2012-01-04 Activities SDO Call Minutes

TSC: HL7 Activities with Other SDOs

Meeting Info/Attendees

HL7 Activities with Other SDOs Location: call 770-657-9270 using code 985371# GoToMeeting ID: 748-176-002		Date: 2012-01-04 Time: 11:00 AM U.S. Eastern Standard
Facilitator: Austin Kreisler		Note taker(s): Lynn Laakso

Attendee	Name	Affiliation
regrets	Keith Boone	IHE
x	Tim Buxton
x	Jim Case	IHTSDO interest
x	Christian Hay	GS1
x	Austin Kreisler	HL7 TSC Chair, DESD Co-Chair
x	Lynn Laakso	HL7 staff support
x	Jane Millar	IHTSDO
regrets	John Quinn
x	Lisa Spellman	ISO TC/215 US TAG
x	Ed Tripp	CDISC interest

Quorum Requirements Met: n/a

Agenda

Agenda Topics

1. Agenda review and approval - Austin Kreisler
2. Agenda planning for San Antonio
   • Panel topic: Streamlining current cross SDO processes - SDO perspective
   • Panel composition review
   • 2nd session during the week to:
     • Continue discussions from Sunday afternoon
     • Plan for next WGM: Streamlining current cross SDO processes - developer/project perspective
   • SDO reports:
     • Suggestions for series of three or four questions that you’d like each of the panelists to address, such as the top two or three items from your SDOs program of work this year and where do you see those intersecting with HL7; what roadblocks or opportunities do you see? You may focus on these questions within those defined cross-SDO processes.

Supporting Documents

• See links

Minutes

Minutes/Conclusions Reached:

1. Agenda review and approval - Austin Kreisler
2. Agenda planning for San Antonio
   • Panel composition review
     • Bron Kisler, Christian Hay, Jane Millar, Lisa Spellman, Keith or other IHE rep, John Quinn
   • Panel topic: Streamlining current cross SDO processes - SDO perspective
     • Panel focus on cross SDO processes
     • Lisa suggests we review current process
     • Jane suggests we review what the real purpose is - with inclusion of other relationships besides JIC.
     • Lisa suggests the cross SDO coordination using JIC as an example, honing on two or three pain points, or ideas.
     • Austin suggests each panelist briefly review processes in place, or those that are in development.
     • Christian comments that the JIC process has been criticized for complexity and slowing progress down. An important note is the scope of the various organizations, between GS1 and HL7 as another example. Christian notes the goal is to provide and produce the best standards possible with the best synergies possible.
     • Austin notes that in addition to the description of the process a note of the value it adds would be helpful.
     • Jane notes that their work in conjunction with in addition to work outside of the scope of JIC. They don't ballot other people's standards but work with what is produced by other standards bodies in addition to producing their own standards, but they do not ballot. They fill more a liaison role providing comments on others' standards.
     • Tim Buxton adds that the JIC was intended to streamline the various processes so it's difficult to understand why a relationship with one of the parties in the relationship should be different from the relationship with the JIC.
     • Christian adds that certain items going through the network of ballot relationships needed coordination but not all items would go through the whole network. Tim notes the ultimate purpose was to minimize work on duplicative item and maximize usability of standards produced with the involvement with multiple groups. Formerly 34 bilateral relationships was to ensure these relationships were conducted in conjunction between the key SDOs. Austin notes that he wasn't in at the formation of the JIC, but the process of taking an item to different SDOs to streamline the effort seems to have missed its mark. Tim notes that they did everything three times. Instead they have something that is agreed upon and used by all three parties. Austin again notes we should describe the pain points that Lisa suggested. Tim notes that suggestions for how the pain points can be eased within each of the organizations that participate would be helpful. Loosening the ways that SDOs do things like HL7 changed its ballot schedules to facilitate is one example. Ed suggests a common format for ballot materials, whether it's another format to which everyone creates transforms. Christian notes that since GS1 is not actively participating in the ballot process as it is exceedingly complex. Descriptions of other SDO relationships and processes without including ballots is an important point to illustrate. Jane suggests some examples like Christian's to which we could add a couple more; at the risk of turning this into a JIC meeting, it would help. Tim notes that we take an HL7 perspective, take something done within JIC and another done with another SDO outside of JIC and compare them. We can compare how things are done and what the value added would be. Jane suggests we can simply illustrate examples of where it has worked with other SDOs and see positive lessons without a criticism of JIC.
     • Lisa suggests 5-7 minutes to introduce the JIC model, how it's intended, here's where we are today, our pain points, and looking for your help and your feedback. She can work with Bron to get some examples. Austin comments that the panel is heavily JIC centered, except for IHE. We may not have an IHE rep, for which we could easily narrow the focus to JIC. Christian notes that IHE does not 'adopt' standards so it would be confusing, and their approach is very different. Their interest is interoperability across various standards to demonstrate how they are used in the market; our interest is in doing things better and standardizing the approach. Austin asks if IHE should be dropped from the panel and maintain the JIC focus. Austin further notes he needs to run down someone from HL7 to show an HL7 example. Lisa notes Keith might be an appropriate resource for that, but that it is also important to show there are a number of ways this is done. IHE is one way in which this is done, and ask for suggestions for the future sessions. Austin feels a good example Keith can speak to is the consolidated CDA guides.
3. Do we want to meet again before the WGM? Austin may not be available next week.
   • Jane asks what the schedule is during the meeting? ½ hour of liaison reports from SDO liaison and the rest of the quarter is the panel. Panelists can provide a 5-7 minute overview of your SDO's processes with HL7 or other SDOs and then go into the examples. After the presentations we have a Q&A with the audience. With the examples and the pain points we can then start getting some suggestions. We can then review in more detail during the 2nd session during the week on Monday Q3.
   • Lisa suggests we hold on to the time and she'll send out a Doodle to see what works.

Adjourned 11:44 AM EST

Next Steps

Actions (Include Owner, Action Item, and due date) Lisa will send out a Doodle to see if folks want to meet next week.

Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items 2012-01-11_Activities_SDO_Call_Minutes tentative 2012-01-15_TSC_WGM_SDO_Activities_Agenda at the 2012Jan WGM in San Antonio.