Difference between revisions of "FTSD-F2F-20101004"

From HL7 TSC
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 2: Line 2:
==Meeting Information==
==Meeting Information==
:'''Meeting at Plenary and WGM in Cambridge -- 7:00-8:30 PM'''
:'''Room: TBD'''
Line 17: Line 15:
Mead Walker, Paul Knapp, Charlie McCay, Bernd Blobel, Mike Davis, Dale Nelso, Melva Peters, Robert Snelick, Ted Klein, Heather Grain, Frank Oemig, Tony Julian, Sandy Stuart, Ann Wrightson, Ken Rubin, Rene Spronk, Lynn Laakso
Mead Walker, Paul Knapp, Charlie McCay, Bernd Blobel, Mike Davis, Dale Nelson, Melva Peters, Robert Snelick, Ted Klein, Heather Grain, Frank Oemig, Tony Julian, Sandy Stuart, Ann Wrightson, Ken Rubin, Rene Spronk, Lynn Laakso
==Proposed Agenda==
==Proposed Agenda==

Latest revision as of 17:07, 19 October 2010

Foundation & Technology SD - Face-to-Face October 4, 2010

Meeting Information


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


Mead Walker, Paul Knapp, Charlie McCay, Bernd Blobel, Mike Davis, Dale Nelson, Melva Peters, Robert Snelick, Ted Klein, Heather Grain, Frank Oemig, Tony Julian, Sandy Stuart, Ann Wrightson, Ken Rubin, Rene Spronk, Lynn Laakso

Proposed Agenda

"the FTSD should weigh in on what the disposition of this artifact has been and should be. The initial TSC feedback on the cookbook was to wait and see what a prototypical analysis and assessment before determining what the recommendation would be for its use by all Work Groups."
Note that the project has scheduled a tutorial on Security and Risk Analysis at the WGM on Thursday morning.
  • Discussion of the Challenges of Addressing the MANY projects that WG's face
  • The Neutral Mapping Project - Its Status and the Means for Getting Multi-WG Involvement
  • Approval of RIMBAA project 550 which has been ongoing since September 2009 [on the assumption that it had gone through the approval process, which apparently isn't the case].
  • New Business


Approve minutes of previous calls, accept agenda

Review TSC from yesterday: A refocus of architecture work to address the current outstanding issues: interoperability paradigms, integration of data structures and functional model, consistency of structures across work groups. Key theme: there has been a period of waiting for ARB to produce solutions. Now the foundation committees are asked to be more active moving forward the key documents that are components of the HL7 architecture. In addition, the foundation committees are called to support the progress of the alpha projects for rolling out an HL7 architecture consistent with SAIF. Q: how are going to address the lack of maturity and completeness of the SAIF documents. Ans: much of this clarity and completeness will come as the committees work on the key outstanding issues. The clarity needs to come through the process of working on projects.

Status of Security Considerations Cookbook: This is an item on the TSC issues list. The TSC thinks the project is still open, waiting to hear how it was used. The question is, what is the practical import of accepting the cook book as part of the HL7 process. As far as the Security WG goes, they presented the cook book some time ago to the FTSD, and received comments some time ago. The SD said go forward with a project to evaluate the document – note they were told not to call it a “cookbook”. They were asked some time to report progress. Charlie notes that the TSC is asking the question – how will the security documentation be best evaluated through the HL7 process. There was an intention to keep the document as an internal HL7 document. Woody notes that the recommendations put forward by the WG will have an impact on what committees do. Given that, the question comes up as to whether this is something to be addressed by the individual WG, or whether it is an issue to be addressed at a higher level, perhaps one closer to implementation.

Challenges of addressing the many projects work groups face: skipping this item

Neutral Mapping project and other ITS Projects: There are a number of ITS activities that are relevant. Two quarters on the H-data proposal, two on the Neutral mapping project, an open discussion on other ITSs. Note, the document that came back from the initial discussion was, not an ITS proposal, but a suggestion as to how to build an EHR – this seemed outside of ITSs scope – they asked the EHRWG to look at it. The WG needs people to look at these things, and to make suggestions about how to move it forward. As it happens, the RESTful transport document seems to be specialized to the H-data effort.

Neutral mapping is not a micro-ITS. It addresses the fact that, as people come forward with different content models that they feel is consistent with HL7 content, we need a single way to judge these claims. So, “if we could come up with a single mapping methodology, we could ask people to use a single way to express claims to conformance between HL7 data structures, and also to compare them to data structures outside of HL7. There will be a session to learn about the OMG mapping work. The ITS group is interested being able to recommend a single mapping structure for HL7 and HL7 related use.

The last session is simply an opportunity for discussions of different ITS proposals.

Dale notes that the WG wants to see some action on how to disposition the H-data and work. Note, H-data people are working with other work groups – structured documents, EHRWG. Note, there will also be some joint work between SOA and RIMBAA that may be relevant to the H-data discussion. Woody thinks the essence of the point is to have people focus on the upcoming sessions, and to take part in the discussion.

RIMBA project 550: There is a project for a set of white papers. Rene just sent out an email with the document. Ken moves that we agree to the scope statement, unless there are objections raised by the list. Seconded. Woody would prefer that we discuss, review in the normal way. Against: 5, Abstain, - Motion withdrawn.

New Business: Address issues regarding an ISO vocabulary project. SKMT project. Beverly notes she has taken it forward several times. This project first started at the dawn of HL7 managing project scope statements. We find that the document was discussed at some point. There were issues, and those were addressed. Woody found the document on the list, and it was circulated. The issue in question was the need to address coordination with the publishing committee. Given that the scope statement was circulated to the FTSD list, Woody suggests that we endorse the scope statement. Heather moved approval of the scope statement; the motion was seconded. Charlie is concerned about this. He thought that glossaries were supposed to be managed by publishing. He is concerned that another group is taking the lead on this. Ted notes that Vocabulary had a discussion in which the critical importance of clear definitions was stressed. We agree that is definitely Publishing’s job to provide the HL7 glossary material. Heather notes there is an ongoing effort internationally to create a common glossary. The plan is that those who contribute will be those who have right to vote on the content. We did not vote.

Paul Knapp notes that the InM group raised a question about an item on the ITS ballot – a negative based on the desire not to have the R1 and R1.1 data types deprecated. The SD agrees this should be referred to MnM.

We did not get to this item raised by Ken to be discussed under new business.: The question is how do steering division questions get discussed and forwarded if necessary to the TSC. The example is what is the status of the SAIF documentation, and how does it get to the point where work groups have to use it. Charlie notes that issues of importance should first be raised in the SD, but they can go directly to the TSC.


Back to Meetings