2014-06-09 TSC Call Agenda

From HL7 TSC
Revision as of 16:45, 9 June 2014 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#
NEW GoToMeeting ID: 426-505-829

Date: 2014-06-09
Time: 11:00 AM U.S. Eastern
Facilitator: Ken McCaslin Note taker(s): Lynn Laakso
Quorum = chair + 5 including 2 SD represented yes
Chair/CTO ArB International Affiliate Rep Ad-Hoc
x Ken McCaslin x Tony Julian . Jean Duteau x Austin Kreisler
x John Quinn x Lorraine Constable x Giorgio Cangioli .
Domain Experts Foundation and Technology Structure and Semantic Design Technical and Support Services
. Melva Peters x Woody Beeler . Calvin Beebe x Freida Hall
x John Roberts x Paul Knapp x Pat van Dyke x Andy Stechishin
ex officio Invited Guests Observers HL7 Staff
. Stan Huff (HL7 Chair) w/vote . . obs1 x Lynn Laakso
. Don Mon (Vice Chair) vote . . . obs2 x Dave Hamill
. Chuck Jaffe (CEO) vote . . . .

Agenda

Housekeeping

  1. Introduction of visitors (including declaration of interests)
  2. Agenda review and approval -
  3. Approve Minutes of 2014-06-02 TSC Call Agenda

Management

  1. Review action items –
    • TSC Definition of Domain Analysis Models and Functional Profiles TSC Tracker 2165 (Pat and Tony)
    • Ken will send survey on conformance profile development to Karen to issue the survey to her list.
    • Woody report back on collaboration with ARB and MnM to narrow the scope of the SAIF IG to allow completion of the project in a reasonable period of time.
    • 2585 Define list of machine-processable artifacts for membership benefit - Ken will follow up with Stan on who is the Marketing committee chair and the Board's intent with the list
    • Freida will draft PSS for Positioning Security Risk Analysis standard within HL7 and circulate to TSC; next steps?
  2. Approval items referred for discussion:
    • Mission and Charter Statement Update for FGB
      • [FHall] Can we clarify statements below see ** comments they are unclear:
        1. FGB will identify an FGB cochair unless otherwise designated by FGB to act as TSC liaison and attend the TSC meetings to escalate product issues and bring recommendations back to the FGB. ** we have other precedent for a group to elect its co-chair, what does ‘identify’ and ‘designated’ mean; also seems in conflict with statement further down “The FGB will select two co-chairs from the group for staggered two year terms.” Consider changing ‘select’ to ‘elect’ for consistency with other HL7 processes.
        2. In lieu of the CTO, a Product Director would be a member to facilitate participation in the enterprise-wide product strategy. ** Who are “Product Director”s?
        3. Each member should have expertise in HL7 governance processes ** What does mean, they read ‘x’ documents, have ‘x’ experience? Please clarify.
    • Project Approval request of Provenance for Clinical Document Architecture (CDA R2) Documents Implementation Guide for CBCC WG of DESD at Project Insight # 1093 and TSC Tracker #3314
      • The realm has not been identified, but given its focus on S&I and US based participants, it needs to be a US Realm project (Austin)
      • PSS says ONC and HL7 have agreement in place but it is not on the Agreements page – maybe in process? (Freida)
  3. Approval items from e-vote: Approved 6/0/0 with Ad-Hoc, 2 Affiliate, ARB, FTSD, and T3SD voting.
  4. Projects pending input:
  5. Discussion topics:
    • BAM review (Tony)
    • Review of definition of 'implementation guide' and 'conformance'
      • Final Definitions
        • Implementation Guide
          An implementation guide is often created to organize a collection of conformance profiles, functional requirement specifications, or templates for specifying a set of related interactions described in a use case or use cases. Implementation guides typically describe broader conformance requirements such as application behavior. Such requirements may include how a set of interactions (messages, documents, etc.) are to be used to enact certain application functionality among applications (actors).
        • Conformance
          Conformance is defined as the fulfillment of a product, process, or service of specified requirements [ISO-17000, OASIS]. The concept of conformance is essential to any standard for providing an objective measure of how closely implementations satisfy the requirements defined in the standard.
    • Review of action item to define relationship between help desk and WG cochairs
    • WG Health – Impact on SD project approval
    • Determine the next 2-4 profiles for Conformance Testing (candidate topics: LRI, CDA R2, EHR-S FM, EHR-S FPs).
  6. Reports: (attach written reports below from Steering Divisions et al.)
    • TRAC:
      • Would measurements from before and after the changed process to disallow a single check box to enroll in all of the ballots be meaningful for ballot quality assessment?
      • TRAC report/recommendation on governance metric for project scope statements submitted late for deadline
    • Co-chair deadline awareness
  7. Open Issues List

