Difference between revisions of "2014-09-13 TSC WGM Agenda"

From HL7 TSC
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 
(3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 124: Line 124:
 
#Roll Call and Introduction of visitors (including declaration of interests)
 
#Roll Call and Introduction of visitors (including declaration of interests)
 
#Additions to, and acceptance of, agenda: Freida will add the updated PSS template
 
#Additions to, and acceptance of, agenda: Freida will add the updated PSS template
#Link to Interim decision review since last WGM
+
#Link to [http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/download/docmanfileversion/8371/12414/%32%30%31%34%53%65%70%5f%44%65%63%69%73%69%6f%6e%73%53%69%6e%63%65%4c%61%73%74%57%47%4d%2e%78%6c%73 Interim decision review since last WGM]
 
#Strategic Initiative review - the Board strategic initiatives have not been developed in a way suitable for review. There are three but they are not prioritized and expectations set. Postpone until the updated initiatives are ready for review.
 
#Strategic Initiative review - the Board strategic initiatives have not been developed in a way suitable for review. There are three but they are not prioritized and expectations set. Postpone until the updated initiatives are ready for review.
 
#[[TSC_SWOT|SWOT review]]
 
#[[TSC_SWOT|SWOT review]]
Line 192: Line 192:
 
#*Ken offers to take an action item to review copyright statements for use at your own risk with Karen and review suggestions Sunday night. Woody is convinced the standard disclaimer doesn't include but the tooling license does.  
 
#*Ken offers to take an action item to review copyright statements for use at your own risk with Karen and review suggestions Sunday night. Woody is convinced the standard disclaimer doesn't include but the tooling license does.  
 
#*Feedback on 2015PSS template, FMG approval line should occur before Steering Division, as changes at the FMG review would need to go to Steering Division. From WG approval it can be submitted to FMG and the SD simultaneously however as the FMG meets weekly and Steering Divisions meet less frequently. (LL)
 
#*Feedback on 2015PSS template, FMG approval line should occur before Steering Division, as changes at the FMG review would need to go to Steering Division. From WG approval it can be submitted to FMG and the SD simultaneously however as the FMG meets weekly and Steering Divisions meet less frequently. (LL)
#*Changes made; postpone vote to next quarter.
+
#*Changes made; postpone vote to next quarter
 
 
  
  
 
===Q3 - Governance continued: 1:30 pm to 3 pm===
 
===Q3 - Governance continued: 1:30 pm to 3 pm===
  
*One more change: section 7 for ARB review. US Realm TF is more for coordination and understanding of the slate of work. Content review is different. ARB will need to beef up their resources to handle the work.
+
*One more change: section 7 for ARB review. US Realm TF is more for coordination and understanding of the slate of work and procedural based. Content review is different. ARB will need to beef up their resources to handle the work. Change to a date of review rather than y/n checkbox
 +
*External funded discussed for potential to put into section 6 with project approval dates.
 +
*Putting 7 ahead of 6 makes sense. Current 7 becomes 6a and 6 becomes 6b etc. Freida and the PSC will sort out the numbering.
 +
*Realm (former # 8) should also occur prior to the approval dates section.
 +
*Amended motion: approve as reviewed with allowing the editors to make the section adjustments, agreed by Lorraine/Jean.
 +
*Need to add in the guidance on the R2B projects.
 +
*table vote until resolution on next section
 +
#TSC position statement on new projects using R2B - Woody
 +
#* HL7's primary specification for Data Types to be used in Interoperability is "HL7 Version 3 Standard: Data Types - Abstract Specification, Release 2" Any specification, other than HL7 Version 2 is expected to use or base its data types on this specification (which is also an ISO standard). 
 +
#*  In order to facilitate selected applications originally implemented in Release 1 of this standard, the Implementation Technology Specification Work Group, created an implementation specification "HL7 Version 3 Standard: XML Implementation Technology Specification - Data Types - Abstract DT R2 Implemented in Wire Format Compatible With DT R1, Release 1" This specification is known in short-hand as Data Types R2B.
 +
#*  The purpose of this specification was to support active projects, with functioning implementations that originated in the R1 data types.  Future use of the "R2B" Implementation Technology is limited to projects that:
 +
#*:  a) Were originally developed AND implemented in DT R1
 +
#*:  b) Are being corrected or extended in the same functional space for use by the original community of implementers.
 +
#*:  c) Whose use of the R2B specification is noted in the Project Scope Statement - "Does this project seek to use ITS R2B or its Datatype representations?"
 +
#*:  d) Have received permission from the TSC for such use of R2B
 +
#* This removes the five-year limit on the R2B specification
 +
#*Jean asks if all four must be true; Woody feels so.
 +
#*Woody adds that the project must be using CMETs such as CPM; to allow ICSR and others to grow we have maintained an R2B representation of those CMETs. This is implicit in the use of the R2B specification.
 +
#*Austin asks about the five-year timeline. This would deliberately remove the five-year time limit so that an active community can be accommodated.
 +
#*Calvin notes that CDA had users interested in R1 datatypes. R2B datatypes are wire format compatible with datatypes from R1. However it wants to bring in the new RIM that are breaking changes such as negation indicator. R2B is bound to the current RIM but R1 is bound to the old RIM. Context conduction was broken prior to R2B.
 +
#*Abstract Data types are already at 5 years.
 +
#*'''Motion: ''' adopt this as the position of the TSC by Woody second by Paul. Pat would like to expressly indicate this removes the 5 year limit
 +
#*'''Vote: ''' unanimously approved
 +
#Freida notes that the FAQ already has statement that you are using R2 unless otherwise specified. Woody further states that the backwards compatibility item 3m is separate from the "ITS-R2B" (need to have an abbreviation). Take out the statement on "if desired, enter any additional information on backwards compatibility". Put it in the specific instructions for that section rather than the FAQ and appendices.
 +
*'''Vote:''' unanimously approved.
 +
#Discuss S&I Portfolio and obtain feedback for Feik (Knapp)
 +
#*Paul shows the [http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/download/docmanfileversion/8352/12350/%53%49%20%48%4c%37%20%52%65%76%69%65%77%32%30%31%34%30%39%30%32%2e%70%70%74%78 slideshow]
 +
#*Top of slide 3 Active Initiatives are of concern
 +
#*DAF will be looking for committees doing content potentially using INM to coordinate
 +
#*DPROV just getting started. Paul notes that participation and influence on resources in FHIR is very different from ownership in resources and some WGs are having trouble working in that arrangement. Provenance as EHR vs Security vs CBCC turf war needs primary focus in coordination.
 +
#*SDC in ballot
 +
#*EU/US eHealth Cooperation involves a CDA IG but not the development of the standard
 +
#*BlueButton+ lacking participation.
 +
#*Lorraine comments that the diagram does not show the interdependencies between the line items with clinical quality framework; DAF and SDC both dependent on the detailed clinical models.
 +
#*Important to know what is on the horizon instead of being asked to endorse without reading.
 +
#*Austin cautions that ESMD also deserves attention though it's in the community-led or other agency-led section. It is not the entire portfolio. EHR S FM MU FP coming out of CMS. Usability FP is also in play and is an S&I initiative but is not on this list.
 +
#*Lorraine adds that Feik will be presenting this in a large joint session Weds Q2.
 +
#*There is expected to be an individual to coordinate with the US Realm. It's not Feik. May want to ask David Susanto. This resource is still needed.  
  
