2014-11-24 TSC Call Agenda

From HL7 TSC
Revision as of 22:36, 24 November 2014 by Anne wizauer (talk | contribs)
Jump to navigation Jump to search


TSC Agenda/Minutes

Meeting Info/Attendees

Standing Conference Calls

TSC will hold a Conference Call at 11AM Eastern time, each Monday except during scheduled face-to-face Working Group Meetings unless otherwise noted at TSC_Minutes_and_Agendas.

GoToMeeting at https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/426505829 using VOIP
For those without access to microphone/speakers:
US: +1 (224)501-3318
Canada: +1 (647)497-9379
Italy: +39 0 230 57 81 80
Access Code: 426-505-829
GoToMeeting ID: 426-505-829
HL7 TSC Meeting Minutes

Location: call 770-657-9270 using code 985371#
NEW GoToMeeting ID: 426-505-829

Date: 2014-11-24
Time: 11:00 AM U.S. Eastern
Facilitator: Ken McCaslin Note taker(s): Anne Wizauer
Quorum = chair + 5 including 2 SD represented yes/no
Chair/CTO ArB International Affiliate Rep Ad-Hoc
x Ken McCaslin x Tony Julian Regrets Jean Duteau .
x John Quinn . Lorraine Constable x Giorgio Cangioli .
Domain Experts Foundation and Technology Structure and Semantic Design Technical and Support Services
x Melva Peters . Woody Beeler Regrets Calvin Beebe . Freida Hall
x John Roberts x Paul Knapp x Pat van Dyke x Andy Stechishin
ex officio Invited Guests Observers HL7 Staff
. Stan Huff (HL7 Chair) w/vote . . obs1 x Anne Wizauer
. Doug Fridsma HL7 Chair-Elect vote . . . obs2 .
. Chuck Jaffe (CEO) vote . . . .



  1. Introduction of visitors (including declaration of interests)
  2. Agenda review and approval -
  3. Approve Minutes of 2014-11-17 TSC Call Agenda


  1. Approval items:
  2. Discussion topics:
  3. Proposals:


  1. Review action items
    • Calvin to forward back the naming conventions proposal document to the group for review
    • Paul and Andy to review external links issue
    • MaryKay McDaniel to take recommendation to draft a mission and charter for the BAM governance board to PLA, as well as listing some pros and cons of the TSC owning that responsibility. TSC to potentially review draft Sunday night at January WG meeting.
    • All: Make room reservations for Paris
  2. Approval items:
  3. Discussion topics:
  4. Reports: (attach written reports below from Steering Divisions et al.)
  5. Open Issues List


Minutes/Conclusions Reached:

  1. DSTU Publication Request for HL7 Implementation Guide for CDA Release 2: Consolidated CDA Templates for Clinical Notes at Project Insight 1014 and TSC Tracker 3788
    • After some discussion regarding reconciling negative votes, Paul moves to approve; Melva seconds. No negatives or abstentions.
  2. DSTU Publication Request for HL7 Implementation Guide for CDA, Release 2: Clinical Oncology Treatment Plan and Summary, Release 2, DSTU 2 at Project Insight 921 and TSC Tracker 3789
    • Pat moved to approve this document, Melva seconds. No negatives or abstentions.
  3. Continue discussion of FHIR Core WG proposal including Lloyd's draft of FHIR Core Mission and Charter
    • FHIR mission and charter: Tony shares the opinion of the ARB. As written, FCWG has too much power in terms of the solution scope. Tony will send Anne the verbiage to send back to the FHIR group. The current mission and charter is too broad. Paul states that not enough of the representatives of the named workgroups have reviewed the document. Paul says it’s too early for TSC to make a call – haven’t gotten FTSD comment, but he agrees with Tony’s comment especially regarding moving toward SAIF. Providing the information to support SAIF definitions will help to provide the information that consulting WGs would need to have to understand the intended natures of the relationships. Tension between domain committees and committees themselves determining direction; separation of duties, so to speak. Information around how this is different than FMG/FGB. Paul states they are not taking over any duties from existing groups. Ken wonders if we need a transition plan? Paul states this would transition from a non-formal FHIR project team. FGB will be replaced by a single governance board over all of our product lines being created by PLA’s BAM project. Desire to have this completed by January, but we should be more concerned with doing it correctly rather than based on a timeline. Proposal should be more explicit in their list of where the FHIR Core team is responsible for content as opposed to a WG – Melva. Paul states that when the document states they’ll consult with a group such as publishing, publishing will not be responsible for the ultimate decision – it will be FCWG. There should be more consistency with the other WG missions and charters. Paul says perhaps we don’t need to list FHIR content models, but if clinical genomics is creating a resource in FHIR, it’s not a formal relationship between those two. But if we need a clinical genomics resource, clinical genomics should have the final call as opposed to FCWG. Ken: Much concern over having FCWG being the final authority on an area that is someone else’s expertise. Paul personally agrees but brings up that we have domain expert oriented groups, and he doesn’t see the value in creating, say, more pharmacy groups. Each group gets to determine its structure. From an org perspective, we need to be very clear on scope creep or scope duplication. FHIR is not the last family of specs we’ll do – it’s the merely the fourth. We need to create a viable pattern that doesn’t go against or stated principles. We don’t want to split knowledge and resources. We don’t want pharmacy people and then FHIR pharmacy people. The comment that came out of ARB is following that issue, that this group now becomes judge, jury and executioner, the one-stop shop that determines anything having to do with FHIR, overriding other WGs. That’s not the purpose of those groups. We need to draw that clarity out. Ken: document looks like they have three different relationship types, plus sometimes two different relationships with specific WGs. Paul says yes, there are three classes. Datatypes are different in FHIR – in our regular work we have abstract and concrete. FHIR only has concrete representation. So does ITS or MnM have ownership? Decision keeps changing. Are these three different natures of relationships? Paul hopes that eventually enough details will be fleshed out that clarity will occur. FCWG is necessary but there is insufficient clarity to engage the WGs and we should not pull responsibility away from WGs. Ken: is there a reason they are calling these pieces out? We want people to support the WGs that have subject matter experts. The TSC doesn’t make domain content decisions unless something seems off; the project scope statement is a great example. The SD bring the PSS to us, and we sand off the rough edges and they go back to finish it based on suggestions. If TSC determines to move methodology from one committee to another that’s a TSC decision. We need to point out that they recognize as opposed to dictate the structure. Anne to forward this to Lloyd and Grahame - run past John Quinn first.

Call adjourned at 11:58.

Next Steps

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

© 2014 Health Level Seven® International. All rights reserved.