TSC Agenda/Minutes

Meeting Info/Attendees

HL7 TSC Meeting Minutes Location: call 770-657-9270 using code 124466# GoToMeeting ID: 165-215-206		Date: 2011-02-14 Time: 11:00 AM U.S. Eastern
Facilitator: Austin Kreisler		Note taker(s): Lynn Laakso

Attendee	Name	Affiliation
x	Calvin Beebe	HL7 SSD SD Co-Chair
regrets	Woody Beeler	HL7 FTSD Co-Chair
x	Bob Dolin	HL7 Board Chair
x	Tony Julian	HL7 FTSD Co-Chair
x	Austin Kreisler	HL7 TSC Chair, DESD Co-Chair
x	Lynn Laakso	HL7 staff support
x	Don Lloyd	HL7 Staff
	Patrick Loyd	HL7 T3SD Co-Chair
x	Ken McCaslin	HL7 TSS SD Co-Chair
x	Charlie Mead	HL7 ArB Chair
x	Ravi Natarajan	HL7 Affiliate Representative
	Ron Parker	HL7 ArB Alternate
x	John Quinn	HL7 CTO
x	Gregg Seppala	HL7 SSD SD Co-Chair
x	Ed Tripp	HL7 DESD Co-Chair
x	Jay Zimmerman	HL7 Affiliate Representative

Quorum Requirements (Chair +5 with 2 SD Reps) Met: yes

Agenda

Agenda Topics

1. Introduction of visitors (including declaration of interests)
2. Agenda review and approval - Austin Kreisler
3. Approve Minutes of 2011-02-07_TSC_Call_Agenda
4. Review action items –
   • Create Project Scope Statement for TSC T3F Strategic Initiative Review Project for Woody Tracker #1581 (who has offered regrets)
5. Review WGM action items:
   • Calvin will check with Keith on his Google Map for CDA Usage for V3 marketing/usage statistics.
   • Bob will write the first draft and Calvin will look over his shoulder, and Charlie will review for incubator proposal process (not a specific incubator project)
   • Architecture Implementation Program actions:
     • Lloyd working on artifact catalog
     • Patrick to develop Project Scope Statement and socialize with involved groups
6. Requested approvals:
   • Motion: Approve Project Scope Statement for Clinical Genomics of SSD SD: HL7 CG -omics Domain Analysis Model at TSC Tracker # 1770, Project Insight # 705.
   • Motion: Approve DSTU publication request for HL7 Version 3 Standard: Transmission Infrastructure, Release 2, at TSC Tracker # 1771, Project Insight # 619.
   • Motion: Approve Project Scope Statement for Masterfiles Re-affirmation by InM of FTSD, at TSC Tracker # 1774, Project Insight ID# 744
   • Motion: Approve letter of thanks to Charlie for his service; include scanned signatures?
   • Motion: Approve in-committee (for circulation to co-chairs list), thePreparation of SAIF Book for Informative Ballot Project Scope Statement approved by ArB
7. Discussion topics:
   • Observations and progress of Product Briefs
   • SAIF Architecture Program PSS for discussion
   • Incubator projects discussion, see Project Scope Statement at TSC Tracker 1775
     • EHR-S FM interoperability, CDA R3
   • Update on CMET R3 (ANSI affirmation) - Woody reports: we determined in late November that we can probably accomplish the CMET approval without reaffirmation (as yet not fully confirmed) and hence we "suspended" this.
   • Need for statement on what V3 includes (it's not just V3 Messaging) like RIM, Datatypes, 21090, CDA, are all part of V3 - Charlie Mead.
   • Open Issues List
8. Reports: (attach written reports below from Steering Divisions et al.)
   • Acknowledgement of updated Mission and Charter statement approved by FTSD for ITS