TSC Review and Planning
+
===Q4 - Management - 3:30 pm to 5pm===
#(45 mins) Review [http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/project/tsc/tracker/?action=TrackerItemBrowse&tracker_id=313 Open Issues List]
 
#*Tracker [http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/project/tsc/tracker/?action=TrackerItemEdit&tracker_item_id=3283&start=0 3283]) Review of naming convention for balloted standards (Andy)
 
#*[ http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/project/tsc/tracker/?action=TrackerItemEdit&tracker_item_id=3271&start=0 Tracker 3271] Review use of external links in HL7 publications (Andy)
 
#*[ http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/project/tsc/tracker/?action=TrackerItemEdit&tracker_item_id=2788&start=0 Tracker 2788] TSC review of projects open > 5 years (Ken)
 
#*[ http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/project/tsc/tracker/?action=TrackerItemEdit&tracker_item_id=2585&start=0 Tracker 2585] Define list of machine-processable artifacts for membership benefit
 
  
 
TSC [http://www.hl7.org/Special/committees/tsc/projects.cfm Project Review]
 
TSC [http://www.hl7.org/Special/committees/tsc/projects.cfm Project Review]
 
#updates to our [http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/download/trackeritem/3283/12140/%47%4f%4d%5f%44%6f%63%75%6d%65%6e%74%5f%6e%61%6d%69%6e%67%5f%75%70%64%61%74%65%73%5f%54%53%43%5f%32%30%31%34%30%36%33%30%2e%64%6f%63%78 naming conventions and DSTU release guidance]. (Tracker [http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/project/tsc/tracker/?action=TrackerItemEdit&tracker_item_id=3283&start=0 3283])  
 
