Concall-20090216

From HL7 TSC
Revision as of 17:00, 18 February 2009 by Karenvan (talk | contribs) (→‎Agenda)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

TSC - Technical Steering Committee 

Monday, February 16, 2009 11:00 AM (US Eastern Time, GMT -5)
To participate, dial 770-657-9270 and enter pass code 124466#
GoToMeeting at https://www.gotomeeting.com/join/165215206
GoToMeeting ID: 165-215-206

back to TSC Minutes and Agendas

Attendance

Expected

  • Chair: Charlie McKay
  • CTO: John Quinn
  • Domain Experts: Austin Kreisler (primary), Ed Tripp (alternate)
  • Foundation & Technology: Ioana Singureanu (primary), Woody Beeler (alternate)
  • Structure & Semantic Design: Calvin Beebe (primary), Gregg Seppala (alternate)
  • Technical & Support Services: Ken McCaslin (primary), Helen Stevens Love (alternate)
  • Affiliate: Ravi Natarajan
  • ARB Chair: Charlie Mead
  • HQ: Karen Van Hentenryck, Lynn Laakso

Invited

  • Charles Jaffe (CEO)
  • Ed Hammond (HL7 Chair); Bob Dolin (HL7 Vice Chair)
  • Marc Koehn (EA IP)