Supporting Documents

• http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/download/docmanfileversion/6152/8039/TSC-RetrospectiveReviewBasedOnT3Freport.doc
• http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/download/trackeritem/1770/8011/HL7ProjectScope-omics-Domain-Analysis-Model-Ver-2010-Nov-12.doc
• http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/download/trackeritem/1771/8015/DSTU-MCCI.doc
• http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/download/trackeritem/1774/8019/HL7PSS_MasterFiles_and_RegistriesV2.doc
• http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/download/docmanfileversion/6150/8029/20110108McCayThnksLtr_nosig.doc
• http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/download/trackeritem/1783/8037/HL7_PSS_ArBSAIFBookv3.doc
• http://www.hl7.org/Special/committees/xml/overview.cfm

Minutes

Minutes/Conclusions Reached:

1. Introduction of visitors (including declaration of interests) Don Lloyd, re EHR S FM R1.1 under Product Briefs. Gregg added his update in John’s absence that he heard from the EHR cochairs that they’ll “get busy”.
2. Agenda review and approval - Austin Kreisler – agenda accepted by general consent
3. Approve Minutes of 2011-02-07_TSC_Call_Agenda unanimously approved.
4. Review action items –
   • Create Project Scope Statement for TSC T3F Strategic Initiative Review Project for Woody Tracker #1581 (who has offered regrets)
     • Review for in-committee approval next week.
5. Review WGM action items:
   • Calvin will check with Keith on his Google Map for CDA Usage for V3 marketing/usage statistics.
     • Not ready yet.
   • Bob will write the first draft and Calvin will look over his shoulder, and Charlie will review for incubator proposal process (not a specific incubator project) - see incubator project scope statement in discussion. Close as action item.
   • Architecture Implementation Program actions: in progress
6. Requested approvals:
   • Motion: Approve Project Scope Statement for Clinical Genomics of SSD SD: HL7 CG -omics Domain Analysis Model at TSC Tracker # 1770, Project Insight # 705.
     • Vote: Unanimously approved.
   • Motion: Approve DSTU publication request for HL7 Version 3 Standard: Transmission Infrastructure, Release 2, at TSC Tracker # 1771, Project Insight # 619.
     • Austin noted all negatives were withdrawn, no negatives remain at this point. Tony will submit an updated request;
     • Amended motion: approve with updated voting register.
     • Vote: Unanimously approved.
   • Motion: Approve Project Scope Statement for Masterfiles Re-affirmation by InM of FTSD, at TSC Tracker # 1774, Project Insight ID# 744
     • Vote: Unanimously approved
   • Motion: Approve letter of thanks to Charlie for his service; include scanned signatures? Ken sent his to Lynn.
   • Vote: Unanimously approved; please get your scanned signatures to Lynn
   • Motion: Approve in-committee (for circulation to co-chairs list), thePreparation of SAIF Book for Informative Ballot Project Scope Statement approved by ArB.
     • This is intended to be balloted and then published as informative. DSTU and ISO coordination checkboxes removed.
     • Amended motion: Charlie moves to approve with revisions. Gregg seconds. Charlie adds further that the timeframe is tight but that is what they will have as their objective.
     • Vote: Unanimously approved.
7. Discussion topics:
   • SAIF Architecture Program PSS for discussion
     • Initial program scope statement will be lightweight. Austin has not yet had a chance to review with Patrick. Perhaps next week might be ready for review in committee.
   • Incubator projects discussion, see Project Scope Statement at TSC Tracker 1775
     • Scope Statement is for the program, not for individual projects. Would like to have some guidance before bringing CDA R3 or other issues having complex questions, to ballot. Would like to have some TSC sponsorship for branding individual projects under the incubator program with some differences in process. PSS might need to be tweaked in that incubator project operates to support and flesh out aspects of another open project that is approved.
     • Ken asks if we can specify a time frame for the incubation like we do for DSTU like 12 months, 18 months, rather than a renewal each year. Bob cautions that the intent is to accelerate standards development and an incubation period of 24 months would be counter-productive. An incubator project might be 3-6 months.
