2009-11-02 TSC Call Minutes

TSC - Technical Steering Committee

Monday, November 2, 2009 11:00 AM (US Eastern Time, UTC -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

Agenda

Apologies

• Ken McCaslin
• Gregg Seppala
• Ioana Singureanu

Meeting Admin

Meeting Attendance - :

At	Name	Affiliation	Email Address
x	Calvin Beebe	HL7 SSD SD	cbeebe@mayo.edu
x	Woody Beeler	HL7 FTSD Alternate	woody@beelers.com
	Kevin Coonan	invited Guest, Patient Care WG	kevin.coonan@gmail.com
x	Bob Dolin	invited Guest, HL7 Chair-elect	BobDolin@gmail.com
	William Goossen	invited Guest, Patient Care WG	williamtfgoossen@cs.com
	Ed Hammond	invited Guest, HL7 Chair	hammo001@mc.duke.edu
	Charles Jaffe	HL7 CEO	cjaffe@HL7.org
	Marc Koehn	invited Guest, HL7 EA IP PM	marc.koehn@gpinformatics.com
x	Austin Kreisler	HL7 DESD	austin.j.kreisler@saic.com
x	Lynn Laakso (scribe, non-voting)	HL7 HQ	lynn@hl7.org
	Ken McCaslin	HL7 TSS SD	Kenneth.H.McCaslin@QuestDiagnostics.com
x	Charlie McCay (chair)	HL7 TSC Chair	charlie@ramseysystems.co.uk
	Charlie Mead	HL7 ArB	Charlie.mead@booz.com
x	Ravi Natarajan	HL7 Affiliate	Ravi.Natarajan@nhs.net
	Ron Parker	HL7 ArB Alternate	rparker@infoway-inforoute.ca
x	John Quinn	HL7 CTO	jquinn@hl7.org
	Gregg Seppala	HL7 SSD SD Alternate	gregg.seppala@va.gov
	Ioana Singureanu	HL7 FTSD	ioana@eversolve.com
x	Helen Stevens	HL7 TSS SD Alternate	helen.stevens@shaw.ca
x	Ed Tripp	HL7 DESD Alternate	Edward.tripp@estripp.com
	Karen Van Hentenryck	HL7 HQ	karenvan@HL7.org
	D. Mead Walker	invited Guest, HL7 FTSD Alternate-elect	dmead@comcast.net

Call to order 11:05 AM.

1. Accept Agenda – Helen has to leave at the half-hour so move the ORC discussion up if quorum is not a problem for the votes. Quorum is a problem. Move DCM issues to the end. Agenda accepted.

Agenda continued

1. Approve Minutes from 2009-10-26_TSC_Call_Minutes – unanimously approved
2. Review action items –
   • Work Groups not meeting at the January WGM - Lynn
     • Anesthesiology (GAS): Austin will follow up with them. They have active work items.
     • Government Projects (attending a joint session, no hosted sessions): Austin notes there is discussion on dissolving this work group. Charlie suggests involving Catherine Chronaki and Helen Stevens for assumption of the national initiatives work. Their one project would probably go to the EHR work group.
     • ORC: Helen will take an action item to see if they would schedule a meeting.
   • Board of Directors response to HL7 IPR, Patents, and Copyright Issues, e.g. former legal affairs committee – John

     Talked to the EC – see CTO report.

Standing Committee Reports/Approvals

1. CEO Report – not available
2. CTO Report - attachment sent to listserv
   • Copyright issue resolved with respect to NHS static model designer (SMD), worked out with a few small changes. MIF 2.1.1.6 release incorporated in SMD.

     Charlie asks about having a group available at a WGM to discuss. Ravi recounts the use of HL7 icons on blogs and so on needed to be addressed. John has briefly discussed with Chuck, current copyright rules don’t cover whole governments of countries using our standards. Board call following this call has presentation on IP proposal to U.S. Government. Need to resolve these larger IP issues first. Charlie got a question from IBM on what would be reasonable to include in a patent? John recounts the problem with IBM and GE in the past they want to issue a patent and HL7 sends a response that we published something five years ago. Patent granting is easy, appealing patents is prohibitive through the courts. No discovery is adequately done.

