Difference between revisions of "2012-04-02 TSC Call Minutes"

From HL7 TSC
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m
m
Line 3: Line 3:
  
 
===Meeting Info/Attendees===
 
===Meeting Info/Attendees===
−
{{:TSC Meetings}}
 
 
   [[Category:2012 TSC Minutes|Agenda Template]]
 
   [[Category:2012 TSC Minutes|Agenda Template]]
  
Line 24: Line 23:
 
|X||Austin Kreisler||.||Charlie Mead||X||Ravi Natarajan||X||Helen Stevens
 
|X||Austin Kreisler||.||Charlie Mead||X||Ravi Natarajan||X||Helen Stevens
 
|-
 
|-
−
|.||John Quinn ||.||Ron Parker||.||Giorgio Cangioli||
+
|.||John Quinn ||.||Ron Parker||X||Giorgio Cangioli||
  
 
|-
 
|-
Line 35: Line 34:
 
|X||Ed Tripp||regrets||Woody Beeler||.||Calvin Beebe||X||Freida Hall
 
|X||Ed Tripp||regrets||Woody Beeler||.||Calvin Beebe||X||Freida Hall
 
|-
 
|-
−
|.||Mead Walker||X||Tony Julian||X||Pat van Dyke||.||Patrick Loyd
+
|X||Mead Walker||X||Tony Julian||X||Pat van Dyke||.||Patrick Loyd
 
|-
 
|-
 
|colspan="2" align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|''ex officio''
 
|colspan="2" align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|''ex officio''
Line 42: Line 41:
 
|colspan="2" align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|HL7 Staff
 
|colspan="2" align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|HL7 Staff
 
|-
 
|-
−
|.||Don Mon (HL7 Chair) w/vote||.||tba||.||''obs1''||regrets||Lynn Laakso
+
|.||Don Mon (HL7 Chair) w/vote||.||tba||X||Brian Pech||regrets||Lynn Laakso
 
|-
 
|-
−
|.||Bob Dolin (Vice Chair) <s>vote</s>||.||tba||.||''obs2''||.||Don Lloyd
+
|.||Bob Dolin (Vice Chair) <s>vote</s>||.||tba||X||Brett Marquard||X||Don Lloyd
 
|-
 
|-
 
|.||Chuck Jaffe (CEO) <s> vote</s>
 
|.||Chuck Jaffe (CEO) <s> vote</s>
Line 95: Line 94:
 
*.
 
*.
 
