2014-06-30 TSC Call Agenda

From HL7 TSC
Revision as of 15:34, 7 July 2014 by Llaakso (talk | contribs) (Undo revision 13704 by Llaakso (talk))
(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: 2014-06-30
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 x Jean Duteau regrets Austin Kreisler
x John Quinn x Lorraine Constable x Giorgio Cangioli .
Domain Experts Foundation and Technology Structure and Semantic Design Technical and Support Services
x Melva Peters regrets Woody Beeler x 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 . x Ed Helton x Lynn Laakso
. Don Mon (Vice Chair) vote . . . obs2 .
. Chuck Jaffe (CEO) vote . . . .

Agenda

Housekeeping

  1. Introduction of visitors (including declaration of interests)
  2. Agenda review and approval -
  3. Approve Minutes of 2014-06-23 TSC Call Agenda and 2014-06-16 TSC Call Agenda

Governance

  1. Approval items:
    • BRIDG Model v4.0 PSS - Requesting approval to proceed to Comment Only Ballot in September (Jean Duteau, Ed Helton) - per TRAC recommendation, projects more than 7 days past PSS deadline need TSC approval to proceed to ballot. Project approval is still pending.

Management

  1. Review action items –
    • Paul will edit and bring back updates to our naming conventions and DSTU release guidance.
    • 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
    • Woody will craft a motion for the TSC position statement on new projects using R2B (for June 7)
    • Lorraine/Tony/Andy - Take the Conformance definition back to the ArB and compare it to what's in SAIF
      • 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.
    • Paul will send out an email with an update on the GS1 issues.
  2. Approval items for e-vote next week:
  3. Projects pending input:
  4. Discussion topics:
    • Status of problem identification and response between HL7 and GS1 (P. Knapp)
      • J. Quinn suggests: 1 week: flag as yellow; 2 weeks: flag as red
    • Determine the next 2-4 profiles for Conformance Testing (candidate topics: LRI, CDA R2, EHR-S FM, EHR-S FPs).
  5. Homework for July 7: Help Desk Escalation process document (the step that involves engaging the Work Groups in answering the questions),
  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
  7. Reports:
  8. Open Issues List

Minutes

Minutes/Conclusions Reached:

  1. Introduction of visitors (including declaration of interests) Ed Helton of BRIDG and RCRIM WGs
  2. Agenda review and approval - added the conformance statements from prior agendas
  3. Approve Minutes of 2014-06-23 TSC Call Agenda and 2014-06-16 TSC Call Agenda no objections: approved by general consent

Governance

  1. Approval items:
    • BRIDG Model v4.0 PSS - Requesting approval to proceed to Comment Only Ballot in September (Jean Duteau, Ed Helton) - per TRAC recommendation, projects more than 7 days past PSS deadline need TSC approval to proceed to ballot. Project approval at DESD is still pending. Melva describes the issue. Ed adds that it is comment-only ballot. Jean and Lorraine voice their support. Motion: Melva moves and Lorraine seconds approval to proceed to September ballot. Vote: unanimously approved.

Management

  1. Review action items –
    • Paul will edit and bring back updates to our naming conventions and DSTU release guidance.
      • Paul narrates a document on adding FHIR ballot protocol specification names and discussion of IGs with relation to release naming of the base standard. Comparison to CDA R2 IGs discussed. Paul reviews the notion of FHIR profile naming and its relationship to a particular release.
      • Backwards-compatibility indication within dot-releases reviewed with Freida noting that full release backwards compatibility might be constrained by ANSI requirements.
      • Paul notes that he has not yet reviewed this with FGB. With further review let's discuss after FMG reviews, return to agenda July 14th.
      • Freida further notes that there is already a change for 12.02.03.03 for allowing reference to the TSC policy and guidance that this can be commented upon in peer review.
      • Other concerns about dot release naming being ignored by ANSI and review of the spreadsheet that was discussed at the May WGM. Review this further on the 14th also.
    • Paul will send out an email with an update on the GS1 issues.
      • Paul describes work going on with V2 and harmonization efforts on the UDI representation pattern. Changes are anticipated as late as next week. Draft was submitted for harmonization on time, final will be submitted this week but changes are still anticipated. No objections were raised.
      • Paul notes that there is no one Work Group stewarding this document/proposal. Motion: Paul moves that TSC take the UDI harmonization proposal to harmonization in July, seconded by John Quinn. Vote: Unanimously approved.
      • Paul further reports that the TSC/GS1 conference call last Friday was well represented. Discussion was productive and by the 7th they will expect a response on functional equivalence allowing a choice of representation that would not jeopardize safety. Paul will email the summary after they hear on the 7th prior to the TSC meeting on the 14th for review before harmonization. Paul further expects there will be additional discussions at the September WGM.
    • 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
    • Woody will craft a motion for the TSC position statement on new projects using R2B (for July 7)
    • Lorraine/Tony/Andy - Take the Conformance definition back to the ArB and compare it to what's in SAIF - also 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.
      • Definition from TSC:
        • 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.
      • Comparisons to SAIF CD references provided by Lorraine. Freida notes that the TSC Strategic Initiatives dashboard effort needed a definition of conformance for measurement towards the SI. General agreement on the definition of conformance from SAIF CD - Conformance: "Conformance relates an implementation to a standard. Any proposition that is true of the specification must be true in its implementation. (ISO, 2010)". Rob Snelick was the CGIT representative. Motion: Accept the *Implementation guide definition and replace the conformance definition with that from the SAIF CD by Freida Seconded by Lorraine. Vote: unanimously approved.
  2. Jean leaves.
  3. Outstanding questions on the birth defects PSS that slipped through the cracks with a NIB. They submitted the project scope statement on time so they are eligible for the NIB but the outstanding e-vote will delay approval by the Steering Division.
  4. Approval items for e-vote next week:
  5. Projects pending input:
  6. Discussion topics:
    • Status of problem identification and response between HL7 and GS1 (P. Knapp) discussed above
    • Determine the next 2-4 profiles for Conformance Testing (candidate topics: LRI, CDA R2, EHR-S FM, EHR-S FPs). SurveyMonkey results will be available soon.
  7. Homework for July 7: Help Desk Escalation process document (the step that involves engaging the Work Groups in answering the questions),
  8. 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?
        • For measurement of those enrollees that don't return a vote this might be meaningful. Do we want to measure only from that point of change, going forward. Austin also felt that we had not reviewed enough ballots to fully indicate ballot quality, notes Pat.
      • TRAC report/recommendation on governance metric for project scope statements submitted late for deadlinein last 18 months there were very few PSSes delayed beyond 7 days. While it was reviewed for potential of metrics measurement but it seems that it is not needed. TRAC will continue to review as potential 'vitality trigger'.
      • Next think TRAC hopes to monitor is timeliness of submissions for NIBs. Reporting available to Don on NIB submission does not make it an easy task.
  9. Reports:

Adjourned 11:54 AM

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=2014-06-30_TSC_Call_Agenda&oldid=13705"