From HL7 TSC
Revision as of 17:12, 27 July 2010 by WoodyBeeler (talk | contribs)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Fndn&Tech Steering Divn - Conference Call July 27, 2010


  • Implementable Technology Specifications (ITS)
  • Implementation/Conformance
  • Infrastructure & Messaging (InM)
  • RIM-Based Application Architecture (RIMBAA)
  • Modeling & Methodology (MnM)
  • Security
  • Service Oriented Architecture (SOA)
  • Templates
  • Vocabulary


Mulrooney, Laakso, Beeler, Walker, Stuart, Julian, Knapp


Approves Minutes of 6/29 by acclamation

Neutral Mapping Project (Critiqued at TSC on 7/26)


The diverse applications scare people, but they are there to entice the other committees to pay attention and help define the mapping requirements that they have. There is a HUGE need in HL7 to provide consistent and useful mapping of models, and to apply those to the tasks that several groups meet.

If the ITS activities makes folks nervous, and if those folks have been pursuing independent, private mapping, without considering the broader set of HL7 needs, then they should be nervous. They should be applauding this rather than throwing stones.

There is a broader issue of whether HL7 should "accept" models in other forms that require mapping to HL7 norms. Every time we accept one of these, we create a need for "mapping." This has been the genesis of things like "micro-ITS", "green CDA", etc.

Motion (Knapp/Beeler)(5-0-0)

Agreement by Steering Division that:

  1. There is a requirement for mapping that may affect many parties and it is reasonable that the scope statement list several of those parties.
  2. That the intent of ITS is to seek a common method for mapping, without controlling what is mapped, or whether the targets should (or should not) survive in HL7.
  3. Time line needs adjustment, but an open discussion of this at the October WGM is clearly needed and should include as many "interested" parties as possible.
  4. That discussion (from 3) should include the broadewr issue of model acceptance cited above.
  5. Steering Division believes this project MUST go forward in some form if HL7 wishes to present a coherent modeling "face" to its users.

Motion: (Beeler/Stuart)( 4-1-0)

Ask that ITS revise the document and forward it with this minute as supporting information. (Including supporting committees, time-lines, how used with Hl7 specifications)

Note from ITS in re h-Data Discussion of 6/29

ITS Notes regarding h-Data specification that was suggested as ballot material, based on REST and micro-ITS. This documents have been refined, wre withdrawn from the October ballot, and will be circulated for review in a joint meeting in Cambridge.

Agenda items

Action Item List

Back to Meetings