20071102 Conference Call Minutes

Agenda and Minutes for the Domain experts Steering Division

November 2, 2007 1-3pm ET Phone Number: 702-894-2444 Participant Passcode: 5874338 Moderator Passcode: 4273

Agenda

Role call and introduction of participants

• Jim Case Domain Experts, Chair
• Austin Kriesler LabSIG, Domain Experts Alternate
• Robert Hallowell, Pharmacy
• Ed Tripp, RCRIM
• Ed Helton, RCRIM
• Jim McCain, Government Projects
• Michelle Williamson, PHER
• Penny Sanchez, Attachments
• Mike Cassidy, Attachments
• Kristie Eckerson, PHER
• Richard Thorason, CBCC
• Gary Cruickshank, Imaging Integration
• Ken McCaslin, Lab

Access to domain experts list

All members on the conference have been getting emails sent on this list

TSC wiki and Domain experts section

The link to the site was provided to the participants

Review of the TSC documents

The SD members were directed to the TSC Wiki site to review the current status of the documents under discussion by the TSC/

Review SD decision making practices

Quorum – for this meeting, accepted as participants until the decision making practices have not been adopted. Quorum limits – 50% of constituent workgroups/committees. Vote: 10 For/0 Against/0 Abstain

Action: Need to add a mechanism to conduct email votes on issues that need to be addressed without calling a meeting. Quorum rules for email votes would still apply. Process for handling multiple votes from a single workgroup needs to be added to the DMPs.

Appointment of ARB committee representative

The TSC has requested one member from each steering division to participate on the Architectural Review Board. Appointments to the ARB would normally be for 2 years; however, the initial appointments will be divided into 1 year and 2 year terms. Decision making practices for member committees

Discussion: Isn’t this what the TSC is supposed to do? It was explained that the ARB would be advisory to the TSC and they would be used as needed to resolve architectural issues There is going to be a change in leadership and they will be expected to meet more regularly. Time commitment is estimated to be 2-3 hrs per month. It will be focused on HL7 architecture. Recommended that each committee determine interest by members of their committee and submit nominations for discussion at the next SD call.

Action: Ask TSC to supply brief outline of ARB responsibilities to communicate to the committees, including the types of items they would be addressing.

Decision making practices for member committees

Recommend that each work group revise decision making practices updated (including SD email voting procedures) prior to the next working group meeting. Send out draft from Freida as example.

Asked that teach committee send a copy or a link to their decision making practices.

ISO/HL7 Collaboration – TC/SIG Process Development

(With regards to Pharmacovigilance and Medicines Terminology NWIP) – Robert Hallowell

MOU signed with ISO to begin to work on some items. There is no clear process on how to go about meeting the requirements of the MOU. Current parts of the process should be addressed at a higher level than individual committees It is clear how individuals may participate but not how the output might be endorsed by the HL7 organization. There needs to be a formal process of getting approval of work items output by the organization.

Seeking approval of the development of the process to address the structure and to communicate the activities to the rest of the organization. Suggested that these types of projects be registered as a formal project with HL7, after being approved by the SD and sending up to the TSC.

The attachments SIG work often with other outside organizations and find that it is not really a repeatable process. Since this proposal would be HL7 wide, it should be done at a higher level than the steering division. They are looking at a reproducible process, therefore the owner of the process should be at the organizational level. It was suggested that the draft profile be made more general so that the reproducibility aspects of the process can be recommended for adoption at the organizational level.

ACTION: The PIC should be consulted as to whether this falls within their scope – Pharmacy will bring it forward to them.

ACTION: Communicate the results of this discussion with Ed and Chuck - Pharmacy. Discussions with Ed Hammond and Chuck Jaffe indicate that they see the value in bringing this through the SD up to the TSC.

Jim McCain – Funneling of work from ISO to committees. One of the work items under this issue is discussions between GPSIG and RCRIM for GPSIG to take on one piece of the work. Discussions will occur next week. Jim will bring the results of the discussion to the next call.

Timelines for document review by SD

In order to satisfy other due dates. E.g., a Project Scope statement - Mike Cassidy

Previously this was due according to the Publishing Calendar (is the due date to the SD earlier than that, or does Publishing bring it to the SD after the individual committee submits to Don Lloyd?) Also, mission/charter changes formerly went to the ARB and then to the TSC - if these now go to the SD first, what's the latest date prior to a WGM that these are due to the SD?

Need clarification from the TSC as to how this process will now work with the new organization.

Previously this was due according to the Publishing Calendar (is the due date to the SD earlier than that, or does Publishing bring it to the SD after the individual committee submits to Don Lloyd?) Also, mission/charter changes formerly went to the ARB and then to the TSC - if these now go to the SD first, what's the latest date prior to a WGM that these are due to the SD?

What are the current requirements for classifying as a DSTU? - PHER

Looking for guidance on how work items will progress through ballot advancement. What portions of the material submitted are part of a DSTU as opposed to informative. What impact do substantive changes have on the status of a DSTU?

Where are the current policy and procedures regarding DSTUs on the HL7 website? - PHER

There is a V3 substantivity document that is distributed with the ballot material. Substantivity will require reballoting at the current level of the ballot. DSTU is a separate and parallel track from normative material. Many of these issues are being addressed by changes to the by-laws and the revisions to the policies and procedures. What are committees to do in the meantime? This is an item for the TSC.

Prioritization of migration of TC/SIG web pages to new format

Committees were reminded that there is still time to get moved over sooner.

Need a contact person for each committee to make sure that the content that is migrated is complete. Each committee should send a contact name to Ken McCaslin

V3 Timing Event Harmonization proposal - Austin Kreisler

Timing Event Coverpage "[1]"

Proposal submitted by INM to rework the vocabulary for thetiming event domain (IVL data type) referring to “fuzzy timing events. INM wants to get rid of the offset referring to timing events, leaving only absolute time categories. This was submitted because of implementation problems event hough it has been used for many years int eh v2.x world. Clinically there is a need to be able to handle the current timing and there has not been a viable alternative to replace this existing need.

Motion: The Domain Experts Steering Division opposes the harmonization Proposal for timing event without proposing an alternative to replace this current functionality. 7 for, 0 against, 2 abstain

Schedule next meeting

Next conference calls are scheduled for:

Friday Nov 30, 10am-12pm ET

Wednesday Dec 12, 10am-12pm ET