This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here
20140609 FGB concall
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| HL7 TSC FGB Meeting Minutes Location: call 770-657-9270 using code 985371# |
Date: 2014-06-09 Time: 4:00 PM U.S. Eastern | |
| Facilitator: | Note taker(s): Lynn Laakso | |
| Quorum = Chair plus 2 | yes | ||||||
| Co-Chair/CTO | Members | ||||||
| x | George (Woody) Beeler | x | Lorraine Constable | x | Grahame Grieve | x | David Hay |
| x | Dave Shaver | regrets | Ewout Kramer | x | Lloyd McKenzie (FMG) | x | Ron Parker |
| x | John Quinn | ||||||
| observers/guests | x | Ken McCaslin | |||||
| x | Lynn Laakso, scribe | ||||||
Agenda
- Roll call -
- Agenda Review
- Approve minutes of 20140602 FGB concall
- Action Item review:
- Follow up with Provider candidate Catherine;
- dave & woody review ‘principles of FHIR doc’ in next 2 days (woody "ok")
- pass to FMG by week end for their review by tuesday am (before next FMG meeting
- Updates to Fundamental_Principles_of_FHIR (review and set plan to formally adopt)
- Concern by FMG to allow WG conducting for comment only ballot separate from DSTU - open to all WGs?
- Issues passed down from TSC
- Governance issues in proposed projects related to
- FMG discussions on requiring WG FHIR projects to include work on CCDA profiles calls into question any WG FHIR projects.
- Governance Issues in re FHIR Registry - particularly:
- Distinction between registering an item onto an open list vs. Assigning identifiers and registering their assignment
- Determine whether HL7, in instituting charges for the OID registry, means to include a fee for retrieving registrations from the registry, or only for adding items thereto. And, if the latter wjat is the intended distinction between: "internal" addition requests, "member" addition requests, and "outside" addition requests?
- Built-in protections against BOT submissions
- Expectations for "automated curation" surrounding elements that carry identifiers in HL7-managed namespaces, particularly uri: http://hl7.org/fhir ... and OIDs: 2.16.840.1.113883...
- Governance issues in proposed projects related to
- Updates to FHIR_Governance_Precepts
- FMG update -
- Methodology update-
- Next steps: Define and Resource other Governance processes.
- Conformity Assessment
Minutes
Convened at 4:07 PM by Dave
- Agenda Review - no corrections; approved by general consent
- Approve minutes of 20140602 FGB concall; Grahame moves and Lorraine seconds approval of minutes; Lorraine abstains, pass 4/0/1
- Action Item review:
- Follow up with Provider candidate Catherine; defer
- dave & woody review Fundamental_Principles_of_FHIR in next 2 days (woody "ok") - ***pass to FMG by week end for their review by tuesday am (before next FMG meeting (review and set plan to formally adopt) - FMG not ready to review yet (full agendas) but FGB could finish their review.
- Some FGB members have had their review but John and Ron on the call today so take advantage of their presence.
- FHIR Prioritizes implementation:
- Grahame reports on his discussion with Bo regarding implementers meaning programmers or a broader audience. "Individuals or organizations responsible for delivering real-world solutions" is suggested by Ron. Lloyd notes the primary target is indeed those who write code. If you relate this to an implementer like VA they are only interested from a data modeling perspective. Enabling conceptualization is not the primary target.
- Ron notes that the target was solutions that implementers found easy to use and deploy. Lloyd asks if we keep it to the audience for which the documentation is written.
- Ron notes that there may a set of principles for each attribute of FHIR, ease of use, etc. Implementability helps to scope the purpose notes Lloyd. Leave it as is for now.
- "Clinical safety" rank WRT "implementability", as distinct from "clinical appropriateness". Woody suggests we exclude "clinical appropriateness" from the list in Rationale. Grahame suggests "clinical perfection".
- Ron notes that he's troubled that we are not in control of what implementers put into the spec. The implementer must understand their client or environment's requirements and how it is applied.
