From HL7 TSC
Revision as of 12:07, 24 July 2008 by Charliemccay (talk | contribs)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

TSC - Technical Steering Committee

Monday, July 21st, 2008 11:00 AM (US Eastern Time, GMT -5)
To participate, dial 770-657-9270 and enter pass code 124466#
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)


  • Ken McCaslin
  • Gregg Seppala
  • Charlie McCay


  1. (5 min) Meeting Admin
    1. Roll Call -
    2. Accept Agenda -
    3. Approve Minutes from concall-20080707 -
  2. (20 min) Standing Committee Reports/Approvals
    1. CEO Report -
    2. CTO Report -
    3. ARB report - Below is summary from the second of our three JumpStart SOA meetings. The issue of ‘what is an Entity in the RIM and how does it relate to service specifications restricted to Entity semantics’ remains an open (and very much contested issue) and now seems to warrant formal escalation to MnM (for starters):
      • The centerpiece of the week's discussion was conformance and compliance. It, and the follow on discussions of governance, became the biggest supporting points for SOA
      • There was some concern about the NCI-heavy version of what we were doing (from Mead and AMS). Jane and I talked about the Mayo, IBM, Siemens, Accenture, BAH, VA, DoD, and Infoway acknowledgement of what we are doing. We should make this acknowledgement (and in most cases acceptance / alignment) specific and explicit
      • There was a general feeling that the concepts of SOA support the other implementation paradigms. JC pushed the idea that the HDF really needs to yield Service Development Framework, Message Development Framework, Structured Docs Dev FW, and the EHR Functional Profile Development Framework. These would all yield contracts (ISCS's) and support the ideas of conformance and compliance, as well as support governance models.
      • We had a very good conversation about who our customers are (the answer is "anyone interested in building collaborations to support healthcare or the life sciences)")
      • AMS wants to create a uml profile for services that is supported by our conformance model - I started one based on UPMS, but UPMS is lacking in several regards. Still it is a start. The conformance profile has changed slightly, but I believe is very solid (attached).
      • There was also a lot of work on the Dynamic Framework. We agreed that Application Roles are a conceptual level thing that should be included for conformance, but that the CDL definitions are very good in defining the pieces and parts of an application role. There was also some agreement that CDL is mixing and matching layers (PIM v PSM, etc.). Interestingly, the group were pretty opposed to the work to define the v3 ADT specs using the CDL - the HL7 v3 spec contains a lot of spurious analysis and assumptions that probably should not apply.
    4. Affiliates Report - Nothing to report.
    5. Domain Experts -
      • Follow up from item from July 7 call - Domain Experts steering division co-chairs will check on the Clinical Decision Support: Virtual Medical Record, Release document to determine whether the corresponding project scope statement has been approved. Without seeing a project scope statement, it appears that this particular document would overlap with other documents being products by other Work Groups within HL7.
    6. Foundation & Technology -
    7. Structure & Semantic Design -
    8. Technical & Support Services -
  3. (30 min) Discussion topics
    1. Request from Structured Documents to publish the following two documents as DSTUs:
      • HL7 Implementation Guide for CDA Release 2: History and Physical (H&P) Notes [1]
      • HL7 Implementation Guide for CDA Release 2: Consultation Notes [2]
    2. Request from RCRIM to publish the Regulated Products Submission Standard Release 1 as an informative document [3]
    3. Request from Patrick Lloyd to publish the Ambulatory Care ELINCS implementation guide as an informative document and to register the document with ANSI as a technical report.[4]
    4. Proposed standards naming conventions TSC Issue Tracker Item: 338[5]
    5. Prioritize the Issues list [6]

Agenda item list (our sand box for future meetings)

Click for TSC Action Item List