2018-05-14 Product Family Management Group Meeting

From HL7 TSC
Revision as of 09:06, 14 May 2018 by Anne wizauer (talk | contribs)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
HL7 Product Family Management Council Minutes

Location: Saal 2, Heumarkt

Date: 2018-05-14
Time: 7:00 AM
Facilitator Wayne/Lorraine Note taker(s) Anne
Attendee Name

x Wayne Kubick, CTO
x Lorraine Constable (ARB)
x David Hay (FMG)
x Lloyd McKenzie (FMG)
Richard Esmond (CIMI)
x Lisa Nelson (CDAMG)
x Brett Marquard (CDAMG)
x Mary Kay McDaniel (PLA)
x Paul Knapp (SGB)
x Grahame Grieve (FMG)
x Cecil Lynch (ARB)
x Galen Mulrooney (CIMI)
x Stan Huff (CIMI)

no quorum definition


  • Invited participants: Co-chairs of TSC, V2, CIMI, CDA-MG, FMG, PLA, SGB
  • Purpose of forum
  • Future Plans
  • Meeting Schedule


  • Wayne chairing
  • Wayne describes the purpose of the group. Working to harmonize and converge some of the disparities across the organization, so this will be an information exchange forum.
  • Makes sense to do this each WGM so we need to figure out the schedule. Don’t want it to be a burden on people; need to think about how often should we meet to achieve our objectives.
  • Need to look at roadmap planning. Would like to see people projecting three year plans of primary milestones, which the ability to drill down as time goes on.
  • Next is a notion of messaging around the current state and future trajectory for each of the product families according to the product life cycle chart. The cycle is introduction, growth, maturity and decline. Want to describe a capsule summary of the product life cycle.
  • MK: With roadmap planning, we asked CDA-MG to do was first put together an inventory of what they have and where it’s at. They have pieces at different levels. Includes published specifications as well as things in development. Brett asks if FMG does any tracking of FHIR projects through IHE? Grahame states there hasn’t been formal tracking but their involvement has been beneficial. Wayne notes they’ve registered 21 IGs on FHIR.org. CDAMG has asked them for a list of IGs that are CDA. Wayne notes we should ask the same thing about V2 and V3. MK: How can we help support them in this? They are spending a lot of time chasing some things down. Lisa: Now we’re looking to find what we know is most active. In terms of he roadmap, we’ll put those active things out there and ask others to come forward with IGs that aren’t dead and put those on the roadmap. Grahame: Should we do something like the FHIR IG registry for CDA? One problem that I’m hearing that is similar with the FHIR community is that if it’s not published, it’s essentially secret/invisible. Discussion over whether or not we have an adequate precept to cover this? Grahame notes specific work that is being done on private Github accounts despite requests to move to publicly available, HL7 managed platforms.
  • MK: The other piece that goes along with this is we need to let people know what the expectations are. People don’t do things maliciously, it just evolves that way. Some people aren’t comfortable with the wiki. We need to have a consistent platform for which we provide some basic education. Lorraine: There will always be more than one set of tools. Wayne: It’s part of the evolving suite of tools. Galen: Confluence is a whole lot easier to use than the old wiki. As we start moving away from our product being a bunch of PDF files, the use of something like Github is more and more important. We’ll be moving over to the HL7 Github now that we know about it.
  • Wayne: Should also be discussing whether there is a way to reduce diversity in our processes. It’s frustrating that we have inconsistent datatypes, for example. Paul; We can’t make everything the same, but when we have two things that are legitimately different, we need to help with translating those things. Lisa asks if someone can make a list of the differences in the datatypes? Galen states they’re using ISO and FHIR datatypes; discussion over how that works. Grahame notes there is better alignment between FHIR and V3, except for timing. Wayne suggests we put a confluence page up to start noting the differences in the datatypes.
  • We need to work together to move toward more common tooling. Lorraine notes that HL7 needs to be providing education on how to do that.
  • We are also working to operationalize/communicate SGB precepts.
  • Paul: SGB will be doing a brief overview at the cochair dinner tonight. SGB creates precepts but we don’t manage them or administrate them. Management groups will be helping to implement them in their own family; we need to increase coordination between SGB and the management groups. The rules are to decrease complexity and give people valuable guidelines. MK: When it gets down to a question of a technical difference in datatypes – from an architectural perspective overall for the product family, who is the ultimate authority on tweaking datatypes? Paul: Historically the concept of the datatypes belong to the methodology groups of the product families. When it comes to serializing it, it’s ITS and FHIR-I. Lorraine: How do we bring together that view across product families? Paul: We need to eventually get the methodology groups to enunciate why they need to do a variance and how that should be coped with by the community. ARB would weigh in to address that. Discussion over which groups provide methodology for each family.
  • How often do we want to meet? Where/when? Do we want to meet in Baltimore? Set up a call between? Decision to work to set up a call before Baltimore and also plan to meet in Baltimore, tentatively Wednesday Q0, SGB Hosting.
    • ACTION: Anne to schedule meeting

© 2018 Health Level Seven® International. All rights reserved