2016-08-29 TSC Call Agenda

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: 2016-MM-DD 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
	Ken McCaslin	.	Tony Julian	.	Jean Duteau	.	Austin Kreisler
.	Wayne Kubick	.	Lorraine Constable	.	Giorgio Cangioli	.	Freida Hall, GOM Expert
.		.		.		.	Woody Beeler, TSC Member Emeritus
Domain Experts		Foundation and Technology		Structure and Semantic Design		Technical and Support Services
.	Melva Peters	.	Russ Hamm	.	Calvin Beebe	.	Andy Stechishin
.	John Roberts	.	Paul Knapp	.	Gora Datta	.	Sandra Stuart
.		.		.		.
ex officio		Invited Guests		Observers		HL7 Staff
.	Pat Van Dyke (HL7 Chair) w/vote	.	Dave Hamill	.	obs1	.	Anne Wizauer
.	Chuck Jaffe (CEO) vote	.	Karen Van Hentenryck	.	obs2	.
.		.		.	.	.

Agenda

Housekeeping

1. Introduction of visitors (including declaration of interests)
2. Agenda review and approval -
3. Approve Minutes of 2016-08-22 TSC Call Agenda
4. Announcements
   • Reminder: No meeting on 2016-09-05 (US Labor Day)
5. Review action items –
   • SGB and ARB to address the issue of separation of concerns with initial report on 2016-10-03
   • Paul, Calvin, and Melva to work on requirements for logging issues/comments across standards with EST cochair and report back on 2016-10-03
   • All: Revisit multi-year planning items on 2016-09-12 TSC call
6. Approval items from previous weeks with followup:
   • Project Approval Request by the EHR WG of the SSD-SD of HL7 Personal Health Record System Functional Model – Update from Release 1 to Release 2 format at Project Insight TBD and TSC Tracker 10253
     • Freida: Does this need to be a Joint Initiative Council (JIC) ballot if it is going to ISO? JointInitiativeCouncil.org mentions HL7-ISO Pilot Agreement and joint copyright in §5.b
       • ACTION: Wayne to report back to the TSC after an ISO meeting occurs that will discuss the current process
7. Approval items from last week's e-vote approved 6/0/0 with T3SD, Jean, DESD, Wayne, Austin, and ARB voting:
   • Project Approval Request by the Structured Documents WG of the SSD-SD of C-CDA R2.1 Guidance on Documenting UDI and associated data for Implantable Medical Devices at Project Insight TBD and TSC Tracker 10482
   • STU Extension Request by the Structured Documents WG of the SSD-SD of HL7 Implementation Guide for CDA® Release 2: Structured Form Definition Document, Release 1 at Project Insight 976 and TSC Tracker 10483 for 12 months.
   • STU Extension Request by the Structured Documents WG of the SSD-SD of HL7 Implementation Guide for CDA® Release 2: Questionnaire Response Document, Release 1 at Project Insight 977 and TSC Tracker 10484 for 12 months.
8. Approval items for this week:
9. Discussion topics:
   • Update on Conformance Testing - Karen/Dave
   • Updating the C-CDA STU specification/balloting optional content - Austin
   • Ballot Guidance document
10. Parking Lot/Open Issues List
    • SeptemberWGM prep
      • Q1:
        • Review/update
        • Essentialism/Strategic planning
      • Q2:
        • Architecture - Andy
        • Simplification
      • Q3:
        • Organizational structure alignment concepts
        • Simplify and Improve
      • Q4:
        • Next steps
      • Sunday Q5:
        • IHTSDO Developer License Announcement (Jane Millar)
        • European eHealth projects (Giorgio)
    • HL7 documentation formats across standards families - followup from 6-27 call with associated document
    • Assignment of outside projects to WGs:
      • 1) We need a process for Universal realm projects; 2) We need a model for top down approval process; 3) We need advice published for people coming in with a project from the outside; 4: we need to clearly define role of TSC and steering divisions in this process. Calvin: US Realm should be added to the list for the US things.
    • Continue work on multi-year planning items:
      • Simplification of location of meeting notifications, minutes, agendas, and other documentation - merged with Standardization of Processes Across WGs
      • Evaluate WG/SD structure: Melva, John, Russ
      • Evaluate opportunities for member/non-member engagement: John, Lorraine, Russ w/Anne assisting
      • Standards organization hierarchy: John
      • Standards sharing across realms: Jean, Giorgio
      • Standardization of processes across WGs: Sandy, Melva, Ken, Tony, w/Anne assisting - rescheduling call due to harmonization
      • Strategy for PSS management throughout the lifecycle: Jean, Calvin, Dave, EST
        • Working on scheduling a call