3. ArB Report – no report
4. Affiliates Report – Ravi reports on a discussion with Ken Lunn on affiliates list email thread. He wanted to illustrate V3 implementation experience. How to feed into the product visibility? Lynn updated Ken's notes into V3 Product Brief on wiki. Does this feed into the marketing strategy – there’s a group working with Chuck and Karen.
   • Received a request from Canada regarding minutes not posted in a timely manner and a couple other issues to discuss next week.
5. Domain Experts –
   • Project Approval DESD: CBCC - Consent Directive CDA Implementation Guide scope statement at TSC Tracker #1343. Helen had questions on the checkboxes (section 1 should have V3 documents checked). and also in the project scope, regarding computable representation. Ed says the IG does not provide the computable representation but CDA R2 does. Austin says he can take it back to Ioana. He’ll get clarification and we’ll postpone the vote, Helen will send him an email.
6. Foundation & Technology –
   • Project Approval FTSD - MnM: MIF Informative Ballot scope statement at TSC Tracker # 1344; Helen asked if Vocab had not wanted to proceed? It was passed by the Steering Division and there was one co chair that had voiced concern. Question on when this was circulated, it was sent to the cochairs and international listservs on Oct 21. Publishing of the documents have been addressed. Project unanimously approved.
7. Structure & Semantic Design –
   • Request to publish DSTU for Patient Administration Release 2 at TSC Tracker # 1350. Request unanimously approved.
   • Calvin will have a number of items next week.
8. Technical & Support Services – Nothing to report.

Discussion topics

Open Issues List

For Review 20091102:

• How projects and work groups manage their relations with other organizations TSC tracker #1091 - Liaison to the Organizational Relations Committee (Helen)
  • Helen has question for Austin in the GForge document talks about anesthesiology with Royal College of Anethetists. If GAS is not an active WG it may not be a good example. She is checking on meeting time in Phoenix. ORC has not been active, no meeting scheduled. Austin notes that when work groups have external relationships that don’t have MOUs we push back on inclusion in their Mission and Charter statements, especially with Attachments with LOINC and WEDI. Some of these questions are holding up approvals of Mission and Charter statements since the agreements have lapsed, or were never in place. Would need to go through each WG’s M&C to review any organizations noted and determine whether such an MOU is needed.
  • Charlie recounts we need a lightweight, less formal mechanism to identify some of these associations, as Chuck Meyer indicated a formal MOU with each group would cause too much administrative overhead.
  • ORC should provide framework agreement for the lightweight version, and for JIC/SDO relationships, as compared to formal MOUs. If a corroborating group publishes our standard, we need an MOU in place.
  • Need a policy for how stakeholder groups have input into the standards. As we reach out to organizations to provide clinical input we need something in place.

Guest discussion:

• DCM issues, see TSC Issue # 890, on Consistency of Clinical content and overlap
  • Patient care has started circulating in their WG an updated scope for DCMs. May not be ready for this ballot cycle if they don’t get the project scope in place. Austin said William needed an approved project scope to ballot. William disagreed. What is the TSC’s statement? Woody notes a discussion with William where he wanted to publish as PDFs. In subsequent publishing call, noted these models constrain clinical statements and the PDF format is not going to work well. Not enough substantive discussion with Patient Care participation on publishing these as graphics and perhaps a spreadsheet. Charlie says, Australia, Canada other countries concerned about another representation of clinical models.
  • Austin expressed a concern in Patient Care over taking the clinical models project away from the WG. Formalism and methodology has not been defined, may not belong with them. Dumping the models into PDF and balloting them may not be acceptable. Ravi noted some tooling related issues. Need to understand the methodology behind the models to approve the models. Ravi asks if they are covering HL7 related content or content outside HL7?
  • Will the TSC allow Patient Care to bring such a document to ballot. Will we require such a document to be endorsed for ballot by MnM and ArB before ballot? Or let the ballot pool address it? They say they already have a scope statement approved that should permit them to ballot. They’re not stepping up to meet the V3 methodology. If they figure out how to publish everything will we permit them to ballot? Will they become a SAEAF alpha project? Are they a JIC project? They did submit a NIB for this cycle; they intend to proceed. If we tell them we can’t ballot they may walk away and take this through ISO. How ill they align with the HL7 methodology including the references to the work they’re deriving from? If they constrain an existing RMIM it must work with the existing models. Is this a quality requirement we’re asking them to meet with MnM and scope updates? Shall we recommend they publish as draft for comment, as has been done with others that do not meet publishing standards? Austin notes that other national groups have noticed this effort and are providing resources to make this happen. TSC is trying to support them to make this happen and have it work with the rest of the V3 standards with publishing.
  • Ravi asks where the development is being documented? They are maintaining the top 10 models on the wiki, not in SVN. SVN is not a requirement. Some projects’ development lives on an individual’s hard drive. Wiki development is more open than their efforts have been in the past, this is a step forward we do not want to discourage.

Adjourned 11:54 AM.