From HL7 TSC
Revision as of 15:58, 24 February 2009 by Ioana13 (talk | contribs) (→‎Adjourned)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

FTSD Conference call


  • Implementable Technology Specifications (ITS)
  • Implementation/Conformance
    • Jason Rock
    • Frank Oemig
  • Infrastructure & Messaging (InM)
    • Tony Julian
  • RIM-Based Application Architecture (RIMBAA)
  • Modeling & Methodology (MnM)
    • Ioana Singureanu
  • Security
    • Glen Marshall
  • Service Oriented Architecture (SOA)
    • Galen Mulrooney
  • Templates
  • Vocabulary
    • Beverly Knight


Feb. 10th 2009

  1. Approve previous meeting minutes for Steering Division Face-to-face meeting: January 12th, 2009- Unanimous
  2. Adopt Agenda - Unanimous

Discussion of ArB Participation


  1. The ArB is tackling issues that have already been addressed by FTSD work groups (e.g. Conformance) . How do we make sure the SD is involved in those discussions.
  2. What is the process by which SAEAF peer review can be resolved if the ArB rejects them. How do we involve other stakeholders in those discussions?


  • 2nd draft of SAEAF available no later than FEb 15th, open comment period by March 15th, notifications will be *sent to the ArB, SD, etc. The Peer-review will use the tracker for SAEAF

The ArB will reach out to anyone who submitted comments and there will a process for dealing with resolving outstanding issues post review.

  • The HL7 Glossary needs to reflect that conformance rather than compliance is in use in HL7
  • Conformance has a concept of "conformance levels" (1 to 6) - how is that reflected in the SAEAF? The more detailed conformance documentation is used for testing.
  • Conformance testing relies on profiles - this is true for HL7 - message profiles, conformance profiles.

Currently, HL7 does not provide conformance testing.

  • Frank Oemig and Jason Rock indicated that the specifics of confromance should be discussed in Implementation and Confromance work group.
  • We need to make sure that we are aware about what each work groups is working on - shoud we use the 3-year road map.
  • We need consolidate all these resources regarding conformance to make sure that is ArB is aware of it.


  1. The work the ArB is doing overlaps very clearly with the work our Steering Division is involved. Should there be a relationship between our SD and the ArB? The ArB does not overlap with any other SD.
  2. What level of involvement is appropriate?
  3. Most ArB votes are done by acclamation not votes. Is there an opportunity to coordinate votes ahead of time? For strategic decision to involve the steering division? Tony asked "How do we know a decision is strategic"?

Terminfo DSTU

A small number of comments on the DSTU in the beginning but nothing else since then. What are the rules for moving to Normative - the GOM What happens if the TermInfo spec does not become normative. There are two options;

  1. GOM indicates that a DSTU may be revised and reissued. There is no need to issue a new project scope statement.
  2. The GOM will document how a DSTU may be extended. A project scope statement specifying that a normative standard will be created. If the original PSS indicated that a DSTU and a normative standard are planned, then an additional project scope statement is not required.

HDF Update

We need Implementation and Conformance wg to maintain the corresponding chapter. Similarly we need to inolve ITS as well. More to come on the list.


12:01PM --Ioana13 18:24, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Back to Meetings