#updates to our [http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/download/trackeritem/3283/12140/%47%4f%4d%5f%44%6f%63%75%6d%65%6e%74%5f%6e%61%6d%69%6e%67%5f%75%70%64%61%74%65%73%5f%54%53%43%5f%32%30%31%34%30%36%33%30%2e%64%6f%63%78 naming conventions and DSTU release guidance]. (Tracker [http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/project/tsc/tracker/?action=TrackerItemEdit&tracker_item_id=3283&start=0 3283])  
#TSC position statement on new projects using R2B - Woody
+
#*Calvin had a slide update
#* HL7's primary specification for Data Types to be used in Interoperability is "HL7 Version 3 Standard: Data Types - Abstract Specification, Release 2" Any specification, other than HL7 Version 2 is expected to use or base it dta types on this specification (which is also an ISO standard).   
+
#**ISO reference e.g. ISO/HL7 27932:2008 is HL7's Clinical Document Architecture Release 2.0
#** In order to facilitate selected applications originally implemented in Release 1 of this standard, the Implementation Technology Specification Work Group, created an implementation specification "HL7 Version 3 Standard: XML Implementation Technology Specification - Data Types - Abstract DT R2 Implemented in Wire Format Compatible With DT R1, Release 1" This specification is known in short-hand as Data Types R2B.
+
#**ANSI name ANSI/HL7 CDA, R2 - 2005 (R2010) which is HL7 Clinical Document Architecture, Release 2
#** The purpose of this specification was to support active projects, with functionaing implementations that originated in the R1 data types. Future use of the "R2B" Implementation Technology is limited to projects that:
+
#**Calvin notes that the external organization with whom HL7 has joint publication may have their own designation
#*:  a) Were originally developed AND implemented in DT R1
+
#**product family needs its own release e.g. CDA R1 or R2.
#*:  b) Are being corrected or extended in the same functional space for use by the original set of implementers.
+
#**DSTU numbering runs independent of the normative release to which it becomes. Constraint on a different base standard is a different product.
#*:  c) Whose use of the R2B specification is noted in the Project Scope Statement (??NIB/??/Request to Publish)
+
#**family of CDA IGs is CDA R2. Family of CDA R2 is V3. Need a family name appropriate to the context it's used in.
#*d) Have received permission from the TSC for such use of R2B
+
#**"Version 3" does not have a release number. You would have to identify it with the version of the RIM. Ideally it might be named HL7 Version 3 Release 2.07 Clinical Document Architecture, Release 2. Release number would have to be optional in the family identifier.
 +
#**DSTU does not need to be in the product name, or at the end so it can be dropped when it goes normative. Informative documents should be indicated as such, says Woody. The title is a unique representation of a specific document notes Woody so DSTU must be distinguished in the title. HL7 Version 3 Reference Information Model is used as a reference name to frame discussion.
 +
#**If the realm reference should precede the ballot level (DSTU) so it can be droppedHowever Calvin feels the consumer would benefit by indicating the ballot level prior to the realm. With regulatory bodies now starting to cite draft standards we need to spell out DSTU to make it very very clear.
 +
#**Calvin's release # is concatenated with Name but that won't fly with ANSI as they expect the release to occur as the last item in the name.
 +
#**Austin cites the HAI standard HL7 Implementation Guide for CDA Release 2 – Level 3: Healthcare Associated Infection Reports Release 2, DSTU Release 2 – US Realm
 +
#***Level 3 is the old indication of the CDA level that should no longer be relevant to our title.
 +
#**Woody notes that some domains have balloted topics independently for example HL7 V3 Patient Administration Patient Registry DSTU R1
 +
#** HL7 Implementation Guide for CDA Release 2 – Level 3: Healthcare Associated Infection Reports Release 2, DSTU Release 2 – US Realm would become HL7 Version 3 CDA(r) R2 Implementation Guide: Healthcare Associated Infection Reports Release 2, (US Realm) DSTU Release 2
 +
#**GOM section is for naming both ballots and specifications and so may have to allow for differences in naming of ballot documents and publication documents. Draft and DSTU can be in the ballot name. Woody notes that the ballot status has never been part of the publication name.  
 +
#**conflation of ballot and specification names needs more discussion - postpone to concall
 +
#*Pat brings her examples of Naming Convention for EHRWG Functional Models and Functional Profiles
 +
#**HL7 Functional Model: EHR-WG;  Electronic Health Record System Functional Model; R 2.0
 +
#**HL7/ISO Functional Model:   EHR-WG; Electronic Health Record System Functional Model; R2.1
 +
#**HL7/ISO/CEN/GS1/IHTSDO/CDISC Functional ModelEHR-WG; Electronic Health Record System Functional Model; R2.1
 +
#**HL7/JIC Functional ModelEHR-WG; Electronic Health Record System Functional Model; R2.1
 +
#**HL7 Functional ProfileEHRWG; EHR-S FM Public Health Functional Profile; R 2.0
 +
#**HL7 Functional Profile:  EHRWG; HER-S FM Child Health Functional Profile; R2.0
 +
#*Now a further constraint for Neonatal care, based off of the Child Health Functional Profile is done---
 +
#**HL7 Functional Profile:  EHRWG; EHRSFM; Child Health Functional Profile;  Neonatal Care Functional Profile R2.0
 +
 
 +
[http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/download/trackeritem/3502/12387/%48%4c%37%20%50%72%6f%6a%65%63%74%20%53%63%6f%70%65%20%53%74%61%74%65%6d%65%6e%74%20%56%32%30%31%35%5f%74%65%6d%70%6c%61%74%65%5f%77%69%74%68%5f%69%6e%73%74%72%75%63%74%69%6f%6e%73%5f%44%52%41%46%54%5f%56%37%2e%64%6f%63 Project scope statement TEMPLATE V7] for 2015 from Project Services of T3SD at [http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/project/tsc/tracker/?action=TrackerItemEdit&tracker_item_id=3502&start=0 TSC Tracker 3502], with [http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/download/trackeritem/3502/12364/%32%30%31%35%20%50%53%53%20%53%75%6d%6d%61%72%79%20%6f%66%20%45%64%69%74%73%20%56%33%2e%64%6f%63%78 list of changes]
 +
*Feedback on 2015PSS template, FMG approval line should occur before Steering Division, as changes at the FMG review would need to go to Steering Division. From WG approval it can be submitted to FMG and the SD simultaneously however as the FMG meets weekly and Steering Divisions meet less frequently. (LL)
 +
 
 +
Architecture and Tooling:
 +
#[http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/download/trackeritem/3133/11700/%48%4c%37%5f%50%72%6f%6a%65%63%74%5f%53%63%6f%70%65%5f%53%74%61%74%65%6d%65%6e%74%5f%76%32%30%31%33%5f%2d%5f%76%32%5f%57%6f%72%6b%73%68%6f%70%2d%41%53%2e%64%6f%63 V2.x Tutorial Workshop Development] for Education WG cosponsored by Tooling WG of T3SD at[http://www.hl7.org/Special/committees/education/projects.cfm?action=edit&ProjectNumber=1060 Project 1060] and [http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/project/tsc/tracker/?action=TrackerItemEdit&tracker_item_id=3133&start=0 TSC Tracker 3133].
 +
#*Budget implications from requirements gathering - Melva reports the WG is not ready yet to discuss budget estimates; review in November.
 