Minutes

Housekeeping

• Introduction of visitors (including declaration of interests)
• Agenda review and approval -
• Approve Minutes of 2016-08-22 TSC Call Agenda
  • Minutes accepted via general consent
• Review action items –
  • SGB and ARB to address the issue of separation of concerns with initial report on 2016-10-03
  • Paul, Calvin, and Melva to work on requirements for logging issues/comments across standards with EST cochair and report back on 2016-10-03
  • All: Revisit multi-year planning items on 2016-09-12 TSC call
• Approval items from previous weeks with followup:
  • Project Approval Request by the EHR WG of the SSD-SD of HL7 Personal Health Record System Functional Model – Update from Release 1 to Release 2 format at Project Insight TBD and TSC Tracker 10253
    • Freida: Does this need to be a Joint Initiative Council (JIC) ballot if it is going to ISO? JointInitiativeCouncil.org mentions HL7-ISO Pilot Agreement and joint copyright in §5.b
      • ACTION: Wayne to report back to the TSC after an ISO meeting occurs that will discuss the current process
• Approval items from last week's e-vote approved 6/0/0 with T3SD, Jean, DESD, Wayne, Austin, and ARB voting:
  • Project Approval Request by the Structured Documents WG of the SSD-SD of C-CDA R2.1 Guidance on Documenting UDI and associated data for Implantable Medical Devices at Project Insight TBD and TSC Tracker 10482
  • STU Extension Request by the Structured Documents WG of the SSD-SD of HL7 Implementation Guide for CDA® Release 2: Structured Form Definition Document, Release 1 at Project Insight 976 and TSC Tracker 10483 for 12 months.
  • STU Extension Request by the Structured Documents WG of the SSD-SD of HL7 Implementation Guide for CDA® Release 2: Questionnaire Response Document, Release 1 at Project Insight 977 and TSC Tracker 10484 for 12 months.
• Approval items for this week:
• Discussion topics:
  • Update on Conformance Testing - Karen/Dave
    • Have been reaching out to various entities for input/estimates. CGIT provided feedback as well as AEGIS and NIST. $150k for testing one tool group and one tool; we have 24 tool groups. AEGIS and NIST provided multi-million dollar estimates for implementation. Estimates were surprisingly high. This is a larger scale solution than what was perhaps anticipated.
    • Karen: We might recommend that ONC develop a broader testing program. Wayne: We may just work to make our standards more consistently testable. Karen: We have some documents that are not in their final state that would need to go through additional balloting. We'll include the information we received in our report to CMS. The other piece is we talked to the V3 folks and they recommended that we not bother developing conformance documents. Gora: In terms of cost and time, we should focus on the time estimate first. Cost may balance out with market forces. Melva: I don't think we should underestimate how much time this would take given the level of complexity. Ken: If we try to narrow the number and be really specific, I'm not sure we could be on target until someone gets into the process and starts doing it. Wayne: Not sure the ONC is offering funding to do this. What we should be doing is looking at what we can do in Structured Documents to create a process to clearly define conformance statements that can be applied. Discussion over cleaning up C-CDA statements.
    • What do we need to do to put it in place moving forward? Testing environment is beyond our scope. Austin: how do we go back and redo/make improvements given the vast scale? Goes beyond what volunteers can support. Dave: This is where we would put ONC funds - paying someone to do it. Wayne: First we ask for funds to do the assessment. Dave: We will follow up with Calvin and Austin re: the C-CDA issue and where it falls.
  • Updating the C-CDA STU specification/balloting optional content - Austin
    • UDI project for C-CDA brought up this topic. Representative of several projects to add material to a huge body of work that has been balloted in the past in a monolithic fashion. It's far too large for any group to take on now - multiple thousands of man hours to attempt to do the basic task of reballoting and publishing. We need an easier way for groups to add things. Have considered having additional volumes balloted and added, but not sure we've ever done this at HL7. Freida: Are we talking about normative material? Austin: Right now it's STU but it's so widely adopted that we're cautious. UDI is a core piece of material that was never in the original other than a few minor pieces of information. Calvin: All the templates are open for the most part, so we can think of these as additional constraints that would be used in conjunction. Ken: So you have a normative document that is still in STU, and then you're adding additional constraints because of different areas of interest; you might be doing something like V2 where you're adding chapters to expand the existing technology. Wayne: What's wrong with doing it this way? What would the problem be? Freida; We might have some problems from the ANSI perspective if you don't reballot everything when you go normative. So it would be added separately on the DSTU pages? Would have to be communicated so implementers would know how to get it.
      • MOTION that the TSC supports this volume-based approach: Austin/Freida
      • Wayne: Do we want to make such an extensive proposal? Perhaps we should pilot this first.
      • Amended MOTION that the TSC supports piloting a volume-based approach for C-CDA: Austin/Freida
      • VOTE: all in favor

**Ballot Guidance document

• • • Freida: Could we re-title this document to reflect TSC ballot guidance to differentiate from a similar project services document (HL7 Ballot Guide)? Gora states we should add HL7 to the title, and add "Guidance" in the second section. Wayne: This came up because FHIR wants to ballot content that is partially normative and partially STU. Freida: We currently do that in version 3 using color coding. Calvin: Don't we ballot each of the parts separately even though we publish it as an aggregate? Ken: Grahame did say he would attempt to provide some separation. Ken: Don't we use color as well as symbols in V3? Melva: It's just another piece of metadata, but not sure in that spec what is balloted and what is informational. Andy: Are there notes to balloters published on the outside? They should be publishing that because of the way they're doing the spec. Will add Guidance later when ARB defines it.
      • MOTION to accept this document with proposed edits: Gora/Melva
      • VOTE: all in favor
      • MOTION to add FHIR to the HL7 product list: Melva/Freida
      • VOTE: all in favor
  • Jane Millar is going to come to the Sunday meeting to discuss IHTSDO content regarding developer licensing that will be presented at the co-chair dinner. She's also presenting to the international council on Sunday. Should she also circulate around steering division meetings? Decision that it would be good for her to be available as needed for steering division meetings.
  • We moved some of the HL7 guidance docs over to HL7.org to make them more searchable. Now that we moved them we will likely remove old content and put remaining documents on a 3-year review cycle.

Next Steps

Actions (Include Owner, Action Item, and due date) .

Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items 2016-09-12 TSC Call Agenda.

© 2016 Health Level Seven® International. All rights reserved.