From HL7 TSC
Jump to navigation Jump to search

FTSD - Foundation & Technology Steering Division

Conference Call February 23, 2010 Meeting Information

Conference Call is scheduled for 0.5 hour
12:00 PM (consult http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock for local times)
HL7 Conference Call Service
Phone Number: +1 770-657-9270 (Passcode: 943627)
Online Meeting Service - GoToMeeting
https://www2.gotomeeting.com/join/385800034 (GoToMeeting ID: 385-800-034)


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


Mead Walker, Anthony Julian, Mike Davis, Ken Rubin, Paul Knapp, Lyn Laakso, Beverly Knight, Russel Ham, Patrick Lloyd, Steve Connnoly, Sandra Stuart


  1. (05 min) Roll Call
  2. (05 min) Approve Minutes from February 9 & Accept Agenda
  3. (30 min) Address outstanding project scope statements
  4. (5 min) Take notice of an updated Mission & Charter document from InM
  5. (5 min) Other Business

SOA Ontology Project scope

This items had been reviewed with the ARB, which wished to spend time with the work group to refine and clarify the intended scope of the work. Ken Rubin noted that SOA group was going to follow-up on this item, and he expected the statement to be ready to go onto the TSC in a couple of weeks. There was some discussion regarding whether or not the proposal should come back to the Steering Division before going to the TSC. The preponderance of the expressed opinion was that it should.

Security and Confidentiality Ontology Project scope

The document had been reviewed by the Steering Division at its previous call, and was returned to the Work Group to address a couple of open issues. In addition, the document had been discussed by the ARB which also had suggestions/questions/concerns. Mike Davis noted that a) it was not clear that all the discussion was based on the proper version of the document, and b) the Work Group had considered the suggestions, and made changes. Mike also stated that the project was going to be based on the already developed Domain Analysis Models in the security and confidentiality areas, and that the goal was to address those areas in which vocabularies were needed to support coded values. The ontology would be a way of defining both the needed concept domains and value sets and of specifying the inter-dependencies between the concept domains and value sets. (In addition, the updated document does include the Vocabulary WG as a co-sponsor). Mead felt that, while this did constitute a worthy project, the statement did not directly state what was included in Mike's explanation. Mike agreed to add a sentence more clearly noting the role of the exisiting DAMs. A motion to approve forwarding the document, once updated, to the TSC was made, seconded, and unanimously passed.

Batch Messaging Project scope

The InM group plans to forward material to support batch messaging in the May 2010 ballot, and submitted a project scope statement to this effect. This would be a resubmission of material that previously existed in a draft form. Tony Julian noted there was a need for normative material in this area in The Netherlands, and also to support adverse event reporting. A motion to approve forwarding the document to the TSC was made, seconded, and unanimously passed.

MicroITS Project scope

The ITS group has been discussing the notion of a "microITS" and forwarded a project to develop this. The goal is to support "RESTful" transport, and to develop an ITS to delivery messages with smaller payloads. Paul Knapp noted that, during the course of the work, the group would speak to the question of how many ITSs did HL7 need, and whether multiplication of these would present problems. A motion to approve forwarding the document to the TSC was made, seconded, and unanimously passed.

InM Updated Mission & Scope

Tony Julian noted that the work group has created an updated Mission & Scope statement and planned to forward it to the TSC. He was not clear whether such a document had to be first approved by the Steering Division. We were, in general, not sure of whether such approval was needed, and did not take a vote on the question. However, no objections or suggested changes to the document were raised, and the document was cleared to go to the TSC.

Action Item List

No items for this list were suggested.

Back to Meetings