From HL7 TSC
Revision as of 20:41, 3 November 2008 by Karenvan (talk | contribs) (→‎Agenda)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

TSC - Technical Steering Committee

Monday, November 03, 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); Ed Tripp (newly elected TSC member); Ravi Natarajan (newly elected TSC member)



  1. (5 min) Meeting Admin
    1. Roll Call - The following individuals joined the call: Charlie McCay, John Quinn, Austin Kreisler, Gregg Seppala, Jim Case, Frank Oemig, Ken McCaslin, Ioana Singureanu, Helen Stevens Love, Woody Beeler, Charlie Mead, Chuck Meyer and Karen Van Hentenryck.
    2. Accept Agenda - No changes to the agenda were accepted.
    3. Approve Minutes from our October 27th call -
  2. (20 min) Standing Committee Reports/Approvals
    1. CEO Report - No report was submitted
    2. CTO Report - The following report was submitted via email [1]. Charlie McCay reported that there was interest expressed last week in having HL7 and IHTSDO exchange project information in much the same way that we exchange project information with CEN and ISO. We might even add these to our project insight database; McCaslin will take this issue up with Project Services. Quinn also feels that we should add a project to project insight for each ISO and/or CEN projects that is requesting something of HL7. This will allow us to track those.
    3. ArB Report - Charlie Mead reported that the ArB face-to-face meeting will convene next week. The comments received thus far on the SAEAF document fall into three categories 1)clarifications/questions 2) stylistic issues 3)SOA comments regarding harmonziation and questions as to why we aren't using some of the existing standards. This last category of comments are most difficult to deal with. They envision spending 1/3 of their time net week discussing the behavior architecture, 1/3 of their time discussing the SAEAF document and other topics that arise will consume the remaining time. The goal is to come away from the meeting with a second draft of the architecture document. Charlie also noted that NCI is starting a Bighealth consortium which is embracing the ArB architecture work. This is the first time that NCI has totally embraced HL7 work, which is encouraging. Singureanu asked if the SAEAF document comments are posted somewhere. Charlie Mead asked if they should be posted without responses/resolution or whether they should be posted following the meeting and with their responses. Singureanu suggested that they be posted before the meeting without response. The comments can be updated later once a resolution has been agreed to.
    4. Affiliates Report - Nothing to report.
    5. Domain Experts -
      • MOTION by SD: To approve the Emergency Care DAM, Release 1 project [2]. The project was unanimously approved.
    6. Foundation & Technology - Last week we discussed a proposal regarding HL7 Ping. The request to make this specification mandatory upon its balloting was rejected at this time and a set of recommendations were provided by the SD to the InM work group and documented in the meeting minutes. The future "HL7 Ping" specification may be of interest to the ArB. McCaslin noted that he does not support HL7 ping as a requirement.
    7. Structure & Semantic Design - Gregg Seppala noted that the Assessment project from Structure Docs is being voted on. When that vote has concluded the project will be brought forward to the TSC for vote. Oemig noted that the project is very similar to one being developed by Patient Care. Kreisler indicated that he was on the Structured Documents call where this was discussed. Patient Care was represented on that call and agreed to co-sponsor the project. Essentially, this is a CDA implementation of the Patient Care project.
    8. Technical & Support Services - McCaslin reported that he was hoping that the Steering Divisions would have already supplied him with the locations for their documents so as to be a role model for the Work Groups. He has yet to receive this information from all of the Steering Divisions and asks that they submit the information ASAP. He is also concerned about the policy on vendor demonstrations and is fearful that this has been overlooked. Meyer drafted a policy and distributed it to the TSC for review but has heard nothing. Meyer feels this has to do with a distinction between holding vendor demonstrations on products that will advance the business of HL7 as opposed to vendors simply demonstrating their products. The Tooling committee has scheduled a call this week to discuss Meyer's draft policy. ACTION ITEM: We will bring this issue back to the TSC in the near future for discussion.
  3. (30 min) Discussion topics
    • Review draft mission/charter template - Case (TSC Issue: 593)[3] - Case noted that the most difficult portion of the template is the outside connections. These are approved by the Board, not by the Work Groups. Kreisler noted that that needs to explicitly stated on the template. Send any comments on the draft template to Case by Thursday. ACTION ITEM: This item will be brought forward for vote on the Nov 10 call.
    • Review of updated DMPs [4] - Case submitted some comments to the TSC a few weeks ago. The most substantive comment was related to eliminating the proxy voting from these procedures. Others noted that the updated DMPs indicate that they are to be adopted by the committees at the end of the Jan WGM. The TSC believes that the January WGM deadline is too early for those committee's that have adopted DMPs, but are not using the Generic document as it was. For those committees, the TSC recommends that thw WGs be given until the end of the May WGM, 2009, to review and adopt DMPs that are consistent with the GOM, and have considered the changes in Relase 2 of the Generic DMP. ACTION ITEM: TSC members can send their comments on the DMPs to Van Hentenryck and she will forward them on to PIC.
    • Review ballot titles, etc for Jan 09 ballot cycle [5]. MOTION to approved was unanimous.
    • Identifying business in agendas for upcoming WGM - McCay (TSC Issue: 761)
    • Enterprise Architecture implementation project - McCay
    • Infrastructure release planning - McCay

Agenda item list (our sand box for future meetings)

Click for TSC Action Item List