Apologies

  • Lynn Laakso
  • Charlie McCay
  • Gregg Seppala

Agenda

  1. (5 min) Meeting Admin
    1. Roll Call - The following individuals participated on the call: John Quinn, Dalvin Beebe, Ed Tripp, Favi N., Austin Kreisler, Ken McCaslin, Willaim Goosen, Woody Beeler, Ioana Singureanu, Helen Stevens-Love, Karen Van Hentenryck, William Goosen
    2. Accept Agenda - The agenda was unanimously accepted as is.
    3. Approve Minutes from concall-20090209 – MOTION by Tripp: To approve the minutes; seconded by Stevens-Love. The motion carried unanimously.
    4. Review action items – move to discussion
  2. Priority Agenda Topics
    1. EA IP Update - Marc Koehn - Mark was not on the call. It was determined that John Quinn is the executive sponsor of this project and as such, he will report on the it in the future. Details on this project will be included in his CTO report moving forward.
    2. DSTU extension, TSC Tracker #862
      • DE SD - Patient Care, Dr. William TF Goossen - William Goosen noted that the Patient care document was established as a DSTU in 2007. There have been a few implementations but not as many as though would like and they would like more input before making this a normative standard. They would to extend the DSTU for two years, one to collect comments and the second year to work on the normative standard. The TSC is not opposed to this request and a request has been submitted to the GOC to clarify the circumstances under which DSTUs can be extended and for how long. The general consensus of the group is that WGs should have a concrete plan when they come to the TSC to request an extension and the TSC would like clarify around its role is approving an extension. :ACTION ITEM: Van Hentenryck will ensure that this is discussed on this week's GOC call. If possible, the draft wording will be distributed to the TSC in time for next week's call.
      • DE SD - RCRIM, Ed Tripp - His group also has a DSTU that they would like to extend.
      • FT SD - SOA, Dr. Ken Kawamoto - SOA also has a DSTu that they would like to extend.
    3. ANSI Standards nearing their 5 year anniversary - Van Hentenryck reported that these three standards are coming up on their 5-year anniversary. According to ANSI rules, after 5 years, a standard either has to be revised, withdrawn or re-affirmed. We've contacted RCRIM and CCOW and both work groups have requested that we re-affirm their standards, so we are looking for a motion from the TSC todayon that. The one in questions is Scheduling. While we have already started a project to revise this standard, no work has been done on it in a couple of years and we've heard that Patient Administration, who has agreed to take on the work of the Scheduling and Logistic Work Group if they fold, does not have the bandwidth to take on R2 of Scheduling.
MOTION by McCaslin: That the TSC approve moving forward with reaffirming the RCRIM and CCOW standards in question; seconded by Kreisler. The motion carried unanimously. The process is to do a for comments only ballot in which balloters can register their agreement or disagreement with the TSC's decision to reaffirm these standards.(Tracker # 888)
      • HL7 Version 3 Standard: Regulated Studies Annotated ECG, Release 1 – Ed Tripp has confirmed that RCRIM wishes to reaffirm this standard (requires a for comments vote in upcoming ballot cycle)
      • HL7 CCOW, V1.5 – CCOW co-chairs have confirmed that they wish to reaffirm this standard (requires a for comments vote in upcoming ballot cycle)
      • HL7 Version 3 Standard: Scheduling, Release 1. Release 2 was started a couple of years ago, but Patient Administration does seem anxious to take on this work.
    2. Review results of e-vote
  2. (20 min) Standing Committee Reports/Approvals
    1. CEO Report - Nothing was submitted
    2. CTO Report - John submitted the following report via email:
      • The NHS and the HL7 tooling WG have determined that we need permission from W3C to publish a slight modification of their Standards if we are to include a directly usable version of the MIF – “light” rendering of the RIM into the OHT repository with the NHS static RMIM modeling tool. Susie Stephens (Health Life Sciences lead for W3C) has forwarded this to their appropriate group last Thursday. I will follow up with her tomorrow. I realize that this is now developing into an urgent matter for the NHS team who want to get their tool into the OHT repository for general user use.
      • I met with the ArB on their weekly phone call last week where all on the call reviewed the HSSP SOA practitioners guide and have now identified all areas where we feel it needs some level of alignment effort with both SAEAF and the forthcoming HL7 EA. (More from Charlie Mead).
      • Jane Curry is working with Mark McDougal and me to get in place all consulting contracts for routine work performed by consultants in HL7.
      • A recruiting ad was posted to the web last week for a full-time web programmer to work under Mike Michael Kingery’s direction. This event places in my mind a more urgent need to determine the thought content required for the new programmer’s first assignment (HL7 product listing and product brief descriptions). Ken McCaslin and I had a discussion on this last week.
      • This week I will be spending most of my time at HITSP full Technical Committee meetings and the HITSP planning meeting. These meetings will be in Reston VA Tue-Fri.
    3. ArB Report - No one from the ArB was on the call
    4. Affiliates Report - Ravi indicated that he has collected the email addresses of the affiliate chairs and reached out to them regarding any issues for the TSC. None have been suggested to date.
    5. Technical & Support Services
      • MOTION by McCaslin: That all WGs that are within the TSC Steering Divisions elect their co-chairs (rather than being appointed) and that their terms be staggered so that no more than one co-chair term expires and is up for election at a WGM. Van Hentenryck noted that the original motion included Board appointed committees, whose chairs are appointed by the Board as noted in the Bylaws (which are more difficult to modify). Also the currrent GOM contains procedures for the PIC committee, which will need to be modified, so these suggestions will actually become suggestions to the GOC. The motion was seconded by Singureanu and carried unanimously.
      • Editorial Review board - McCaslin reported that Virginia Lorenzi has not heard anything from this group in some time. Should this group be disbanded? ACTION ITEM: Van Hentenryck will follow up on this item.
      • Backwards compatibility - McCaslin reported that Project Services has reached out to the ArB for guidance on backward compatibility so that they can omplete the project scope statement request.
      • Changes to project scope - Motion by Technical and Support Services SD: To approve the update to the project approval process (also under TSC Tracker # 748: When scope is changed in a project, an adjusted Project Scope Statement will be approved by the primary WG and the SD, providing the TSC at least 30 days prior to the ballot cycle the project is intended for, for TSC approval. McCaslin suggested that there be 30-days notice of all changes to project scopes. Discussion: There was a suggestion that everyone be given 30-days notice of the change, not just the TSC. Also the submission dates are early. The timing to get the adjusted scope approved is dependent on the TSC, which is where this becomes problematic. There was agreement that the wording should change so that the project co-sponsors approve and that the primary sponsor brings the request forward to the TSC. The updated motion passed unanimously.
    6. Foundation & Technology - During last week's call the SD discussed issues regarding effective engagement with the ArB and expressed concern that the SAEAF work regarding conformance (e.g. conformance/"compliance"), implementation technology (e.g. soaml) is not taking input from the work groups in FTSD that already have the mission expertise, and track record to answer specific questions in their area of expertise(e.g. Implementation and Conformance, ITS, SOA, and MnM work groups). During his report, John Quinn mentioned the need to keep the SOA artifacts in synch with the SAEAF and thus suggested that SOA work group representatives need to coordinate with ArB. Following a summary of SD conference call from last week provided by Ioana Singureanu, John Quinn recommended that specific FTSD workgroups designate their representatives to the ArB. Rather than representing the SD, these individuals would represent the work group and that domain. Helen Stevens expressed some concern that by adding new members to the ArB we may slow down their progress. John Quinn indicated that the ArB calls are already open to non-members and in his experience an extension of membership would not have any detrimental effects. Ioana Singureanu suggested that FTSD work group members could take responsibility for authoring specific sections of the SAEAF to expedite its development.
    7. Domain Experts -
      • Rename of balloted Informative Document:[1] Version 3 Domain Analysis Model: Public Health; CDISC Content to Message - Study Participation, Release 1 to Version 3 Domain Analysis Model: Regulated Studies; CDISC Content to Message - Study Participation, Release 1 - The motion carried unanimously.
      • MOTION by Kreisler; seconded by Singureanu: To approved the EHR System Design Reference Model project. Motion carried unanimously.

Given the time, the remaining agenda items were deferred to next week's call.

  1. (30 min) Discussion topics
    1. TSC Internal Project Proposals -
    2. Review action items –
    3. Open Issues List

Future Agenda item list

Click for TSC Action Item List

Retrieved from "https://tscwiki.hl7.org/w/index.php?title=Concall-20090216&oldid=4470"