#TRAC update
 
#TRAC update
#Discuss S&I Portfolio and obtain feedback for Feik (Knapp)
+
#*Pat reviews the latest [http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/download/docmanfileversion/8363/12382/%43%6f%6e%73%6f%6c%69%64%61%74%65%64%52%69%73%6b%41%73%73%65%73%73%6d%65%6e%74%32%30%31%34%30%39%31%30%2e%78%6c%73%78 risk assessment spreadsheet]
 +
#*need to develop the feedback loops to bring changes identified elsewhere into the assessment spreadsheet e.g US Realm TF reviews prior to WG approval.
 +
#*each call reviews any emerging risks where the sky is falling, then resumes work on existing risk assessment work
 +
#*Started working on GPs and risks where current impact=critical and Likelihood=high as current issues.
 +
#*sometimes this reveals needed processes or WGH metrics or other mechanisms.
 +
#*Need to examine the membership and encourage others. Freida and Austin are interested but have conflicts. Currently Wednesdays at 10 AM Eastern.
 +
#*spreadsheet at gforge TSC docs under architecture>risk assessment. Freida suggests the GOC might want to review the risks that were identified from the GOM.
 +
 
 +
Wednesday lunch: Work Groups not posting minutes-CGIT will be invited.
 +
 
 +
Adjourned 4:59 PM
 +
 
 +
 
  
  

Latest revision as of 15:28, 23 September 2014

TSC Saturday meeting for 2014September Plenary and WGM

back to TSC Minutes and Agendas

TSC WGM Agenda/Minutes

HL7 TSC Meeting Minutes

Location: Conference Room 5E

Date: 2014-09-13
Time: 9 AM-5 PM
Facilitator: Ken McCaslin Note taker(s): Lynn Laakso
Attendee Name Affiliation
x Calvin Beebe HL7 SSD SD Co-Chair
x Woody Beeler HL7 FTSD Co-Chair
x Giorgio Cangioli HL7 Affiliate Representative
x Lorraine Constable HL7 ARB Vice Chair
x Jean Duteau HL7 Affiliate Representative
x Freida Hall HL7 TSS SD Co-Chair
Stan Huff HL7 Board Chair (member ex officio w/ vote)
Chuck Jaffe HL7 CEO (member ex officio w/o vote)
x Tony Julian HL7 ARB Chair
x Paul Knapp HL7 FTSD Co-Chair
x Austin Kreisler HL7 Ad-hoc member
x Lynn Laakso (scribe, non-voting) HL7 HQ
x Ken McCaslin HL7 TSC Chair, Ad-Hoc
Don Mon HL7 Board Vice-Chair (member ex officio w/o vote)
x Melva Peters HL7 DESD Co-Chair
x John Quinn HL7 CTO (TSC member ex officio w/vote)
x John Roberts HL7 DESD Co-chair
regrets Andy Stechishin HL7 T3SD Co-Chair
x Pat Van Dyke HL7 SSD SD Co-Chair
Quorum Requirements (Co-chair +5 with 2 SD Reps) Met: (yes)

Homework

Agenda Topics

Q1 - Governance - 9 am to 10:30 am

Roadmap and HL7 Strategic Issues:

  1. Roll Call and Introduction of visitors (including declaration of interests)
  2. Additions to, and acceptance of, agenda:
  3. Link to Interim decision review since last WGM
  4. Strategic Initiative review
  5. SWOT review
  6. Product Line Architecture
    • Proposed V2.x Product Family definition
  7. Telecon Meeting schedule in October (skip Sep 22nd, also cancel the 6th (ISO), 13th (Holiday) of October?)

Q2 - Governance continued: 11 am to 12:30 pm

TSC Review and Planning

  1. (45 mins) Review Open Issues List
  2. Next WGM Planning - next two WGMs - agenda links
    • Maintenance project: Work Group Visibility
  3. (Sept) Review and re-confirm ArB membership (even numbered years)
  4. (Sept) Review and confirm ORC liaison assignment
  5. 2015 Project Scope Statement final review (if needed)

Q3 - Governance continued: 1:30 pm to 3 pm

TSC Project Review

  1. Strategic Initiative Review
  2. updates to our naming conventions and DSTU release guidance. (Tracker 3283)
  3. TSC position statement on new projects using R2B - Woody
  4. TRAC update
  5. Discuss S&I Portfolio and obtain feedback for Feik (Knapp)

Q4 - Management - 3:30 pm to 5pm

Project scope statement TEMPLATE for 2015 from Project Services of T3SD at TSC Tracker 3502, with list of changes

  • Feedback on 2015PSS template, FMG approval line should occur before Steering Division, as changes at the FMG review would need to go to Steering Division. From WG approval it can be submitted to FMG and the SD simultaneously however as the FMG meets weekly and Steering Divisions meet less frequently. (LL)

E-vote from this week

Architecture and Tooling:

  1. V2.x Tutorial Workshop Development for Education WG cosponsored by Tooling WG of T3SD atProject 1060 and TSC Tracker 3133.
    • Budget implications from requirements gathering
  2. (Electronic Services and) Tooling

Minutes/Conclusions Reached:

Q1 - Governance - 9 am to 10:30 am

Convene 10:01 AM - Roadmap and HL7 Strategic Issues:

  1. Roll Call and Introduction of visitors (including declaration of interests)
  2. Additions to, and acceptance of, agenda: Freida will add the updated PSS template
  3. Link to Interim decision review since last WGM
  4. Strategic Initiative review - the Board strategic initiatives have not been developed in a way suitable for review. There are three but they are not prioritized and expectations set. Postpone until the updated initiatives are ready for review.
  5. SWOT review
    • Strength for support on Work Group members; could also be threat to lose that support or opportunity to gain more. Melva suggests that we add a weakness that we have support but still sometimes we don't get the support we need by the Board and members.
    • Weakness for bringing in external standards - S&I, IHE, HITSB; US Realm TF is addressing. Needs to be further refined. Most of what is coming in is not purely adopted from external development but proposed. UDI/GS1 discussed. Sometimes it is starting a new group.
    • Threat of IP at no cost has dissipated as the revenues have recovered states Calvin. Giorgio points out that the financial considerations are not really a TSC level. Calvin suggests we remove it.
    • Product quality: still an opportunity or a weakness. More of a process quality weakness states Paul. Opportunities to fix problems sound more like weaknesses. If there's not a current problem perhaps it is a threat notes JohnR. Lynn notes that it's been punted to TRAC and lacks momentum. Paul defines Process quality including consistent application of process to methodology. Calvin notes that CCDA implementation in EHRs around the US is revealing perceptions of quality problems with too much optionality etc and it is a threat.
    • vitality assessment and triggers remain an opportunity - Austin notes that it has not been disseminated into the organization outside TSC/ARB.
    • Threat: Increased mandates from US Realm could be both threat and opportunity notes Calvin. Increased uptake by national programs would be the opportunity
    • Threat - keeping up with increased uptake of our standards (e.g. FHIR)
    • New member benefits, user groups and AID discussed. They may convert to user group by may
    • Motion: Jean moves and Woody seconds updated SWOT.
    • well established profiling activity needs to be developed for FHIR notes Calvin. Governance and support of profile creation as well as publishing support to maintain activity notes Woody. Freida notes if we expect profiles to complete the 20% not defined by FHIR core and there is an agency positioning themselves as the responsible party for the realm for profiles in that realm. Paul notes that anyone can create profiles it's the governance and curation of the profiles that is at issue. The registry requirements may allow crowdsourcing the curation notes Lorraine. Curate and manage processes around the artifacts would be a lost opportunity if HL7 does not retain control. Freida notes that in the Innovations effort there were crowdsourcing efforts described but the HL7 vetted products would have a formal HL7 endorsement. Paul suggests governance and physical support for emerging standards and processes will fall to others if HL7 does not maintain control. Lorraine suggests we will not have adequate governance, management, curation and support processes to manage uptake of standards and resulting profiles created in the industry. Further discussion reflected on wiki page.
    • Vote: unanimously approved
    • Ken asks for individuals to take on each of these threats.
      • Overhead is an overall TSC issue; also look at things that we have been doing in the past to see if we still need to do them e.g. WGH measures. Austin suggests that if TRAC is already doing risk assessment for the TSC should we be assigning a report back from TRAC. Bringing the FHIR risks out in this discussion will be refreshing a source of risks for TRAC in Weaknesses and Threats. Anything that needs a mitigation plan needs to go through TRAC notes Austin. Calvin asks about creating a forum for TRAC to report back to the TSC. Pat notes we need a repeatable process for TRAC to go through to set the props under the committee. Pat notes we will go through the feedback on weaknesses and threats at the next meeting but there is a TRAC update in Q3. We will add TRAC to upcoming meetings in Q1 or 2.
  6. Product Line Architecture
    • Proposed V2.x Product Family definition; punted to the sidelines based on whether V2.9 changes cutoff date has been set and whether it would be pursued as a continuous maintenance process.
    • Calvin asks what the process for proposing a Product Family is? It would be a TSC process which has not been exercised yet but would be based on the first two chapters of the BAM.
    • Calvin notes the CDA R2 IG product family should also be addressed.
    • JohnQ notes that FHIR work with various V2 chapter editors to establish what needs to be in FHIR. It is acting as a force of change across all product families. LOI and LRI may be looking at developing FHIR APIs. New stuff coming back is starting to redefine existing stuff and when grabbing existing definitions off the shelf and interpreting them differently than the V2 chapter editors would like. TSC needs to be aware of the tensions between the WGs.
    • We have a loose definition with de facto governance, management and methodology for V2 publishing already with V2 Publishing as the management group. Do we make it formal?
    • Lynn notes a centralized product governance group would be a place for that discussion to happen - which may be the TSC or another group. FGB is trail blazing on the governance area but would they roll in.
    • Jean notes that FGB and FMG were experimenting with the development of the governance structure. If it works why wouldn't we use it elsewhere.
    • Calvin suggests that with a new product family a separate governance group might exist but as it matures it moves into a centralized governance group.
    • Overarching governance board needs representation from structural, external stakeholders, and a broad viewpoint notes Lorraine.
    • Woody notes that TSC already has a governance and management role. We created FGB and FMG - are we creating another level between product families and TSC? He thought governance is TSC's responsibility. Paul feels we would collapse future plans for governance boards down to a single governance board. With new things we might spin off a task force to set up and integrate into existing governance processes. Jean agrees the TSC is the ultimate governance body and FGB is a body we spun off but reports to the TSC. FMG is the de facto FHIR WG. If we do retroactive continuity changing (ret-con) and incorporate FGB into a central governance group.
    • V2: management is V2 publishing. Governance had ARB for substantive change but otherwise TSC.
    • Do we want to shoehorn the product governance into the existing governance section of the TSC agenda or appoint a sub-body to meet separately and work on product governance, asks Lynn.
    • Calvin feels it would have to be a delegated group from this group and we need to start socializing the concept and move towards it as FHIR stabilizes. Then we need to set up management of product families.
    • Ken summarizes the plan to set up a Governance group separate from but reporting directly to the TSC across all product families. Do we expand the FGB across the organization or create a separate one and roll FGB in?