Minutes

Minutes/Conclusions Reached:

  1. Introduction of visitors (including declaration of interests) convened at 11:04 AM
  2. Agenda review and approval -
  3. Approve Minutes of 2014-06-02 TSC Call Agenda Approved by general consent

Management

  1. Review action items –
    • TSC Definition of Domain Analysis Models and Functional Profiles TSC Tracker 2165 (Pat and Tony)
      • DAM has been balloted and reconciled towards getting the definition "approved"
      • As a "next step" for ARB on DAMs, Calvin, Jean and Lorraine were to look at instances of DAM for how definition applies.
      • FPs are a third thread - this definition is different, while they submitted a definition of profiles and the definition of "functional profiles" were different. Lorraine notes that ARB looked at EHR's Functional profiles in that context but other profiles were not represented. Functional Profiles as referenced in the SAIF CD also exist.
      • Next step: publish definition of DAM and separate out the definition of FPs to a separate issue. Pat will update the FP definition with suggestions and recirculate; add to September agenda with Pat to speak to the topic.
    • Ken will send survey on conformance profile development to Karen to issue the survey to her list. Lynn will resend the email to Ken.
    • Woody report back on collaboration with ARB and MnM to narrow the scope of the SAIF IG to allow completion of the project in a reasonable period of time. This has not advanced; let's terminate the project. Woody moves closure and Paul seconds - unanimously approved.
    • 2585 Define list of machine-processable artifacts for membership benefit - Ken will follow up with Stan on who is the Marketing committee chair and the Board's intent with the list - Ken is waiting for marketing person to come on to staff prior to reaching out - defer.
    • Freida will draft PSS for Positioning Security Risk Analysis standard within HL7 and circulate to TSC; next steps?
      • PSS reviewed. Would like to have the updates in a dot-release of the PSS so the initial 2014 release of the PSS can be issued. Freida would like to take it to the Steering Division before final approval. TSC can approve in-committee and circulate for further review. Paul notes there were some changes needed - change implementable for executable. Change ITS for Schema? But if you are supposed to create schema for all standards this will apply to too many things to be useful. In which situation do we want the users to do a security risk assessment. Remove specificity to section 3.d and allow the project team to further evaluate what needs to be added to the PSS template section 3. Paul moves and Pat seconds approval "in-committee". Unanimously approved.
  2. Approval items referred for discussion:
    • Mission and Charter Statement Update for FGB
      1. FGB will identify an FGB cochair unless otherwise designated by FGB to act as TSC liaison and attend the TSC meetings to escalate product issues and bring recommendations back to the FGB. FGB co-chairs act as liaison to TSC, one of which currently is a member of TSC - remove "unless otherwise designated by FGB". Also, “The FGB will select two co-chairs from the group for staggered two year terms.” Consider changing ‘select’ to ‘elect’ for consistency with other HL7 processes.
      2. In lieu of the CTO, a Product Director would be a member to facilitate participation in the enterprise-wide product strategy. ** Who are “Product Director”s? Effectively this is John Quinn right now but has not materialized other than a role defined in the BAM for someone to maintain awareness of the whole product suite.
      3. Each member should have expertise in HL7 governance processes ** This was left deliberately vague. Woody suggests the FGB take it back and work on it this afternoon and bring it back again.
    • Project Approval request of Provenance for Clinical Document Architecture (CDA R2) Documents Implementation Guide for CBCC WG of DESD at Project Insight # 1093 and TSC Tracker #3314
      • The realm has not been identified, but given its focus on S&I and US based participants, it needs to be a US Realm project (Austin) - updated version of the scope statement notes it is indeed US Realm. It was reviewed by US Realm Task Force on 4/29.
