2012-12-17 TSC Call Agenda

From HL7 TSC
Revision as of 17:44, 17 December 2012 by Llaakso (talk | contribs)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

TSC Agenda/Minutes

Meeting Info/Attendees

HL7 TSC Meeting Minutes

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

Date: 2012-12-17
Time: 11:00 AM U.S. Eastern
Facilitator: Austin Kreisler Note taker(s): Lynn Laakso
Quorum = chair + 5 including 2 SD represented yes
Chair/CTO ArB International Affiliate Rep Ad-Hoc
x Austin Kreisler x Charlie Mead . Ravi Natarajan regrets Jean Duteau
. John Quinn regrets Ron Parker x Giorgio Cangioli x Melva Peters
. . . . x Andy Stechishin
Domain Experts Foundation and Technology Structure and Semantic Design Technical and Support Services
x Ed Tripp x Woody Beeler checked in
and then out		 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 x Lenel James, EHR x Brian Pech x Lynn Laakso
. Bob Dolin (Vice Chair) vote x Harold Solbrig, Vocab . .
. Chuck Jaffe (CEO) vote . . . .

Agenda

Housekeeping

  1. Introduction of visitors (including declaration of interests)
  2. Agenda review and approval - Austin Kreisler
  3. Approve Minutes of 2012-12-10 TSC Call Agenda

Governance

  1. Approval items:
  2. Discussion topics:
    • Datatypes Task Force recommendation: review and feedback on ICSR. Mead reports: ...it went normative using data types R1, and that there is no current project for a next release. I do suspect, however, that when implementers come on board, and start coming up with new requirements that will lay the groundwork for needing a next release that there will be interest in moving forward with a R1.1 data types spec. Why? This would enable compatibility with any implementations in the field, and with other specifications such as SPL, CDA implementations for subject data, and the structured document spec for study design.
    • TSC Recommendations on Reballoting Standards

Management

  1. Review action items –
    • Austin will offer suggestions via email to develop a statement of the relationship between the HTA and the TSC
  2. Approval items:
  3. Discussion topics:
  4. Reports: (attach written reports below from Steering Divisions et al.)
    • Activities with Other SDOs
    • Risk Assessment Task Force Update
    • FGB/FMG update
    • January WGM Registration at 305!
  5. Open Issues List


Supporting Documents

  • See links

Minutes

Minutes/Conclusions Reached:

Convene 11:04 AM ET

  1. Introduction of visitors (including declaration of interests) Lenel and Brian are joining us today. Harold joins for CTS2.
  2. Agenda review and approval - Austin Kreisler; move BlueButton and all of Management section up on the agenda for Lenel's convenience. Following that will be CTS2 discussion with Harold.
  3. Approve Minutes of 2012-12-10 TSC Call Agenda – Freida abstains, passed 7/0/1