Q2 - Governance continued: 11 am to 12:30 pm

  1. Telecon Meeting schedule in October (skip Sep 22nd, also cancel the 6th (ISO), 13th (Holiday) of October?)
    • Sep 29th meet, then two weeks off and meet Oct 20th and going forward. Ken will not be back until November 4th. We will also do e-votes.
  2. Governance discussion continued.
    • Two paths: expand FGB or set up a governance board and roll FGB into it.
    • FGB membership reviewed. Composition roles are appropriate but membership for governance at large not specific to FHIR would need review. Woody notes that some of the product lines we have already have de facto governance that is working well and we need to document it. Calvin describes challenges with de facto governance structure in SDWG for CDA. Jean notes V2 publishing is working and that can be the governance for V2. SDWG is not working well for governance separation of concerns. It has domain, methodology as well as management conflated.
    • BAM has definition in first two sections. PLA has not effectively been able to develop such definition documents. Socialize the BAM guidance with the TSC and based on that go forward to document the product families. Socialize with FGB that we will move towards a single governance committee. Ken thinks we socialize in January, operationalized in May, and roll out next September. Calvin suggests we socialize in this meeting, operationalized in January and roll out in May. Give them a heads-up on Monday night to the cochairs and a call for participants to the ARB to develop the remaining architecture and call for participation on the PLA to instantiate it.
  1. Next WGM Planning - next two WGMs - agenda links
    • 2015-01-17_TSC_WGM_Agenda in San Antonio
      • New room reservation system will be in effect, cochair training has not filled up yet. SD should encourage the cochairs to sign up.
        • Details of the use of the app reviewed. Host group needs to only estimate their own attendees and each joining group will add their own estimate. Webinar will be available but not until after training sessions have completed. Calvin suggests a quick overview or preview of the top three points they need to learn in the training. Ken identified the issues that would arise and should not be addressed on Monday but in the training sessions. Steering Divisions should focus on the Help Desk interaction so he didn't want to burden them with conducting the training there. JohnR noted he couldn't figure out how to register for the training as he has admin folks doing registration for him. Ken reports there is room in the 5:30 Thursday but 7 and 12:45 on Thursday are getting full. The training is not offered the other days. The link will be available from Monday forward.
        • Room requests can be made for breaks; discussion ensued.
      • Help Desk slides for SD review - Freida wants to get the URL
      • Operationalize product governance board
    • 2015-05-09_TSC_WGM_Agenda in Paris France
      • Product governance group should now be in effect.
    • Maintenance project: Work Group Visibility
  2. (Sept) Review and re-confirm ArB membership (even numbered years)
    • Tony reports they have accepted the resignation of Jane Curry with her retirement
    • ARB wiki page reviewed. They have not had effective participation from Ron Parker, Steve Hufnagel, or Patrick. Andy Bond and Zoran attend teleconferences and make contributions. GOM says they have to meet attendance requirements but is missing the section with other similar groups which can offer mitigating circumstances with notice. Patrick has attended one meeting and has provided work on the tutorial.
    • Ken asks Tony and Lorraine to bring proposed changes to the GOM to support Andy Bond and Zoran's membership.
    • Their efforts to bring on guests to work them into active ARB participation has yielded Jean and occasionally Brian Pech. Externally recruited membership such as Bo Dagnall whose only participation is through ARB discussed.
    • They do not yet have a suggestion to replace Jane; they will try to have one by tomorrow night. Calvin suggests also they send solicitation for participation in ARB on Monday night in addition to the focused call for participants on the BAM. Ken will include this. Pat suggests he clarify that ARB participation is ok even if you're not an appointed member.
    • Tony notes the SAIF CD passed normative ballot.
  3. (Sept) Review and confirm ORC liaison assignment - existing rep is Melva. The committee has never met during the term of her assignment. She will accept continued liaison representation. Motion: Lorraine moves and Calvin seconds appointment. Vote: unanimously approved.
    • Paul wonders who W3C liaison is for work that ITS wishes to bring to them. We don’t have a formal agreement with them any longer notes Freida. The ITS committee wants to register some MIME types; do they have the power to do so? Karen VanHentenryck has been the staff member that works with ORC. Woody suggests they ask permission of the person responsible for the relationship on the HL7 side (John Quinn) to do this. JohnQ notes that his concern that it is reported and recorded by Staff for historical reference. Paul will take a motion in the WG for the formal intent of registration of the MIME type and email John Quinn and Karen.
      • Pat asks about whether it is something that should be recorded on a project scope statement? They often don't know at project initiation if such an external registry needs to be updated. We have the HTA for updates or registrations to other external vocabularies. The registration is actually with ICANA not W3C. JohnQ recounts a presentation to NCVHS regarding CDA and payer practices.
  4. Project scope statement TEMPLATE V7 for 2015 from Project Services of T3SD at TSC Tracker 3502, with list of changes
    • Is the security risk analysis for executable deliverables a mandatory? Woody notes that the security WG has never been able to adequately describe the conditions where a WG must perform a security assessment. Lorraine notes that there needs to be clarification in the governance process on using the security cookbook. We just need to give them guidance on closing the holes. You just need an instruction on what review you need. On the publication request, are you publishing an executable and if so, is it supported by documentation of security mitigation for exploits. You can't wait until then notes Austin as ONC or regulatory timeline will be missed. Change the second line so that if yes, then you should do 'this'. Melva suggests we ask for a link to the risk analysis documentation.
    • Edits made; ask for documentation of security risk analysis on the NIB if they are including executable material. Schema as an executable is a difficult risk analysis to document.
    • Jean and Woody think this whole security analysis check is overhead and it is implied that you consume at your own risk. Paul thinks that the website and license should make that clear to the consumer. Calvin notes that prior to the fix also noted that it was a representational stylesheet and use at your own risk. The TSC is not prepared to offer a mechanism to work groups that don't have the experience to perform that analysis.
    • Ken offers to take an action item to review copyright statements for use at your own risk with Karen and review suggestions Sunday night. Woody is convinced the standard disclaimer doesn't include but the tooling license does.
    • Feedback on 2015PSS template, FMG approval line should occur before Steering Division, as changes at the FMG review would need to go to Steering Division. From WG approval it can be submitted to FMG and the SD simultaneously however as the FMG meets weekly and Steering Divisions meet less frequently. (LL)
    • Changes made; postpone vote to next quarter