|}
 
|}
 +
===Minutes===
 +
#Minute Approval
 +
##Minute Correction:
 +
I’d like just to clarify the sense of my question concerning the “TSC Guidance on Ballot Levels”, I was not referring to “FHIR” (sentence “What about semantics for FHIR?”) but to the “Semantic Profiles” as defined within SFMs specification for the OMG/HL7 services (RLUS, IXS, …) supposed to be used for defining the semantic signifiers utilized within those services (so the question was “What about Semantic Profiles (foreseen by RLUS, IXS, …) ?”).(Most likely semantic profiles are “just” implementation guides).
 +
##'''VOTE''' (8-0-2)
 +
#Austin discussed ballot quality with 2.x publishing.  They will review V3 quality inititives and see it they can leverage same.
 +
#'''MOTION from Agenda'''Approve Virtual Medical Record (vMR) Domain Analysis Model for Clinical Decision Support
 +
#'''VOTE''' (10-0-0)
 +
#'''MOTION from Agenda'''Approve HL7 Version 3 Standard: Clinical Statement Pattern Release 1 DSTU Release 2, for Clinical Statement WG of SSD SD for 24 months
 +
#'''Vote''' (10-0-0)
 +
#Discussion: Proposed Ballot Close delays (Calvin Beebe)
 +
##Brett: Structured Documents(SD)  has a two ballots that are requesting extra time. 
 +
###QRDA planned to go to ballot on Friday, but have not finished the technical edits.  SD wishes to delay it one week.
 +
###Delaying Consolidation 4 weeks will allow:
 +
####Review of the S&I transitions of care analysis of Consolidation versus the NPRM
 +
####Development of new templates to support specific items in the NPRM
 +
####Support closer alignment of NPRM and Consolidation
 +
##Helen: What is the urgency?
 +
##Brett: The Issuance of the Notice of Proposed Rule Making is closing, and the final rule will be re-issued later this summer, or early fall. 
 +
##Helen: In that case I would like to see this identified as an out-of-cycle ballot, since it is driven by outside forces. 
 +
##Austin: What is our policy concerning open/close dates? 
 +
##Don: We can allow considerable flexibility.
 +
##Helen: Consistent cycles are for 1)it is difficult to produce publication if the dates vary. Can HQ manage the schedules? 2)Voter fatigue.  People have expectations of time to ballot.  I am uncomfortable with the delay.
 +
##Brett: There is a Standards and Interoperability framework, outside parties have gone to SD to ask them to include the extra items.
 +
##Austin: I agree with Helen - there are reasons for the rules.
 +
##Ravi: I am with Helen on this.  We should not set up a precedent even if publishing can flex to allow.
 +
##Austin: Need to establish a policy at the TSC.  Both requests have the same characteristic: They are driven by U.S. Realm requirements, and should be put on out-of-cycle balloting track.  They are implementations guides, and not integrated into the V3 infrastructure.  I think our policy should be that items like this should be on an out-of-cycle track.
 +
##Calvin: If it was part of the V3 publication package, there would be a burden on publishing.
 +
##Helen: If it did require V3 Infrastructure, it would be easy to say no.  There is still set-up work.
 +
##Don: Can extend the "cycle" open and close dates.  There is a problem with the announcements, and add an additional cycle.
 +
##Austin: We are seeing more of this U.S. Realm ballot cycle.
 +
##Calvin: If it slides a week, but closes prior to the WGM the current cycle is ok.  If it closes after the WGM, it should be a out-of-cycle.
 +
##Austin: What is the policy?  We dont want to apply to every case - and divorce from the V3 publishing infrastructure.  Should it be tied to outside influence?
 +
##Calvin: If it can close before the WGM, it keeps it in alignment with our other voting.
 +
##Austin: Within a week should be ok, outside that they need to come to the TSC.
 +
##Helen: Should the week be approved automatically?
 +
##Austin: Yes
 +
##Ravi: No
 +
##Helen: Publishing should make the decision, and if questionable consult the TSC.
 +
##Ravi Left.
 +
##'''MOTION'''That if a request to change a ballot open or close date by a week or less from the previously approved dates, while preserving the thirty-day minimum requirement and meets with the approval of the publishing committee, it goes forward, otherwise it must come to the TSC as an out-of-cycle request.(Beebe/Helen)
 +
##'''VOTE'''(9-0-0)
 +
##Austin: Publishing can determine the request for th QRDA - the out-of-cycle for "Consolidated" needs to be sent to TSC.
 +
#Strategic Initiatives TSC Dashboard
 +
##No update
 +
#Ballot Guidance
 +
##Frieda: Someone outside of HL7 came to HIMS and asked how to bring items.  We need language to explain modal verbs.
 +
##Austin: Need to folded into project scope statement document.
 +
##Frieda: Missing word in first sentence of "Domain Analysis Models"
 +
##Austin: The word is developed - Tony edited.
 +
##Austin: Sematic profiles are not included in the document.
 +
##Austin: SOA needs to work with MnM to figure out where they fit.  If it is in here, maybe we dont understand where.
 +
##Helen: Maybe Giorgio could bring an example for the next call.
 +
##Mead: SOA and MnM need to get together.
 +
##Charlie: THe notion of what a semantic profile is as defined the HL7 SAIF Architecture Implementation guide.
 +
##Austin: SOA and MnM need to get together to discuss where it fits in.  Once it is mature enough we can decide what needs to be changed.
 +
##'''MOTION''' to approve the Ballot Guidance and forward to PS. (Ed/Helen)
 +
##'''VOTE''' (10-0-0)
  
 +
#Adjournment at 11:58 U.S. Eastern
 +
[[User:A julian|A julian]] 20:04, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
  
 
© 2012 Health Level Seven® International.  All rights reserved.
 
