This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here

20140505 FGB WGM minutes

From HL7Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
HL7 TSC FGB/FMG Meeting Minutes

Location: Pueblo

Date: 2014-05-05
Time: 9 AM U.S. Eastern
Chair: Woody Note taker(s): Lynn
Quorum yes
FGB Co-Chair/CTO Members
x George (Woody) Beeler x Lorraine Constable x Grahame Grieve David Hay
x Dave Shaver x Ewout Kramer x Lloyd McKenzie (FMG) regrets Ron Parker
x John Quinn x Stan Huff
observers/guests x Lynn Laakso, scribe
x Peter Antonin
x David Daniel
x Rien Wertheim
x Michael Donnally
x Tim McNeil
x Ken McCaslin
x John Moehrke
x Bill Majurski
x Prashant Trivedi
x Yunwei Wang
x MaryKay McDaniel
x Tony Malia


  • Roll Call
  • Overview of FGB with Stan Huff and Ken
    • Brief overview(invite Stan and Ken)
    • Precepts
    • metrics


Woody convenes at 9:07AM

  • Introductions made
  • FGB mission and charter review
    • FGB wiki page needs updating
    • Work Products and contributions have not entirely materialized; will need to revisit.
    • Grahame suggests adding as a contribution "the FGB should participate in governance discussions with external organizations".
  • Agenda review: Lloyd notes that the FHIR conformance testing that was announced at International Council should be followed up on by FGB or FMG.
    • Notion of conformance is not unwelcome but would probably be an FMG issue.
    • Woody reports that TSC has reviewed next suggestions for conformance testing and some candidates not having an appropriate underlying standard, or sufficiently constrained in an IG to which to declare conformance.
  • 20140429_FGB_concall minutes reviewed; Lorraine/Lloyd move approval of minutes. Unanimously approved.
  • Stan notes that he's still developing a working understanding of what the governance group does compared to the management group. Woody notes it sets a framework within which the FMG manages. He'd like to better develop that definition of the governance space with comparison to the use of the bylaws vs. the GOM.
  • FHIR Principles and FHIR_Governance_Precepts
    • Fundamental_Principles_of_FHIR reviewed. Woody suggests no more than 6, short (less than 8 words) phrase for each principle. V3 had such a document more than ten years ago.
    • Ewout notes that number 4 "FHIR leverages off-the-shelf technologies" may also be considered a subset of the "FHIR Prioritizes implementation" primary principle.
      • Discussion elucidated that all of them are sub components of that primary principle.
      • Grahame shows a slide he has used to describe the point titled FHIR Manifesto.
        • Focus on Implementers,
        • Leverage cross industry web technologies,
        • target support for common scenarios,
        • require human readability as base level of interoperability,
        • support multiple paradigms & architectures,
        • make content freely available, and demonstrate best practice governance.
      • Lloyd changes #4 to FHIR leverages web technologies.
    • Number 5 " FHIR strives to create distinction between normative and non-normative content" seems weak and is not meaningful
      • Is it a governance principle to acknowledge there will be non-normative content published with the standard or a management principle
    • Merge 3 and 6 "FHIR tries to keep the common things simple" and "FHIR standardizes common content"; now "FHIR keeps the common things simple".
      • Question on computable interoperability and scope of interoperability (national level etc). Ewout notes that profiles, registry of profiles and extensions can enable any scale of interoperability, starting as small as three vendors or providers.
      • Scalability question is whether the scalability is that of the framework and not of an individual solution. This is added as #2.
    • Further refinements made online by Lloyd with review by the group.
    • Grahame suggests further detail underneath the key points and caveats developed, though not interactively to develop in this session. Each will need a section on related precepts (or whatever term we come up with) and risks, etc.
    • Additional points Grahame suggests include:
      • Versioning is in the conformance layer not the instance. Exchanged FHIR data does not carry version information. Resources don't care which version of FHIR they conform to. Resource definition is versioned but instances of the resource are not. The version is in the conformance statement from the system. Lloyd notes that they have work to do in this space; while it works in REST there are document and messaging spaces that need guidance.
      • Tooling should be simple; he had written some criteria around tooling to avoid where we have ended up with other standards' tools. However the scope has been creeping. He also wanted the tooling to be independent from external technologies that were not mainstream. He wrote some guides for the tools after finding himself in a mess and has not succeeded. Woody adds that though FHIR is free it does not distinguish that the tooling is free. Question is asked by Tony for whether the principle was to avoid having to build tools. The tooling Grahame wished to divide himself from became a monster that only he fully understands. There just isn't tooling out there already that would do what he needs. It only reads and writes text, XML, and JSON but the rest of it has become very sophisticated. We need to consider what we want to say about buy vs. build.
      • The FHIR team should run like an open source software project.
    • Question raised on the security of data in flight; should it be a principle? Security page raises a set of questions that should be considered for making security choices on the FHIR platform. It might be worth mentioning that it must be able to be a possibility to even make it secure. Ewout notes it might be listed as points under the support of multiple exchange paradigms. Mary Kay asks about granularity of the security specified, for a certain data element or at the resource level. John Moehrke notes that they leverage the security layer of the transport being used and it is a criterion on the transport layer. They only wish to address security where they need to, with security tagging etc. Woody suggests that when we build that item out we'll mine the FHIR security page for wording
    • Grahame notes we need to specify the scope of the domain space because he keeps getting asked for management of users and security privileges which is not part of the Healthcare aspect of FHIR. Woody suggests that the scope is that which is part of HL7. JohnM notes there are other standards more mature in role based access control and security. We don't want to walk into their space.
  • FGB call schedule discussed. Spanning NZ and EU is most challenging. Woody and Lynn will create a Doodle poll.
  • Other topics: Grahame is interested in reviewing issues between core team, FGB and FMG. We need to rigorously practice declaration of commercial interest by anyone who is editing the spec, at least privately within the FGB or FMG. It is a worthy addition notes Woody.
    • Should we have a place where we monitor such statements of conflict among those teams?
    • Lloyd suggests we identify the specific risks we are trying to mitigate e.g. Perception of conflict of interest. Whether the declarations are public or private in confidence mitigates the perception.
    • Grahame notes he has some clients that don't want to be identified that he's working with them.
    • Woody notes that it might be only JohnQ that needs to know the identity of a client.
    • Statement of commercial interest will be a key question on the precept side, just not in the foundational principles.
    • question on declaration of commercial interest is not unique to FHIR so will this set a precedent. Lloyd notes that one of the foundational principles is best practice governance.
  • Discuss FGB conference call next Tuesday; several unavailable.

Adjourned 10:33 PM

Next Steps

Actions (Include Owner, Action Item, and due date)
  • Revisit Mission and Charter "Work Products and contributions" which have not entirely materialized
  • FHIR conformance testing that was announced at International Council should be followed up on by FGB or FMG.
  • Woody and Lynn will create a Doodle poll for establishing a concall time.
Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items


WGM agenda on SVN

Back to FHIR_Management_Group

© 2014 Health Level Seven® International