Management

    • Review EHR_CCD2BLUEBUTTON for release - Lenel James (see PI#843)
      • Review user guide
      • Lenel reviews the history of BlueButton®. The transform is an XSLT stylesheet to convert CDA/CCD into BlueButton ASCII files. Structured Documents, EHR, and Tooling have all endorsed.
      • Austin adds this is the tool developed with an approved HL7 project and we're being asked to endorse this as an HL7 tool, though it's not balloted material.
      • Ed asks if we're being asked to endorse the final product, is there a summary of testing against requirements? The requirements are in the tool zip file, and the appendix in the user guide has the inputs to the testing and the outputs are in the zip. Tool is also clearly offered with no warranty by HL7 in the license. Its value is $250k for large organizations and we're giving it to members at no cost.
      • Motion: Woody moves and Pat seconds endorsement by the TSC. Vote: Unanimously approved. Woody commends Lenel for the concise and complete presentation.
  2. Approval items:
    • Project Scope Statement approval for CTS 2 incorporation of SVS, at PI#946 and TSC Tracker #2422, for Vocab WG of FTSD
      • Austin conveys confusion on whether the scope indicates change to CTS2. Harold notes that the title may be a source of confusion. It's not an incorporation but the intent is for Shared Value Sets (SVS) spec used by ONC and MU, and CTS2 Resolved Value Sets to resolve how they serve an identical task but with different XML schemas, SOAP and REST signatures. They need a mapping between the schemas. Harold notes that within HL7 it is appropriate for the CTS2 side to initiate the mapping. The resulting specification will be submitted to OMG as an addendum to the spec.
      • Giorgio asks regarding the PSM perspective within OMG. Harold notes that the SVS is published by IHE community and interested parties are more closely aligned under HL7 umbrella.
      • Ravi asks about validation procedures for the bidirectional nature of the transform. How does the fast track process accommodate changes? They are targeting the SVS in use today by MU eMeasures published by NLM and the CTS2 is a completed standard and not about to change. The document should be revised if changes to the standard occur.
      • Austin asks which version of CTS2 this adheres to. We have an expired DSTU and a normative ballot in progress. They refer to the CTS specification issued by OMG. Austin notes that the CTS2 specification is a non-HL7 artifact. Woody notes that the object produced by OMG is created from source from HL7, then OMG does their thing, and then HL7 will ballot the CTSr2 normative. Harold adds that the original project produced a set of requirements, the specification from OMG is the proposed solution to the set of requirements and the HL7 normative process creates the conformance profiles for the HL7 documents. Austin notes the artifacts the project is mapping between are non-HL7 artifacts, the IHE SVS and the CTS2 OMG PIM. Harold notes that the CTS2 PIM is an OMG/HL7 artifact.
      • Austin reviews the products indicated on the PSS. It is not part of the HL7 document paradigm. Neither of the XML schemas are officially in the HL7 space so the mapping between them doesn't easily fit any of the HL7 products. Andy suggests new product definition. Woody asks if it's Web Services. Other SOA products don't fit well under V3 Services anyway.
      • Ballot type indicated as Normative; perhaps it should be informative.
      • Ravi asks if this is mapping between the material on the OMG side of CTS2 or the HL7 side. Harold notes it is mapping a product produced by OMG jointly with HL7 to the product of IHE work. Woody notes that it's also part of the IHE relationship with HL7. Austin asks Harold to clarify any copyright issues with OMG or IHE with publication and report back.
      • Motion: Woody moves and Pat seconds approval with amendments discussed. Vote: unanimously approved.
  3. Review action items –

Governance

  1. Discussion topics:
    • Datatypes Task Force recommendation: review and feedback on ICSR. Mead reports: ...it went normative using data types R1, and that there is no current project for a next release. I do suspect, however, that when implementers come on board, and start coming up with new requirements that will lay the groundwork for needing a next release that there will be interest in moving forward with a R1.1 data types spec. Why? This would enable compatibility with any implementations in the field, and with other specifications such as SPL, CDA implementations for subject data, and the structured document spec for study design.
      • see wiki page
      • Austin summarized the email exchange with Mead indicated ICSR is not part of the forked community but can appeal for inclusion at some point in future if needed. The only standard on the R2B fork would be SPL and potentially CPM on both forks. Lynn asks if there is already a publication request for R2B. There is not, and there are many steps remaining to the creation of it. Motion: Woody moves acceptance of the recommendation with SPL only on the fork and CMETs from CPM as well as on the R2 fork. Pat seconds. Vote: unanimously approved. Austin thanks the Task Force members for their work on this. Ed will let the FDA folks know they will sit tight until it's reviewed by John and the Board.
  2. Discussion topics:
    • Alignment of SOA M&C update with SAIF principles – Charlie Mead
      • Charlie noted that though he wasn't able to attend the TSC last week he found that the recent update to the SOA M&C has missed opportunity to align themselves with SAIF as SFM are the conceptual level models in SAIF and the traceability through the conceptual to implementable levels. ArB voted unanimously to inform TSC the SOA M&C needs revision and that TSC should recommend all WG's M&C revisions be aligned with SAIF. Someone from ArB will attend a SOA WG meeting to recommend revisions.
      • Austin notes that there is a GOM change pending to allow TSC to hear appeals of either approval or disapproval of M&C by a Steering Division. Woody apologizes for the SD not catching it.
      • Motion: Charlie moves the TSC recommend the ArB work with SOA to revise their M&C to reflect compliance with SAIF. Woody seconds. Vote: unanimously approved.
      • Continue discussion of review of all WG M&C for SAIF compliance later, perhaps in respect to M&C. Roll onto the agenda for the 31st. Ed suggests adding it to the boilerplate for M&C and have everyone go through a revision.
  3. Reports: (attach written reports below from Steering Divisions et al.)
    • January WGM Registration at 305!

No meeting next week – see you the 31st. Adjourned 12:03 PM

Next Steps

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



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

Retrieved from "https://tscwiki.hl7.org/w/index.php?title=2012-12-17_TSC_Call_Agenda&oldid=10740"