     • Ed asks what does this do for me? Bob describes SDWG struggling with CDA R3, and backward compatibility challenges, use of RIM ITS or existing ITS. Clinical Statement model right-hand side becoming their RIM; exploring different representations in templates and visualization of the complexity of the issues. An incubator project would be to develop CDA R3 using RIM ITS, another using Datatypes 2.0, to explore backwards compatibility issues. Ed asks why that needs a separate process instead part of the regular project. Ravi notes that these scopes need to be bound to specific HL7 artifacts. How does it fast track development we already do when they have timelines defined? Bob suggests perhaps we need to describe it using a life cycle diagram. Bob describes the intent of the incubator project would work directly with the committee grappling with design decisions to address a very narrow scope. The branding element allows someone to do the work with the understanding that they’re not going off on their own but are working on something specifically directed by the primary project. Ed asks why this can’t happen under the regular project? Charlie notes that with a set of requirements to fulfill, you have timelines as Ravi said, and have to embrace reality. Experience in past with Oracle, building something, they would report back to HL7 but friction due to HL7 being over ‘here’ and the implementers operating ‘over there’. With short timelines on high priority stuff where not everything they need to make decisions being in place, the incubator project participants are building something, not developing a standard, and they understand that what they build will have to change downstream. Charlie agrees that it should not be restricted to existing HL7 artifacts – that there should be opportunity to demonstrate innovation in artifact definition as well. Ravi says it’s a proof of concept. John chimes in that it is not only a management of scope but also a management of time with project management happening outside HL7.
     • Austin asks the program sponsors update the scope statement based on the feedback today and bring back next week for approval in committee. Bob notes he won’t be available for the next three TSC meetings. The difference between the incubation and innovation status is something specifically intended to inform an existing project with ballotable artifacts; innovation items may not have that connection.
   • Observations and progress of Product Briefs
     • Last week John worked with Karen going over project briefs, getting them down to one page and getting them out to steering divisions for review. A number of the briefs (total over 100) were implementation guides, now listed as standards. V3 is a group of related interdependent standards, where the products are the balloted standards. Issues with Datatypes R2 or even 1.1 that have been published by ISO but HL7 has not completed their publication process. Where reconciliation meetings were not held or the paperwork completed there is a problem with the execution of the HL7 process to claim it’s suitable for use outside of HL7. John is back in Ann Arbor this week continuing to work on them.
     • Austin asked Don to prepare a list of standards in balloting that are still pending reconciliation. Need to shine some light into the project ‘black hole’ where project health metrics might show something hanging out in balloting. May need to implement a process for requesting publishing a normative standard as a final step in completing the reconciliation process. We have closed the loop on informative and DSTU where the request demands they complete the reconciliation. Lynn and Dave can then use the reconciliation status to help with the red/yellow/green status determination. Need to keep the balloting status separate from the reconciliation status. Don notes that Dave adds ballot cycle information to the project information each cycle. You can also click through the project to its NIB history page, and other opportunities for work groups to see their items in progress.
     • Austin brings attention to the time and states we should discuss this again next week. John notes that next week is HIMSS. We’ll address on an email thread.
8. Reports: (attach written reports below from Steering Divisions et al.)
   • Acknowledgement of updated Mission and Charter statement approved by FTSD for ITS

Adjourned 12:01PM.

Next Steps

Actions (Include Owner, Action Item, and due date) • Get your scanned signatures to Lynn • Austin asked Don to prepare a list of standards in balloting that are still pending reconciliation.

Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items Create Project Scope Statement for TSC T3F Strategic Initiative Review Project for Woody Tracker #1581 (who has offered regrets) Update on CMET R3 (ANSI affirmation) - Woody reports: we determined in late November that we can probably accomplish the CMET approval without reaffirmation (as yet not fully confirmed) and hence we "suspended" this. Need for statement on what V3 includes (it's not just V3 Messaging) like RIM, Datatypes, 21090, CDA, are all part of V3 - Charlie Mead. Open Issues List