Q3 - Governance continued: 1:30 pm to 3 pm

  • One more change: section 7 for ARB review. US Realm TF is more for coordination and understanding of the slate of work and procedural based. Content review is different. ARB will need to beef up their resources to handle the work. Change to a date of review rather than y/n checkbox
  • External funded discussed for potential to put into section 6 with project approval dates.
  • Putting 7 ahead of 6 makes sense. Current 7 becomes 6a and 6 becomes 6b etc. Freida and the PSC will sort out the numbering.
  • Realm (former # 8) should also occur prior to the approval dates section.
  • Amended motion: approve as reviewed with allowing the editors to make the section adjustments, agreed by Lorraine/Jean.
  • Need to add in the guidance on the R2B projects.
  • table vote until resolution on next section
  1. TSC position statement on new projects using R2B - Woody
    • HL7's primary specification for Data Types to be used in Interoperability is "HL7 Version 3 Standard: Data Types - Abstract Specification, Release 2" Any specification, other than HL7 Version 2 is expected to use or base its data types on this specification (which is also an ISO standard).
    • In order to facilitate selected applications originally implemented in Release 1 of this standard, the Implementation Technology Specification Work Group, created an implementation specification "HL7 Version 3 Standard: XML Implementation Technology Specification - Data Types - Abstract DT R2 Implemented in Wire Format Compatible With DT R1, Release 1" This specification is known in short-hand as Data Types R2B.
    • The purpose of this specification was to support active projects, with functioning implementations that originated in the R1 data types. Future use of the "R2B" Implementation Technology is limited to projects that:
      a) Were originally developed AND implemented in DT R1
      b) Are being corrected or extended in the same functional space for use by the original community of implementers.
      c) Whose use of the R2B specification is noted in the Project Scope Statement - "Does this project seek to use ITS R2B or its Datatype representations?"
      d) Have received permission from the TSC for such use of R2B
    • This removes the five-year limit on the R2B specification
    • Jean asks if all four must be true; Woody feels so.
    • Woody adds that the project must be using CMETs such as CPM; to allow ICSR and others to grow we have maintained an R2B representation of those CMETs. This is implicit in the use of the R2B specification.
    • Austin asks about the five-year timeline. This would deliberately remove the five-year time limit so that an active community can be accommodated.
    • Calvin notes that CDA had users interested in R1 datatypes. R2B datatypes are wire format compatible with datatypes from R1. However it wants to bring in the new RIM that are breaking changes such as negation indicator. R2B is bound to the current RIM but R1 is bound to the old RIM. Context conduction was broken prior to R2B.
    • Abstract Data types are already at 5 years.
    • Motion: adopt this as the position of the TSC by Woody second by Paul. Pat would like to expressly indicate this removes the 5 year limit
    • Vote: unanimously approved
  2. Freida notes that the FAQ already has statement that you are using R2 unless otherwise specified. Woody further states that the backwards compatibility item 3m is separate from the "ITS-R2B" (need to have an abbreviation). Take out the statement on "if desired, enter any additional information on backwards compatibility". Put it in the specific instructions for that section rather than the FAQ and appendices.
  • Vote: unanimously approved.
  1. Discuss S&I Portfolio and obtain feedback for Feik (Knapp)
    • Paul shows the slideshow
    • Top of slide 3 Active Initiatives are of concern
    • DAF will be looking for committees doing content potentially using INM to coordinate
    • DPROV just getting started. Paul notes that participation and influence on resources in FHIR is very different from ownership in resources and some WGs are having trouble working in that arrangement. Provenance as EHR vs Security vs CBCC turf war needs primary focus in coordination.
    • SDC in ballot
    • EU/US eHealth Cooperation involves a CDA IG but not the development of the standard
    • BlueButton+ lacking participation.
    • Lorraine comments that the diagram does not show the interdependencies between the line items with clinical quality framework; DAF and SDC both dependent on the detailed clinical models.
    • Important to know what is on the horizon instead of being asked to endorse without reading.
    • Austin cautions that ESMD also deserves attention though it's in the community-led or other agency-led section. It is not the entire portfolio. EHR S FM MU FP coming out of CMS. Usability FP is also in play and is an S&I initiative but is not on this list.
    • Lorraine adds that Feik will be presenting this in a large joint session Weds Q2.
    • There is expected to be an individual to coordinate with the US Realm. It's not Feik. May want to ask David Susanto. This resource is still needed.