© 2012 Health Level Seven® International.  All rights reserved.

Revision as of 20:04, 2 April 2012

TSC Agenda/Minutes

Meeting Info/Attendees

HL7 TSC Meeting Minutes

Location: call 770-657-9270 using code 985371#
GoToMeeting ID: 165-215-206

Date: 2012-04-02
Time: 11:00 AM U.S. Eastern
Facilitator: Austin Kreisler Note taker(s): Tony Julian
Quorum = chair + 5 including 2 SD represented Yes
Chair/CTO ArB International Affiliate Rep Ad-Hoc
X Austin Kreisler . Charlie Mead X Ravi Natarajan X Helen Stevens
. John Quinn . Ron Parker X Giorgio Cangioli
Domain Experts Foundation and Technology Structure and Semantic Design Technical and Support Services
X Ed Tripp regrets Woody Beeler . Calvin Beebe X Freida Hall
X Mead Walker X Tony Julian X Pat van Dyke . Patrick Loyd
ex officio Invited Guests Observers HL7 Staff
. Don Mon (HL7 Chair) w/vote . tba X Brian Pech regrets Lynn Laakso
. Bob Dolin (Vice Chair) vote . tba X Brett Marquard X Don Lloyd
. Chuck Jaffe (CEO) vote . tba . . .

Agenda

Agenda Topics

  1. Introduction of visitors (including declaration of interests)
  2. Agenda review and approval - Austin Kreisler
  3. Approve Minutes of 2012-03-26 TSC Call Agenda
  4. Review action items –
    • Austin to discuss ballot quality for SI Criteria with publishing
  5. Approval items:
  6. Discussion topics:
    • TSC issue # 2235 Proposed ballot close delays (Calvin):
      • QRDA 1-week. New open date of 4/13, new close date is 5/13
      • Consolidation 2-4 weeks. If SDWG takes the full 4 weeks the new open will be 5/4.
    • Update on Strategic Initiatives TSC Dashboard updates (Mead, Patrick)
  7. Reports: (attach written reports below from Steering Divisions et al.)
  8. Open Issues List
    • Tracker # 1815 TSC to develop guidelines on what should be Informative vs. DSTU vs. Normative; last week's Ballot Guidance.
      • DAMs Previously published as DSTU
      • Need also to identify criteria for why some EHR FPs are informative (Vital Records) and some are normative (Behavioral Health)

Supporting Documents

  • See links

Minutes

Minutes/Conclusions Reached:


Please don't forget to hang up from the conference call (VOIP users)

Next Steps

Actions (Include Owner, Action Item, and due date)
  • .
Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items
  • .

Minutes

  1. Minute Approval
    1. Minute Correction:

I’d like just to clarify the sense of my question concerning the “TSC Guidance on Ballot Levels”, I was not referring to “FHIR” (sentence “What about semantics for FHIR?”) but to the “Semantic Profiles” as defined within SFMs specification for the OMG/HL7 services (RLUS, IXS, …) supposed to be used for defining the semantic signifiers utilized within those services (so the question was “What about Semantic Profiles (foreseen by RLUS, IXS, …) ?”).(Most likely semantic profiles are “just” implementation guides).

