Concall-20080519

TSC - Technical Steering Committee

Monday, May 19th, 2008 11:00 AM (US Eastern Time, GMT -5)
To participate, dial 770-657-9270 and enter pass code 124466#
GoToMeeting at https://www.gotomeeting.com/join/822618174
GoToMeeting ID: 822-618-174 

back to TSC Minutes and Agendas

Attendance

Expected

• 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

invited

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

Apologies

• Gregg Seppala (S&SD SD)
• Ioana Singureanu (FT SD)

Agenda

1. (5 min) Meeting Admin
   1. Roll Call -
   2. Accept Agenda -
   3. Approve Minutes from meeting-20080503 and meeting-20080504
2. (20 min) Standing Committee Reports/Approvals
   1. CEO Report -
   2. CTO Report -
      • The ArB has started a process of peer review of a draft dynamic model framework document. The discussion has been spirited. The ArB is also planning interim meeting(s) to further work on the dynamic model framework & scope documents as well as the SOA aware Enterprise Reference Architecture Specification with an initial goal of presentation at the next WGM. Charlie Mead (ArB chair) will present and discuss this with the TSC during our May 19th conference call.
      • Kathleen Connor, Patrick Lloyd, Sarah Ryan, Gregg Seppala, Mollie Ullman-Cullere (via conference call), Sue Mitchell and many other recognizable HL7 members attended a three day face-to-face committee meetings of HITSP in Phoenix on Monday May 12th through Wednesday May 14th. In sharing notes and observations among our members there is a lot of concern about HITSP’s approach and the likelihood that any of the Implementation Specifications being produced will be usable. Among my observations that I shared among our group with general concurrence were:
        • The Implementation Specifications are in general lacking or at least lacking focus on developing a specification for the complete 1-6 layer stack below and application-to-application layer set of artifacts. Any user implementing them would be left to their own to select suitable 1-6 features and this would undoubtedly create incompatible message/document interfaces.
        • Vocabulary specification appears to be at best weak…maybe its just too early in the cycle for the latest set of workflows that are driving the next set of ISs.
        • The sets of technologies that are being selected to support a given workflow appears to be exceedingly complex and impractical. One element of a workflow is supported by a HL7 V2 message; another of the same workflow is supported by a V3 message, CDA document, IHE specification or a DICOM message. The overarching issue appears to be the expediency of meeting a time goal for publication of the ISs. However, attempts to discuss underlying policy or methodology are met with an “out of scope” rejection from the committee chairs (or at least I am told, since I did not personally witness this particular action).
        • Apparently HITSP still strives to use an “immediate solution” (i.e., CCD) for any piece of clinical information that might appear to be a normal subset of the information contained in a CCR/CCD document. HITSP continues to need “existing standards” to meet its mandate but appears to be really search for “standard implementation guides” that can be easily pieced into an HITSP IS.
        • Apparently the US NHIN projects have decided to not use the heretofore created (if applicatble) HITSP ISs. I have heard that hey have claimed that they are too difficult to implement and ONC has given them an out to use their own custom web-services based interfaces for the existing projects. This is a particularly ominous bad sign for the adoption of standards in the HIE market.
        • HITSP’s next meetings are in June in Washington DC (June 11-13 for the HITSP committee/domain meetings and a HITSP panel meeting on June 23).
   3. ARB report -
   4. Affiliates Report -
   5. Domain Experts -
   6. Foundation & Technology - The Steering Division approved the Project Scope Statement for Dynamic Framework Requiremetns submitted by the ArB during the call on May 13th. However, the ArB intended to submit the document as a deliverable for an existing project rather than a brand new scope statement for a new project. The document was sent for review on May 14th and the SD was given until May 16th to review the document: Definitions and Assumptions - Dynamic Framework and to provide feedback. To date, four additional requirements were suggested to the project team for consideration. The SD discussed them on the list.
      • Provide a deterministic mapping of current HL7-specific behavioral concepts (triggers, application roles, interactions, message wrappers) to standard- based behavioral concepts specified by the new framework.”
      • Describe system behavior and receiver responsibilities (e.g. Order Processing, V2 Chapter 2 acknowledgment processing)
      • Provide a standard-based, computable representation of the system behaviors and receiver responsibilities (e.g. WSDL, WSDL-CDL, BPEL)
      • Publish system behavior and receiver responsibilities specifications as a web site (e.g. similar to javadoc) or “book” reports (RTF, PDF, etc.)
   7. Structure & Semantic Design - Motion: Suggest that the start date for non-Pubs-db ballots be included in the HL7 ballot schedule on the web site and that the deadline for submission be only 30 prior to the close of ballot.
   8. Technical & Support Services -
3. (30 min) Discussion topics
   1. Reaffirmation of V2 XML standard -
   2. Out-of-cycle ballot criteria