- FHIR provides a scaleable framework for interoperability…
- Ewout's comment is thought to be too narrowing. Scalable vs flexible discussed. FHIR provides a flexible framework for interoperability (across a wide variety of environments). Best practice for expressing principles to identify reason for adhering to principle and consequences of not adhering to principles.
- FHIR keeps complexity where it belongs
- 80% phrasing reviewed
- Free to use: parenthetic reviewed and accepted
- Web technologies change proposed to Internet technologies; Internet is more specific than web however. JSON might not apply.
- Time check; need to review things referred from TSC; defer remaining discussion
- Issues passed down from TSC
- Governance issues in proposed projects related to
- FMG discussions on requiring WG FHIR projects to include work on CCDA profiles calls into question any WG FHIR projects.
- See TSC Minutes item 1 under Management
- Proposed that this be passed to FMG? It's been brought up again in OO notes Lorraine. FMG has authority to address question of how to set expectations for WG work to be done versus sending it elsewhere to be done. FMG agrees they have authority to do that and discussed in FMG for policy setting when to exercise that authority.
- How should the PSS for that particular set of work be managed, owned by each WG or umbrella PSS owned by FMG or SDWG - this discussion has not concluded. Lloyd will have a draft PSS on Weds FMG call to carry forward the conversation. No further action from FGB required here.
- Governance issues in proposed projects related to
- Concern by FMG to allow WG conducting for comment only ballot separate from DSTU - open to all WGs?
- Should the September for comment only ballot be limited to only one WG or open to all WGs having open projects. FMG should have the right to make such a declaration Woody asserts. Need to control expectations and manage bandwidth of the community. Lloyds position is that there is only an implementation guide being balloted that is built on FHIR "stuff". Lorraine does not find that clearly indicated in the PSS.
- Does FMG have the authority to make decisions for what FHIR related content is balloted and how; need to develop the process around how that authority is exercised and apply it to this case. Will accept or deny inclusion in the comment only ballot? Do they choose to exercise it? Will depend on the circumstance. FGB may need to declare some governance principles for goodness in the community and the process and what it needs to achieve and the principles behind it notes Ron. Lorraine would suggest an appeal mechanism available in FGB and ultimately TSC. Woody notes that FGB would review the FMG process once asserted to verify there is no further principle definition needed.
- Should the September for comment only ballot be limited to only one WG or open to all WGs having open projects. FMG should have the right to make such a declaration Woody asserts. Need to control expectations and manage bandwidth of the community. Lloyds position is that there is only an implementation guide being balloted that is built on FHIR "stuff". Lorraine does not find that clearly indicated in the PSS.
- Woody shows the updates recommended to the FGB M&C
- changes reviewed; Moved by Lloyd and seconded by Lorraine. Unanimously approved - Woody will send edited version to Lynn
Adjourned 5:05 PM
- Governance Issues in re FHIR Registry - particularly:
- Distinction between registering an item onto an open list vs. Assigning identifiers and registering their assignment
- Determine whether HL7, in instituting charges for the OID registry, means to include a fee for retrieving registrations from the registry, or only for adding items thereto. And, if the latter what is the intended distinction between: "internal" addition requests, "member" addition requests, and "outside" addition requests?
- Built-in protections against BOT submissions
- Expectations for "automated curation" surrounding elements that carry identifiers in HL7-managed namespaces, particularly uri: http://hl7.org/fhir ... and OIDs: 2.16.840.1.113883...
- Governance Issues in re FHIR Registry - particularly:
- Updates to FHIR_Governance_Precepts
- FMG update -
- Methodology update-
- Next steps: Define and Resource other Governance processes.
- Conformity Assessment
Next Steps
Actions (Include Owner, Action Item, and due date)
| |||
| Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items |
Back to FHIR_Governance_Board
© 2014 Health Level Seven® International. All rights reserved.
