2013-05-05 TSC WGM Minutes

From HL7 TSC
Revision as of 22:13, 5 May 2013 by Llaakso (talk | contribs)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

TSC Sunday evening meeting for 2013May WGM

back to TSC Minutes and Agendas

TSC WGM Agenda/Minutes

HL7 TSC Meeting Minutes


Date: 2013-05-05
Time: Q5, 5:15-6:30 PM
Facilitator: Austin Kreisler Note taker(s): Lynn Laakso
Attendee Name Affiliation
x Calvin Beebe HL7 SSD SD Co-Chair
x Woody Beeler HL7 FTSD Co-Chair
Lorraine Constable HL7 ArB Vice Chair
Bob Dolin HL7 Board Vice Chair (member ex officio w/o vote)
Jean Duteau HL7 Affiliate Representative
x Freida Hall HL7 TSS SD Co-Chair
Chuck Jaffe HL7 CEO (member ex officio w/o vote)
x Tony Julian HL7 FTSD Co-Chair
x Austin Kreisler (Chair) HL7 TSC Chair, Ad-hoc member
x Lynn Laakso (scribe, non-voting) HL7 HQ
Don Mon HL7 Board Chair (member ex officio w/ vote)
regrets Ravi Natarajan HL7 Affiliate Representative
x Ron Parker HL7 ArB Chair
x Melva Peters HL7 DESD Co-Chair
x John Quinn HL7 CTO (TSC member ex officio w/vote)
x Andy Stechishin HL7 T3SD Co-Chair
x Pat Van Dyke HL7 SSD SD Co-Chair
x Mead Walker HL7 DESD Co-Chair
x Robert Worden
x Iryna Roy
Quorum Requirements (Co-chair +5 with 2 SD Reps) Met: (yes)


  1. ArB
    • 'What's next for the ArB'
      • BAM Skills & Roles (Parker)- Upcoming challenges and skillset needs for new appointments
      • identify 3-Year scope
  2. HL7 Vitality Process Triggers
  3. Co-chair meeting messages

Minutes/Conclusions Reached:

  1. ArB - Ron Parker slide show
    • Bam spreadsheet tool insufficient to answer some more complex questions. Needs to be a checklist to guide facilitation, paired with a modeler.
    • 'Landing' the BAM - pilot projects or production of artifacts, not waterfall but iterative. They will continue to work through stage 2 and 'show the picture' and discuss further on an upcoming call.
    • BAM implementation guide discussed in relation to the implementation of SAIF CD.
    • ArB change in leadership offers opportunity to assess the role. Charlie was chair for five years. Assumptions need to be tested, a vitality assessment.
    • Woody notes that they published a methodology with a disruptive change in V3 and narrates the organizational transition. Scaling attention, depth and focus of architecture to the task at hand is a key challenge. Behavioral model to see how pieces interact still needed for V3. What can we pick from the V3 experience
    • We might be able to finish SAIF Artifact definitions with focused effort in a few days. Need something substantive, relevant and useful, not perfect. Requirements traceability prone to those that would spend all time defining requirements beyond the useable list.
    • Ron notes we may be able to capture requirements at the point where someone comes and says how do I use FHIR to solve xyz business problem?
    • He notes the SOA Ontology work from Zoran is addressing behavioral work compartmentalizing areas such as EHR-S FM. Cross pollination with OMG and OASIS as well.
    • Understanding things such as in the way that hData embraced REST and Grahame brought FHIR. This speaks to responsiveness to what is going on in the industry and vitality assessment.
    • Woody notes that FHIR has the structural interoperability down but now has to address semantic operability.
    • Ron stresses that organizational level vitality assessment needs to be channeled by events into certain groups in the organization.
    • Ron suggests they have an opening in ArB, and feels that backup in the skills in semantic web are needed. Calvin asks what are we doing about the HL7 architecture? What is the plan that agree to and we execute. Ron notes that in any other organization you would next write the information architecture with reference to WGs not physicians and patients. BAM is how do we do what we do. They are not trivial exercises, and downstream implementation will need resources.
    • Calvin feels that a front-up implementation will not succeed as we push it through the organization. Look at SAIF as a guidelines, look at HL7 as organization, and choose high-value aspects to implement. Here we address the risk assessment.
    • Woody notes an information architecture won't help us understand strategic tooling for how our customers use our standards. Ron asks how about if we show examples of structuring application implementations for interoperability.
    • Ron notes the connectathons recognized on the FGB discussion today that the infrastructure is well tested but instances are not as well exercised. Andy disagrees that in his implementation he had specific questions on use cases that the connectathon resolved. Exercising an interface is when you discover the pitfalls. Paradox with HL7 as community being so complex but is unfunded. Except some small group of people like Woody and Ted who go to ISO on behalf of HL7. SMEs to follow global trends such as SOA, W3C, mobile, etc. Woody recounts the strategic decision to produce machine processable work to facilitate development as well as use as compared to PDF or DITA. He would prefer to see tooling effort directed towards the preservation of that architectural principle.
    • BAM landing would be a PLA discussion on Wednesday. Calvin also suggests we look at it from the perspective of the scope document for that process.
  2. HL7 Vitality Process Triggers
    • Slide show will create a checklist based on the presentation. TSC can use the checklist to assess each item arising in Governance portions of meetings.
  3. Co-chair meeting messages
    • Austin describes his slides.
Actions (Include Owner, Action Item, and due date)
  • .
Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items
  • .