This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here

20130115 FGB WGM minutes

From HL7Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Attendees:

  • Woody Beeler
  • Grahame Grieve
  • Brian Pech
  • Ron Parker


Ron convenes at 9:15 AM and reviews the agenda - points of note:

  • Friday Q2 moved to Q1 in Yucca
  • Weds Q6 is FMG inviting FGB
  • Location of wish list queried.


Woody moves approval of the minutes of 20130102, seconded by Grahame. Unanimously approved

c)Ballot - Grahame reports there are 704 ballot items, 200 minor typos, 200 genuine issues, some are significant.

    • Including comments accepted from the connectathon by the FMG which needs to be accommodated in the GOM. Woody notes that for the draft for comment it doesn't matter but for a DSTU it will need a GOM change. Ballot closes before the connectathon. Grahame represents the comments raised during the connectathon. Ron asks how they show up on the ballot desktop? There are procedural issues. FGB agrees these issues should be addressed and resolved.
    • Issue deferred to FGB from the last ballot on licensing and IP issues. There was a negative ballot about a need to have an agreement with all participants that "patents" will be enforced. We need a properly framed statement that is legally defensible. When referred to the Board via Keith Boone they have not had a response. FGB should have a position on this and take it to EC. Easier to point out after the Board meeting today. FGB can elevate through TSC. Liability, IP and patent issues discussed.

d) Motion from MnM

  • Some resources part of FHIR owned by HL7 identified as subject to shared management by IHE and HL7.
    • Woody finds it's not management but shared development.
  • Resources must enable implementation of designated IHE profiles
  • Ballot disposition actions must not take actions inconsistent with this agreement
    • This ensures we can ensure the bilateral agreement with IHE is respected. Grahame is meeting with Dicom this week and Ron should plan to attend.
  • HL7 to publish FHIR profile along with resource that describes use in IHE profiles
  • Resources balloted by HL7 using standard process with IHE members having right to vote on these resources.
    • This would require an SOU with accommodation for ballot participation. FGB must ensure this agreement with IHE is formally established. What is the specificity to FHIR or all HL7/IHE interaction? XDS is a different IHE effort type as a de novo standard rather than the Implementation Profiles. Ewout asks about infrastructure recommendations? Grahame says they can make recommendations and they can be considered on the next ballot cycle.


  • Action Item: Lynn bring up list of Action Items brought on every call
  • FGB must ensure this agreement with IHE is formally established.

e) wish list on FHIR SVN under trunk/documents/governance/fmg called tracking sheet. Agitation ensued with retrieving the document using SVN. FGB should provide direction to FMG on what the criteria are and FMG can determine. Wish list is what they want to have as well as what they need to have comprehensively to cover a functional scope. Grahame's alternative is that scope of which you need to write a PHR mobile app. We can only "warrant" that the scope of the resources having fitness for purpose, and a more narrowly focused scope would benefit. CCDA functions will be consulted.

Ron reports Lloyd conversation what we really need is top cover, language and declarations from FGB for context of decisions they're making. Need focus on risk statements and precepts and processes. What else needs to be in that top cover. What are some of the other assumptions? There are some things missing with Security, for which Grahame will meet with Security WG or key members informally this WGM. Is this the list we're targeting? MOTION:Motion by Grahame and second by Woody to accept the tracking list as the intent of the DSTU, where objective of the DSTU is to ballot those resources necessary to implement those elements of CCDA that are required to support "green field" application such as a mobile PHR app.

Discussion: Need to clarify language with FMG. With this 'end' in mind, FGB agrees that this list of resources is appropriate for that purpose. When we change the list, we go back to that end and consider if it's appropriate. Woody would like the CCDA specifically mentioned. CCDA is the business problem where the mobile PHR app is the implementation paradigm. Ewout cautions that we don't want to imply that FHIR is only just for mobile stuff.

VOTE: Vote: unanimously approved

f) needs to be a joint discussion. Ron declares his intent by putting it on the agenda

f.iii) Identification of risks - will be coming on a conference call and Charlie will help develop.

  • discussion on assertions to support validity of FHIR resources for use. Ron was trying to reverse engineer precepts from wiki content.
  • Product line definitions discussed
    • Methodological discussions are not precepts per se, where the precept makes an assertion that is testable. Grahame adds that testable assertions need to guide ballot reconciliation. Ron had been trying to bring them up to a higher level of abstraction and it was not successful. Ron wants to retain top down perspective as we build the precepts from the bottom up. Tying the precepts to risk assessments is important, notes Grahame where one example of such is the Datatypes Task Force with the V3 community divided between intent on backwards compatibility. There are precepts around methodology as well, management of process, governance of relationships but they are all identified to manage risk. Grahame and Ron agree they should collect risks on the wiki after we work them out via email thread first.


G - assertions to support the validity of FHIR resources for use.

  • Ron notes that declarations of names in resources in an app stood up to their community may create friction in the community. Traceability of functional requirements down through product family is needed. Products produced in diffuse spectrum of ways that are probably right. He describes his proposed disclaimer to manage liability of fitness for purpose.

This is not a problem specific to FHIR. The nature of FHIR will cause this risk to assert itself quickly, especially WRT its open nature. Edits discussed to the disclaimer language. Context neutral definition, method of expression without implementation viewpoint. Useful for a range of purposes. Resource definitions are generalized to allow multiple contexts of use. Consumption of FHIR resources puts the burden on the developer. Grahame/Ewout move acceptance of the updated disclaimer language. Unanimously approved.

This also needs to go to TSC and HQ Legal for validation.

Adjourned 10:33 am.

Board needs to evaluate within context of business architecture the capacity of the participants and scaling based on demand. Any funding needs to go to the participants with the investment not new participants.