2009-10-19 TSC Call Minutes

From HL7 TSC
Jump to navigation Jump to search

TSC - Technical Steering Committee

Monday, October 19, 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



  • Ken McCaslin

Meeting Admin

Roll Call - The following individuals joined the call:

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 HL7 Chair-elect BobDolin@gmail.com
William Goossen invited Guest, Patient Care WG williamtfgoossen@cs.com
x Austin Kreisler HL7 DESD austin.j.kreisler@saic.com
x Lynn Laakso (scribe) 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
x 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
x Gregg Seppala HL7 SSD SD Alternate gregg.seppala@va.gov
x 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
  1. Accept Agenda – agenda accepted

Guest discussion:

  • DCM issues, see TSC Issue # 890, on Consistency of Clinical content and overlap
    Ed reports a wiki page has been created to work out some of the issues. Team had not previously been holding regularly scheduled conference calls between WGM, so listserv threads were extensive. Things seem to be improving. Helen asks if discussion has started to settle down or simply moved off the listserv. Ed says it appears the discussion is moving towards consensus building rather than faction fighting but we need to wait to see how it moves forward. Austin agrees that it will take longer than a week to see if things are shaking out. Bob asks if there is a proposal before the TSC right now. Austin states that there was a project proposal approved earlier but there was a request to update its scope. They started by rewriting their mission and charter, and now they are revisiting the project. Recommendations from Austin and Ed included having regular meeting times although the cochairs have geography dispersion making conference calling times difficult. Charlie McCay says DCMs were being reflected as HL7 artifacts but there was no evidence of its fit with other HL7 work. Austin adds they have work to do in the next month if they wish to ballot the top ten DCMs at the next cycle. John also spoke with William at the ISO meeting and this is all consistent with that conversation. Charlie asks Woody if there’s been an effort to work with the modeling group; Woody expects he’ll see harmonization proposals. Charlie says the ArB has been asked to proactively engage with them; Woody will accept an action item to check with his cochairs to find a facilitator for this. Austin says Jean Duteau is their publishing facilitator, so as a cochair of MnM they should be adequately represented.

Agenda continued

  1. Approve Minutes from 2009-10-05_TSC_Call_Minutes –unanimously approved
  2. Review action items
    • Calvin and Charlie Mead to present on brief of TSC and Roadmap; the revised Roadmap is to be reviewed here at the TSC. Charlie Mead thought the message was that we would wait for a revised roadmap to discuss with the TSC. Mead recounts his experience with CDISC is how they are trying to fundamentally focus their organization in ways they hadn’t before. The board was recently provided with a list of projects and asked how do they map to our strategic goals; then discussed the goals and requested they map all the projects to the goals and find those that did not map. Bob notes that the revised Roadmap revision cycle will be in the GOM the next time around. The revised process will be more inclusive, to include TSC review and input. Add to the agenda for future, the review of the maintenance process proposed in the GOM revision.
    • TSC Mission and Charter draft deferred to next week.

