20141015 FMG concall
|HL7 TSC FMG Meeting Minutes
Time: 12:30 PM U.S. Eastern
|Chair:||Note taker(s):Lynn and Anne|
|Quorum = chair + 4||yes/no|
|Co chairs||x||David Hay||x||Lloyd McKenzie|
|.||John Quinn, CTO|
|x||Hans Buitendijk||x||Hugh Glover||x||Paul Knapp||x||Lynn Laakso, scribe|
|x||Josh Mandel||x||John Moehrke||x||Brian Pech||x||Anne Wizauer, HQ|
- Roll Call
- Agenda Check
- Minutes from 20141008_FMG_concall
- Action items
- Lloyd will distribute draft process for requests to use FHIR name and logo (in a product)
- Action items
- FHIR WG proposal
- Communications mechanisms - invite Brian/Gavin?
- Tutorial content and selection
- Resource proposal review, continued.
- OO reviewed three proposals (Hans)
- Process management
- Ballot Planning
- Balloting frequency discussion continued
- Ballot Planning
- AOB (Any Other Business)
- Lloyd added FHIR Workgroup proposal to agenda. David moves and Hans seconds. Unanimously approved.
- Minutes from 10-8-14 call; Hans moves to approve, David seconds. Unanimously approved.
- Group introduced themselves to Anne, new project manager for HL7
- Action Items: Lloyd still has this on his to-dos as the process hasn’t been finished
- FHIR WG proposal: Lloyd states that the purpose is to have a body that will define and maintain technical aspects of the FHIR specification. Lloyd feels that this group will be for FHIR what INM is for v2. Responsible for core parts of infrastructure; non-core infrastructure resources should be managed through appropriate workgroups. Hans agrees. Best practices and resource design would remain with MnM. Brian wonders what the formal relationship would be with the FMG? Lloyd states that his expectation is that the FHIR core workgroup would have responsibility for particular resources/pages in the spec, but not decision making authority over the work of other WGs. Not responsible for managing ballot process; FMG would continue to have those roles. FMG’s responsibility would be the management of the FHIR specification overall; core workgroup would be responsible for core pieces. Why would the FHIR workgroup not be responsible for publication? Lloyd states because it only has responsibility for tiny piece of content. Notion of product line and having mgmt group is that it has responsibility for all of the workgroups. Manages timelines, coordination of resources across workgroups and is in position of saying “yes, we’re ready to go to ballot” or not. That is a governance/mgmt function, not a content dvlpmt function. Publishing/tooling is what does the publication look like and the timelines. Publishing responsibility should start with FHIR core? Who is best positioned to manage that part of it? Will need to be discussed – how much of publication responsibility should be in publishing wg vs. FHIR core. It will have to live in one of those two places. This should be filled out in the workgroup form so it can be reviewed. Lloyd will talk with Grahame and get his thoughts on it. Perhaps FHIR core should look at last year’s proposal to have someone from FHIR core join the publishing workgroup as a representative of FHIR core’s work. Lloyd states that he agrees that we need tighter cooperation and coordination with publishing workgroup but that it is likely that we will have publishing be part of FHIR Core’s responsibilities and a description of what that will look like. Will the FHIR Core workgroup be open to participation from any volunteer within HL7 who has an interest? Lloyd says yes, there will be purple sheets on the ballot table same as everyone else. Paul suggests we work with product line architecture group. Proposed initial co-chairs will be the current core team members; need at least five additional members for workgroup so we’ll add the current members of this group. Still waiting to hear back from Ken and John Quinn. Proposal will go to FTSD on Tuesday. The FTSD will review, and then Paul would like the TSC to review the proposal as it challenges our existing architecture. Lynn/Anne will ask John how he would like to proceed on Friday.
When charter is put together, it will go to FMG for review in consultation with other groups. May be concern from security and others. Lloyd states that he wants to keep things tight as not to go into the model of structured docs. This will move forward to TSC and FTSD in reasonable timeframes, and if there is further discussion it will come back to this group. Paul moves to forward the FHIR WG application to the steering division. Brian seconds. Unanimously approved.
- Communications mechanisms: When would we like to invite Brian/Gavin to discuss with us? Brian Fitzgerald is PM for FHIR community and Gavin Tong is a long term HL7 volunteer. Lloyd would like them to join us toward the beginning of November. We’d like to get our resource and profile proposals reviewed and approved in October. Does that sound agreeable to the group? Group confirmed agreement. Lloyd proposes inviting them on 11-5-14. Regrets from David Hay for 11-5-14 call. Regrets from Lloyd for 11-12-14. Invites to be extended for 11-19-14 call. Action item: Lloyd to contact Gavin and Brian to invite them to attend 11-19-14 call.
- Tutorial content and selection: this is well underway offline. Lynn requests that conversations be shared with Mary Ann.
- ClinicalAssessment FHIR Profile Proposal: Change Parent Resource to Profiled Resource(s). Lloyd takes a motion to approve; Paul seconds. Unanimously approved. Lloyd notes that this is a profile that is a candidate for inclusion in the core FHIR spec. Lloyd still has to write the criteria for candidate inclusion. The notion of assessment is critical in medicine making it a candidate for inclusion. The next two profiles are US-specific. Core spec things appear in the FHIR website and are published and balloted. Non-core will be published separately. Core specs will be web-based publications. IGs will not be part of it.
- USLab Result FHIR Profile Proposal: from a resource perspective we are tapping into diagnostic reports. Example scenarios really defined in lab results release 1 guide and will be in release 2. Scope of coverage is US Realm as well as claimed scope of coverage is ambulatory. We believe it could be used in inpatient but is not validated. Plans – we’ll get the first cut done so we can go to comment in December 2014 with desired ballot date in January 2015. Lloyd asks for questions/comments. It may be useful in our resource guide to list a responsible workgroup. Lloyd asks that Paul submit that as request for enhancement of the guide. Make a stretch goal to document the mapping to the underlying v2 specification. Any other questions/comments? Hans makes a motion to approve; Paul seconds. Unanimously approved.
- USLab Order FHIR Profile Proposal: Very similar to Result proposal in structure. Same mapping would apply. Hans moves to approve; David seconds. Unanimously approves.
- Need a page on Wiki where we list approved and upcoming Connectathons. Action item assigned to David.
- Next agenda – link directly to proposals they need to review
- Lloyd thanks the group and adjourns. Adjourned at 1:56.
- Anne to send out updated schedule including 90 minutes calls.
|Actions (Include Owner, Action Item, and due date)|
|Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items|
Back to FHIR_Management_Group
© 2014 Health Level Seven® International