20161219 FGB concall
Jump to navigation Jump to search
|HL7 TSC FGB Meeting Minutes
Location: cGoToMeeting ID: 136-494-157
|Date: 2016-12-19 |
Time: 4:00 PM U.S. Eastern
|Facilitator:||Note taker(s): Anne W.|
|Quorum = Chair plus 2||yes/no|
|Woody Beeler||Regrets||Lorraine Constable||x||Grahame Grieve||David Hay|
|Dave Shaver||Ewout Kramer||Cecil Lynch (ArB)||Regrets||Lloyd McKenzie (FMG)|
|x||Wayne Kubick||x||Calvin Beebe||.|
|x||Anne W., scribe|
- Roll call -
- Agenda Review
- Approve minutes of 20161212 FGB concall
- Discussion Topics:
- Ownership of content - Grahame
- FHIR registry process update - Lloyd
- FMG update -
- Methodology update-
- Review precepts, associated governance points and risks
- Next steps: Define and Resource other Governance processes.
- No chair
- FHIR registry:
- Wayne reports that Bob Dieterle was doing some work. Wayne reports that he's suggested that we don't need to ballot it. Should have something by the end of January; will review with some groups at the WGM. Comments could be collected via wiki. Grahame: Should lay down some governance points over it so ONC is happy with it.
- Ownership of content:
- Grahame: Asked TSC for a decision on content shared across product lines. If you have a FHIR representation of the CDA spec, or V2 content in a FHIR logical model, what's the governance over the shared content? This will be happening more and more. TSC said it's however it's rendered. If it's rendered using FHIR tooling, then it's the FHIR product line. Grahame doesn't believe that's the correct way to do it. More and more things will be done using the FHIR rendering tooling, but that doesn't make them conceptually FHIR. It's possible today that Frank and I could rewrite V2 using the FHIR publishing tool, but it would still be V2 and describe V2. The decision is okay in the short term but not for the long term. Calvin: SGB talked about it and thought it should be the group responsible for the publication. If it's in the FHIR ballot, like CDA on FHIR, is it just the use of the tooling but not in the ballot? Grahame: There was just one FHIR ballot and the IGs being balloted separately. It's not necessarily the case anymore that it's published with FHIR. So if we decided to ballot the CDA logical model, the FHIR representation of CDA, who would ballot that? If the thing on the wire is FHIR resources, then it's owned by the FHIR product line. But if it's a CDA document, then it's not. Wayne: Isn't it a separate process to ballot and publish? Who would submit the publication form? Grahame: But when you do a NIB you don't ask to assign a product line. Calvin: Are you going to have different WGs just doing profiles or implementations on top of FHIR and they'll be doing that independently? What about FHIR quality control? Grahame: When you do a NIB you should determine the product line. Wayne: The publication request doesn't ask for a product line. Grahame: Need to look at what is on the wire. Calvin: It seems to provide a litmus test that's easy enough to test. Wayne: The definitions aren't clearly documented anywhere.
- The working definition needs to be discussed further by SGB.
- ACTION: Anne to add to SGB agenda; Calvin to share
- ACTION: Wayne to share with TSC
|Actions (Include Owner, Action Item, and due date)|
|Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items|
Back to FHIR_Governance_Board
© 2016 Health Level Seven® International. All rights reserved.