Q4 - Management - 3:30 pm to 5pm

TSC Project Review

  1. updates to our naming conventions and DSTU release guidance. (Tracker 3283)
    • Calvin had a slide update
      • ISO reference e.g. ISO/HL7 27932:2008 is HL7's Clinical Document Architecture Release 2.0
      • ANSI name ANSI/HL7 CDA, R2 - 2005 (R2010) which is HL7 Clinical Document Architecture, Release 2
      • Calvin notes that the external organization with whom HL7 has joint publication may have their own designation
      • product family needs its own release e.g. CDA R1 or R2.
      • DSTU numbering runs independent of the normative release to which it becomes. Constraint on a different base standard is a different product.
      • family of CDA IGs is CDA R2. Family of CDA R2 is V3. Need a family name appropriate to the context it's used in.
      • "Version 3" does not have a release number. You would have to identify it with the version of the RIM. Ideally it might be named HL7 Version 3 Release 2.07 Clinical Document Architecture, Release 2. Release number would have to be optional in the family identifier.
      • DSTU does not need to be in the product name, or at the end so it can be dropped when it goes normative. Informative documents should be indicated as such, says Woody. The title is a unique representation of a specific document notes Woody so DSTU must be distinguished in the title. HL7 Version 3 Reference Information Model is used as a reference name to frame discussion.
      • If the realm reference should precede the ballot level (DSTU) so it can be dropped. However Calvin feels the consumer would benefit by indicating the ballot level prior to the realm. With regulatory bodies now starting to cite draft standards we need to spell out DSTU to make it very very clear.
      • Calvin's release # is concatenated with Name but that won't fly with ANSI as they expect the release to occur as the last item in the name.
      • Austin cites the HAI standard HL7 Implementation Guide for CDA Release 2 – Level 3: Healthcare Associated Infection Reports Release 2, DSTU Release 2 – US Realm
        • Level 3 is the old indication of the CDA level that should no longer be relevant to our title.
      • Woody notes that some domains have balloted topics independently for example HL7 V3 Patient Administration Patient Registry DSTU R1
      • HL7 Implementation Guide for CDA Release 2 – Level 3: Healthcare Associated Infection Reports Release 2, DSTU Release 2 – US Realm would become HL7 Version 3 CDA(r) R2 Implementation Guide: Healthcare Associated Infection Reports Release 2, (US Realm) DSTU Release 2
      • GOM section is for naming both ballots and specifications and so may have to allow for differences in naming of ballot documents and publication documents. Draft and DSTU can be in the ballot name. Woody notes that the ballot status has never been part of the publication name.
      • conflation of ballot and specification names needs more discussion - postpone to concall
    • Pat brings her examples of Naming Convention for EHRWG Functional Models and Functional Profiles
      • HL7 Functional Model: EHR-WG; Electronic Health Record System Functional Model; R 2.0
      • HL7/ISO Functional Model: EHR-WG; Electronic Health Record System Functional Model; R2.1
      • HL7/ISO/CEN/GS1/IHTSDO/CDISC Functional Model: EHR-WG; Electronic Health Record System Functional Model; R2.1
      • HL7/JIC Functional Model: EHR-WG; Electronic Health Record System Functional Model; R2.1
      • HL7 Functional Profile: EHRWG; EHR-S FM Public Health Functional Profile; R 2.0
      • HL7 Functional Profile: EHRWG; HER-S FM Child Health Functional Profile; R2.0
    • Now a further constraint for Neonatal care, based off of the Child Health Functional Profile is done---
      • HL7 Functional Profile: EHRWG; EHRSFM; Child Health Functional Profile; Neonatal Care Functional Profile R2.0

Project scope statement TEMPLATE V7 for 2015 from Project Services of T3SD at TSC Tracker 3502, with list of changes

  • Feedback on 2015PSS template, FMG approval line should occur before Steering Division, as changes at the FMG review would need to go to Steering Division. From WG approval it can be submitted to FMG and the SD simultaneously however as the FMG meets weekly and Steering Divisions meet less frequently. (LL)

Architecture and Tooling:

  1. V2.x Tutorial Workshop Development for Education WG cosponsored by Tooling WG of T3SD atProject 1060 and TSC Tracker 3133.
    • Budget implications from requirements gathering - Melva reports the WG is not ready yet to discuss budget estimates; review in November.
  2. TRAC update
    • Pat reviews the latest risk assessment spreadsheet
    • need to develop the feedback loops to bring changes identified elsewhere into the assessment spreadsheet e.g US Realm TF reviews prior to WG approval.
    • each call reviews any emerging risks where the sky is falling, then resumes work on existing risk assessment work
    • Started working on GPs and risks where current impact=critical and Likelihood=high as current issues.
    • sometimes this reveals needed processes or WGH metrics or other mechanisms.
    • Need to examine the membership and encourage others. Freida and Austin are interested but have conflicts. Currently Wednesdays at 10 AM Eastern.
    • spreadsheet at gforge TSC docs under architecture>risk assessment. Freida suggests the GOC might want to review the risks that were identified from the GOM.

Wednesday lunch: Work Groups not posting minutes-CGIT will be invited.

Adjourned 4:59 PM



Actions (Include Owner, Action Item, and due date)
  • .
Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items
  • .