      • PSS says ONC and HL7 have agreement in place but it is not on the Agreements page – maybe in process? (Freida) - ONC has started re-organizing and so agreements that are already in flight are on hold until after next week.
      • Wearing his SDWG hat, Austin is still uncomfortable with this. They feel this suggests changes to the underlying standard coming up at the harmonization meeting for value sets in CDA R2. Harmonization deadline is in 6 days. SDWG is not a cosponsor and it has not been presented to the SDWG. Woody notes that there is no groundwork laid for this process as he's unaware of what changes they intend to make. During a discussion on CDA R2.1 Kathleen reported their intent to propose changes to the base value sets. Motion: John Roberts moves and Lorraine seconds sending this back to CBCC and ensure they have review and participation with SDWG. Woody further notes that they cannot make changes to value sets in CDA R2 without reballoting CDA R2. Placement in CBCC versus sponsorship by SDWG discussed. CBCC work with consent directives dealing with implementation of security principles and standards. Involvement with the steward of the management of the technology for implementation in SDWG is just common sense. Vote: unanimously approved. Lynn will forward back to cochairs and let them know of the TSC concern and their timeliness for preparation of harmonization proposal is also of concern.
  3. Projects pending input:
    • Project Approval request of Common Product Model (CPM) Release 2 Normative and Structured Product Labeling (SPL) Release 6 Normative for OO of SSD SD cosponsored by RCRIM of DESD at Project Insight # 1114 and TSC Tracker #3306
      • Jean had questions on R2B datatypes. This is the only standards development permitted to use R2B, notes Paul, and they would require TSC approval. R2B passed ballot Jan 2013 and is only expected to live 5 years. What does it mean that R2B will live for 5 years, where they are allowed to be included in other specifications who will then have their own 5 year life span, or do we close the 5 year envelope on all projects using R2B, where this project's normative life span would end in 3 years instead. Is the rest of the world making progress towards moving to Datatypes R2 or is this still needed for the market.
      • Freida expresses her perception that the entire R2B package would only be out there as a migration path and not exist after 5 years total lifetime. Discussion ensued. Will a CPM R2 re-set the clock for the five year deadline? Does the TSC wish to clarify what the intent was when the decision was made notes Andy. Are people making progress towards R2? ITS is not aware of many folks that have made the migration to R2. Do we change the statement to read that it is only for the life of the R2B data types specification not for the entire 5 years.
      • The CPM spec is an R2 spec but for SPL we publish an R2B schema to be used for migration. Lynn shows http://wiki.hl7.org/index.php?title=MnM_Minutes_CC_20110302#Plan_response_to_ITS_Project_Proposal_for_Data_Tapes_ITS_R2B. Woody will review.
      • Austin suggests we regard it as a new product petitioning the TSC to use R2B and the TSC must rule whether we allow this new product, related to a prior product that already uses R2B. Andy notes that the 5 years was a TSC discussion and would be in their minutes.
      • While it may not require changes to the PSS, the limitations the TSC would impose on the project need clarifications and Woody will craft a motion for the TSC position statement.
      • Woody moves and Andy seconds approval. Unanimously approved.
    • Lorraine referred the Devices project because some of the resources that Devices has in the scope of their project are 'owned' by OO and they are not cosponsors. FMG to review on Weds. Keep on agenda for next week.

Being past time, call adjourned 12:03 PM. Defer remaining agenda items.


Next Steps

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


© 2014 Health Level Seven® International. All rights reserved.

Retrieved from "https://tscwiki.hl7.org/w/index.php?title=2014-06-09_TSC_Call_Agenda&oldid=13536"