Concall-20081027

TSC - Technical Steering Committee

Monday, October 27, 2008 11:00 AM (US Eastern Time, GMT -5)
To participate, dial 770-657-9270 and enter pass code 124466#
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: 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); Ed Tripp (newly elected TSC member); Ravi Natarajan (newly elected TSC member)

Apologies

• Gregg Seppala
• Ioana Singureanu

Agenda

1. (5 min) Meeting Admin
   1. Roll Call - The following individuals joined the call: Calvin Beebe, John Quinn, Chuck Meyer, Austin Kreisler, Ken McCaslin, Woody Beeler, Helen Stevens Love, Charlie Mead, and Karen Van Hentenryck
   2. Accept Agenda - Charlie Mead requested that an OHT update be provided during the call; he will address this issue during the ArB status report.
   3. Approve Minutes from concall-20081006 - MOTION by McCaslin: To approve the minutes (with a few minor type corrections). Seconded by Beeler. Motion passed unanimously.
   4. eVote Results (SD projects):
      • TB DAM project- passed with 6 in favor, 0 against, 0 abstentions
      • Composite Privacy Consent Directive, R1 project - passed with 6 in favor, 0 against, 0 abstentions. QUESTION RAISED: Structure & Semantic Design SD would like clarification on the V3 Document/CDA component and realm for this project. The question is whether this is truly a CDA document and if so do they need/want assistance from the Structured Docs group. ACTION ITEM: Austin Kreisler will follow up with the Structured Documents Work Group on these issues. These questions do not overturn the passing vote.
      • Public Health Related CMET project - passed with 6 in favor, 0 against, 0 abstentions
      • RIM annual balloting project - passed with 6 in favor, 0 against, 0 abstentions
      • Patient Administration derived CMET project - passed with 6 in favor, 0 against, 0 abstentions
      • V3 Organization Registries, R2 project - passed with 5 in favor, 0 against, 1 abstention
      • V3 Provider Registries, R1 project - passed with 6 in favor, 0 against, 0 abstentions
      • GELLO V1 IG project - passed with 5 in favor, 0 against, 1 abstention
      • HL7 EHR Clinical Research Functional Profile project - passed with 6 in favor, 0 against, 0 abstentions
      • Account and Billing CMET project - passed with 5 in favor, 0 against, 1 abstention
      • Consumer Information Accolunt Project - passed with 5 in favor, 0 against, 1 abstention
      • Common Clinical Project - passed with 5 in favor, 0 against, 1 abstention
2. (20 min) Standing Committee Reports/Approvals
   1. CEO Report - No report was submitted.
   2. CTO Report - Quinn submitted the following report via email. There are a couple of documents imbeded in the report. The V3 conformance testing project proposal is for discussion purposes only at this time. It will be discussed again next week once the TSC members have had an opportunity to review it. [1]
   3. ArB Report - Charlie Mead reported that the ArB scheduled, post-Vancouver, both a virtual and Face-to-Face meeting to produce the next version of the SAEAF document based on feedback. The focus of the virtual meeting in Oct. was to (1) determine if ArB could come to agreement on HSSP harmonziation discussions with the SOA WG and subsequently draft a formal policy statement. A formal motion was voted on by the ArB, which passed, and is posted on the wiki (2) dig deeper into behavioral framework. The next release of SAEAF will contain a statement on this. The face-to-face meeting is Nov 12-14; its goal is to produce the next working version of SAEAF ready for Jan WGM. Beeler noted that harmonziation is co-located this meeting and he and others will attend the ArB meeting on the 12th. Charlie provided an OHT update. Ken Lunn, Skip and Charlie Mead met for 2+ hours. Skip was proposing that NCI, HL7, Health Infoway, Australia and others draft a set of early adopters guidance for this effort, with personnel funding from all organizations and hopefully some cash funding as well. They will put this efefort together under what they are calling an Architectural Council, under the direction of Charlie Mead. Woody noted that tooling has drafted a tooling architecture that should be informing the process rather than starting from scratch. Charlie noted that he has also spread that message.
   4. Affiliates Report - Nothing to report
   5. Domain Experts -
      • MOTION by SD: To approve the updated ICSR R3 project scope [2] Motion passed unanimously.
      • QUESTION - We have a work group that is considering creating a project to create and ballot a HL7 2.3.1 Implementation Guide. Since 2.3.1 is no longer a supported HL7 version, should HL7 be balloting Implementation Guides for versions that are no longer supported? McCaslin noted that moving to a more current release was one of the stipualtion for the work produced by California Health Care and he feels the same rules should apply here. Meyer suggests that they call it a 2.x implementation guide. McCaslin disagrees. The primary consumer of this guide would be HITSP. Decision: We are disinclined to consider approving an implemention guide for a standard that is nearly 10 years old. What are the ramifications of telling them no. ACTION ITEM: Kreisler will follow up on these questions.
   6. Foundation & Technology - Beeler reported that the group hasn't met since Sept 30.
      • QUESTION: It is unclear how providing a yearly balloted version of the RIM will affect any open-source tooling that relies on the RIM or an external SDO that wishes to harmonize its information models with HL7. These are questions the TSC needs to answer. - Beeler responded that the RIM changes every 4 months; there will be a normative RIM every year and it would be better if each Normative Edition included a current Normative RIM instead of the latest non-normative RIM. The tooling should not be release dependent. External SDOs have been encourage to harmonziation with HL7. Meyer reported that he and Van Hentenryck had a conversation with ANSI to ballot the RIM as a continuous maintenance document. We will be laying the ground work for this in the updated GOM.
      • QUESTION: When are we planning to distribute the document summarizing the usefulness of SWOT analysis and strategic plans? - Van Hentenryck noted that this document will be included as an article in the upcoming Technical Newsletter.
   7. Structure & Semantic Design -
      • Request from Alschuler to approve balloting the Assessment template document in upcoming ballot cycle. [3] From Alschuler: Unless I hear objections raised, will continue to assume that we can move ahead with this for the Dec/Jan cycle. The rationale for the push is to meet the requirement identified by HITSP. Note that Patient Care is a co-sponsor of the ballot (Willem and others were on the call with us this morning) and that we have added IHE and HITSP as interested parties. - Beebe reported that the SD has discussed the project. They would like to get on the queue for the ballot announce but the project will be subject to the normal project approval process. It will come back to TSC for formal review next week and be announced as "provisional" in the ballot announcement. One of the changes made is a general framework that people request be left at Universal Realm. The framework is guidances on how to create other IGs. Beeler asked if IG should be in Patient Care and something other than an implementation guide.
   8. Technical & Support Services -
      • Role of the SD Project Facilitator (TSC Issue: 759)- McCaslin reported that the SD project facilitators are automatically be putting them under products. They are to be advisors, not defacto project facilitators. They will provide support to co-chairs regarding projects that are in jeopardy but not be put on every project that goes through the work group. ACTION ITEM: McCaslih will check the project documentation (procedural documents) to ensure that this is clearly stated. McCaslin also suggested that we use Survey Monkey to vote on the projects.
3. (30 min) Discussion topics
   • Review draft mission/charter template - Case (TSC Issue: 593)[4]
   • Review of updated DMPs [5] - McCay
   • Identifying business in agendas for upcoming WGM - McCay (TSC Issue: 761)
   • Enterprise Architecture implementation project - McCay
   • Infrastructure release planning - McCay
   • Update on upcoming Technical Newsletter - Van Hentenryck

Call adjounred at 11:55 am