    1. VOTE (8-0-2)
  2. Austin discussed ballot quality with 2.x publishing. They will review V3 quality inititives and see it they can leverage same.
  3. MOTION from AgendaApprove Virtual Medical Record (vMR) Domain Analysis Model for Clinical Decision Support
  4. VOTE (10-0-0)
  5. MOTION from AgendaApprove HL7 Version 3 Standard: Clinical Statement Pattern Release 1 DSTU Release 2, for Clinical Statement WG of SSD SD for 24 months
  6. Vote (10-0-0)
  7. Discussion: Proposed Ballot Close delays (Calvin Beebe)
    1. Brett: Structured Documents(SD) has a two ballots that are requesting extra time.
      1. QRDA planned to go to ballot on Friday, but have not finished the technical edits. SD wishes to delay it one week.
      2. Delaying Consolidation 4 weeks will allow:
        1. Review of the S&I transitions of care analysis of Consolidation versus the NPRM
        2. Development of new templates to support specific items in the NPRM
        3. Support closer alignment of NPRM and Consolidation
    2. Helen: What is the urgency?
    3. Brett: The Issuance of the Notice of Proposed Rule Making is closing, and the final rule will be re-issued later this summer, or early fall.
    4. Helen: In that case I would like to see this identified as an out-of-cycle ballot, since it is driven by outside forces.
    5. Austin: What is our policy concerning open/close dates?
    6. Don: We can allow considerable flexibility.
    7. Helen: Consistent cycles are for 1)it is difficult to produce publication if the dates vary. Can HQ manage the schedules? 2)Voter fatigue. People have expectations of time to ballot. I am uncomfortable with the delay.
    8. Brett: There is a Standards and Interoperability framework, outside parties have gone to SD to ask them to include the extra items.
    9. Austin: I agree with Helen - there are reasons for the rules.
    10. Ravi: I am with Helen on this. We should not set up a precedent even if publishing can flex to allow.
    11. Austin: Need to establish a policy at the TSC. Both requests have the same characteristic: They are driven by U.S. Realm requirements, and should be put on out-of-cycle balloting track. They are implementations guides, and not integrated into the V3 infrastructure. I think our policy should be that items like this should be on an out-of-cycle track.
    12. Calvin: If it was part of the V3 publication package, there would be a burden on publishing.
    13. Helen: If it did require V3 Infrastructure, it would be easy to say no. There is still set-up work.
    14. Don: Can extend the "cycle" open and close dates. There is a problem with the announcements, and add an additional cycle.
    15. Austin: We are seeing more of this U.S. Realm ballot cycle.
    16. Calvin: If it slides a week, but closes prior to the WGM the current cycle is ok. If it closes after the WGM, it should be a out-of-cycle.
    17. Austin: What is the policy? We dont want to apply to every case - and divorce from the V3 publishing infrastructure. Should it be tied to outside influence?
    18. Calvin: If it can close before the WGM, it keeps it in alignment with our other voting.
    19. Austin: Within a week should be ok, outside that they need to come to the TSC.
    20. Helen: Should the week be approved automatically?
    21. Austin: Yes
    22. Ravi: No
    23. Helen: Publishing should make the decision, and if questionable consult the TSC.
    24. Ravi Left.
    25. MOTIONThat if a request to change a ballot open or close date by a week or less from the previously approved dates, while preserving the thirty-day minimum requirement and meets with the approval of the publishing committee, it goes forward, otherwise it must come to the TSC as an out-of-cycle request.(Beebe/Helen)
    26. VOTE(9-0-0)
    27. Austin: Publishing can determine the request for th QRDA - the out-of-cycle for "Consolidated" needs to be sent to TSC.
  8. Strategic Initiatives TSC Dashboard
    1. No update
  9. Ballot Guidance
    1. Frieda: Someone outside of HL7 came to HIMS and asked how to bring items. We need language to explain modal verbs.
    2. Austin: Need to folded into project scope statement document.
    3. Frieda: Missing word in first sentence of "Domain Analysis Models"
    4. Austin: The word is developed - Tony edited.
    5. Austin: Sematic profiles are not included in the document.
    6. Austin: SOA needs to work with MnM to figure out where they fit. If it is in here, maybe we dont understand where.
    7. Helen: Maybe Giorgio could bring an example for the next call.
    8. Mead: SOA and MnM need to get together.
    9. Charlie: THe notion of what a semantic profile is as defined the HL7 SAIF Architecture Implementation guide.
    10. Austin: SOA and MnM need to get together to discuss where it fits in. Once it is mature enough we can decide what needs to be changed.
    11. MOTION to approve the Ballot Guidance and forward to PS. (Ed/Helen)
    12. VOTE (10-0-0)
  1. Adjournment at 11:58 U.S. Eastern

A julian 20:04, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

© 2012 Health Level Seven® International. All rights reserved.

Retrieved from "https://tscwiki.hl7.org/w/index.php?title=2012-04-02_TSC_Call_Minutes&oldid=9523"