Standing Committee Reports/Approvals

  1. CEO Report – none available
  2. CTO Report
    • ISO meeting this week in Durham NC. John reports that he, Chuck Jaffe, Ed Hammond, Woody, Mark Shafarman, and other HL7 folks are in attendance. He’s been asked to review the list of current projects in joint dependency with other SDOs. The JIC meeting is occurring tomorrow, so defer to next week.
    • Issue over the weekend, migration of Data Types R2
      Woody reviewed the Migration to HL7 Data Types R2. Strategy adopted almost a year ago for a wholesale conversion to DT R2 this triannual period. New world was to start in January. Tooling was just completed in the last ten days. Started to run into surprises, needing XML ITS for structures (messages) that were not recognized earlier as a key element. Conversion will be delayed for one or two cycles (May or Sept 2010) for proposal and adequate ballot for structures to address linkage between messages structure and Datatypes R2. People have agreed to undertrake that work. Interim structures ballot still needs scope statement. Current balloted RIM is DT R2 so will need to develop a RIM for DT R1. Will come back to TSC for recommendation for Normative Edition 2010. Tooling work is not wasted, needs only to be adjusted once done. Ravi asks about the MnM document distribution; Woody would like to distribute it to all the cochairs. He agrees that they need to address specific recommendations in the short term. Convert all static model designs to DT R2 will be delayed, and Normative Edition updates. Ravi asks about DT R1, will we stop producing in R1? Woody says NE 2010 will likely still be DT R1 but that recommendation is not yet final. Ravi asks as project lead as static model designer he will still be using RIM and R1 datatypes? Woody would prefer it work with either. RMIM designer will deal with either and convert from one to the other. Question is not at the tool level but at the schema level, generator from schema to MIF is under review. John asks if this impacts NHS release of static design modeler. Ravi thinks it will be ok. McCay asks if there are DSTUs affected; Woody indicates ICSR but a representative was in attendance. Bob says eMeasure might be affected but they can use R1. John will ask Lise [Stevens] but thinks that Mead Walker is aware. Charlie asks if the TSC is comfortable to endorse this approach, and assure that the rollout and communication be properly planned. Woody would like to distribute the document or something like it very soon. Bob says we should announce this positively as a clear strategy for migration with the more detailed plan. Woody hopes they can get the ITS updates approved in one ballot but it might be two. Woody says also need ITS project and Datatypes 1.1 (informative) to ballot. Ravi asks if a phased approach might be appropriate. Woody recounts that prior discussions indicated participants did not feel you could live with one foot in either camp. It is felt (by MnM) that the whole thing should be converted at once, which can be done programmatically. Woody seeks approval to send to cochairs.
      Ed indicates there will be pushback from RCRIM on 2010 ballots on R1. FDA will have a problem. Woody indicates that he can convert any model for them. Bob says Gunther can talk to Randy Levin and smooth things over.
      No other objections noted to the content of the document. General agreement was determined.
      Bob feels we need the published migration strategy documents available. Woody will undertake the documentation of major steps. Woody will put it in the wiki and send to Lynn to send out on TSC’s behalf.
    • EA IP Update:
  3. ArB Report – two topics discussed at last meeting;
    First: integrating documentation effort of NCI of SAEAF with HL7 effort. Jane is contract with NCI and will coordinate. Three folks on NCI side are working on it to complement Karen’s work (technical writer) on the SAEAF book.
    Secondly: of issue to TSC as projects start how do we operationalize them in terms of project facilitators for ArB but ongoing governance work requi4red by ArB, how will that happen. Steps for project proposal and ballot need to have additional steps in governance during the alpha process. Considerable traction with Federal Health Architecture has been gained such that they are now asking for formal presentation in November.
    • Membership clarification and confirmation: Greg Peres; Clarify processes for appointing members to ArB assigned to Charlie Mead. He will work on it with Ron and John. Bob notes that this can go into the GOM as well. Bob asks what the process currently is. McCay recounts that ArB chair makes a recommendation and the TSC considers and makes the appointments. Helen asks what qualifications Greg brings. He is TOGAF certified and has SOA experience. He is currently probably as strong as Koisch; TSC requested earlier that Mead and Koisch both being from NCI was inadvisable, so in a series of discussions Ron Parker was identified and his participation was negotiated. #*:Helen feels that as she doesn’t know Greg she would abstain from his confirmation. She also felt that the ArB are seen as thought leaders and agents of change, the membership can better embrace change if their leaders are known and respected and trusted; whereas Greg was a first time attendee in Atlanta and is not known by the membership. Helen asked if Greg could participate in the ArB activities for a year as Andy did, before being confirmed to address this concern? Calvin notes that he abstained in the last vote as well because he did not know the candidate but doesn’t know what the right course of action is. Ravi asks what is the benefit of being a named ArB member? For example the Open Group now has interoperability group. They had specific need for Open Group knowledge. Dennis Giokas was insistent and if we don’t approve Greg he will want to have another discussion with John Q.
      Charlie McCay timeboxes the discussion.
  4. Disposition of remainder of agenda; will do evote on neonatal and procedure note issues. Bob indicates the November 2 Board call will approve the new strategic initiatives, please review them.

Adjourned 12:02 PM.

Agenda postponed

  1. International Council Report -
  2. Domain Experts -
  3. Foundation & Technology -
  4. Structure & Semantic Design -
  5. Technical & Support Services -

(30 min) Discussion topics

  • TSC Chair election: motion to elect Charlie McCay as TSC Chair for 2010-2011.
  • Project Approval: TSC Work Group Visibility Project 2009 - was approved by TSC as committee, sent to cochairs for review, now needs formal approval as a project - scope statement at TSC Tracker #997
  • Roadmap Strategic Initiatives review
    Strategic Initiatives - Current:
    • Expand, reinvigorate and streamline HL7’s production, processes and technologies
    • Evaluate HL7’s competitive environment and define HL7’s roles, positions and actions
    • Enhance communication and outreach: make HL7 more useable, useful and understandable and share the ideas worldwide
    • Embrace the Electronic Health Record (EHR)/Electronic Health Record System (EHR-S)/Personal Health Record (PHR) as the focal point of technical development of health informatics standards
    • Connect to the clinicians, an essential HL7 community
    Strategic Initiatives - Proposed:
    • Streamline the HL7 standards development process.
    • Facilitate HL7 standards adoption.
    • Define an overarching and internally consistent interoperability framework.
    • Ensure broad and encompassing stakeholder engagement in the standards development process.
    • Lead development of the technical and functional health informatics standards for electronic health records.
  • Board recommendation: TSC to evaluate Research and Innovations Committee, background at [TSC Tracker #1320] - current format proposed is half-day workshop at 2010JanWGM
Open Issues List

For Review 20091012:

  • TSC Tracker #1321: Next steps on WG not meeting at WGM
    • point of consideration - handbook specifies Work Group co-chairs are expected to attend at least every other WGM or be subject to removal; what expectation shall be made explicit for Work Groups?
  • TSC Tracker 1319, HL7 IPR, Patents, and Copyright Issues

Future Agenda item list

Click for TSC Action Item List