From HL7 TSC
Revision as of 14:53, 10 March 2008 by Drjtcase (talk | contribs) (→‎Agenda)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

TSC - Technical Steering Committee

Monday, March 3rd, 2008 11:00 AM (US Eastern Time, GMT -5)
To participate, dial 702-894-2444 and enter pass code 1244667#
GoToMeeting at
GoToMeeting ID: 822-618-174 

back to TSC Minutes and Agendas



  • CTO: John Quinn
  • Domain Experts: Jim Case (primary), Austin Kreisler (alternate)
  • Foundation & Technology: Ioana Singureanu (primary), Woody Beeler (alternate)
  • Structure & Semantic Design: Calvin Beebe (primary), Gregg Seppala (alternate)
  • Technical & Support Services: Ken McCaslin (primary), Helen Stevens Love (alternate)
  • Affiliate: Frank Oemig,
  • ARB Chair: Charlie Mead
  • HQ: Karen Van Hentenryck


  • Charles Jaffe (CEO); Ed Hammond (HL7 Chair); Chuck Meyer (HL7 Vice Chair)



  1. (5 min) Meeting Admin
    1. Roll Call - The following individuals participated in the call: Calvin Beebe, Charlie McCay, Jim Case, Ed Hammond, Woody Beeler, Gregg Seppala, John Quinn, Ken McCaslin, Charlie Mead, Chuck Meyer, and Karen Van Hentenryck
    2. Accept Agenda - The agenda was accepted without modifications
    3. Approve Minutes - The minutes from the previous call are not yet available.
  2. (20 min) Standing Committee Reports/Approvals
    1. CEO Report - No report was provided.
    2. CTO Report Quinn referenced the report that was provided via email. No questions or comments on that report were raised.
    3. ArB Report Charlie Mead reported reported that in an attempt to finish the mission statement, the ArB revisited the question of whether they should be focused on HL7's internal architecture vs components of our customers' architecture. They believe they should be focused on the latter. We do need to have some understanding of the HL7 internal architectures (business and technical) to accomplish this task Without the understanding the HL7 business architecture, it is difficult for the ArB to move forward. The ArB therefore agreed to focus, in the next few weeks, on defining a light weight RFP to document HL7’s current business architecture. Hammond noted that he doesn’t know what is meant by business architecture and that this likely needs to involve the Board. Charlie Mead agrees and indicated that the Board would need to fund this project. At the moment there is no budgetary expectation, but it is likely a 3-6 month effort. The lightweight RFI should define the skill set, framework, etc.for the business architecture document. The TSC members on the call support the ArB drafting the RFI.
    4. Affiliates Report - Nothing to report.
    5. Domain Experts Case reported that the Steering Division convened a conference call but did not achieve quorum. They did agree to an eVote on the project scope statements provided below. Case noted that his Steering Division indicated that they did not understand if a DAM was version (i.e. v2.x vs. V3) specific, particularly as it relates to the TB DAM project, and were unsure how to respond to a negative ballot from an SD committee. Charlie Mead responded that DAMs (Domain Analysis Models) explain the domain in question. They should be able to be vetted by a large number of domain experts. ACTION ITEM: Charlie Mead will email a statement from the ArB that defines DAMs, and thereby resolve the issue raised by the Domain Experts steering division.. The other question that the steering division raised was how negative votes on a proposed scope statement should be handled. These don’t carry as much weight as a negative on a ballot and don't require reconcililiation, although the concerns raised should be addressed. MOTION by Case: That the TSC approve the six Project scope statements brought forward by the Domain Experts Steering Division; seconded by Woody. Discussion: McCaslin raised the issue that some of the scope statements aren’t really scoped and appear to be open ended. Hammond agreed but suggested that the TSC approve these and improve them as we move forward. Someone questioned the role of the DAM in the ballot process. Beeler noted that the two DAM projects are being presented as informative documents, which seems appropriate. Charlie Mead noted that the ArB has heard that some folks want DAMs to be normative and thus they are drafting minimal criteria for normative standards. ACTION ITEM: Case suggested that the discussion of the DAM be brought forward to the next call. ACTION ITEM: The ICSR project scope statement should be sent back to the committee to clarify JIC collaborations. McCay reminded the TSC that by endorsing the JIC projects, the TSC is giving HL7 responsibility to deliver on the process. There will be some logistic and management work on the part Quinn and Van Hentenryck to ensure that these projects are appropriate tracked and completed. Outcome: The TSC unanimously approved all six projects.
      • TB DAM [1]
      • Cardiology (ACS) DAM [2]
      • CDA R2 PIUC [1.doc]
      • SDTC QRDA [3]
      • Individual Case Safety Report, R3 [4]
      • IDPM Project [5]
    6. Foundation & Technology - Nothing to report.
    7. Structure & Semantic Design - Beebe reported that the Structure & Semantic Design steering division will meet this week to consider the proposed GELLO syntax project.
    8. Technical & Support Services - McCaslin referred to the motion [6] that he distributed via the tas listserv related to the project templated. After some discussion the group determined that there is no reason for a motion. Beeler noted that the documents in questions are hard to locate. In particular, he believes that Diagrams 131 and 133 from the HDF fit nicely together and need to be visable. Beeler will extract these from the HDF and distribute them on the TSC listserve. This distribution is not intended to replace what the project services committee needs to distribute, it is simply illustrating the pieces that need to come together., We need to get the project scope statement approved, which includes an documented procedures for project initiative and approval processes.
  3. (30 min) Discussion topics
    • Project Initiation process, to ballot or not to ballot - McCay noted that we've covered this topic in the previous discussion.
    • Technical Newsletter schedule/volunteers to contribute to first release, etc - McCay noted that we need a schedule/volunteers to contribute to the first release of the technical newsletter. MOTION by Beeler: That HQ initiative the process to produce the technical newsletter; seconded by McCaslin. The motion passed unanimously.
    • Review out-of-cycle ballot criteria [7]- This item was deferred to the March 10 call.
    • Review workgroup management guidelines - (see TSC Issue 153/ task 142) [8]- This item was deferred to the march 10 call.

The call adjourned at 11:48 am ET.

Agenda item list (our sand box for future meetings)

Click for TSC Action Item List