2017-04-12 FMG concall

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

Location:
https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/279790597

(voice and screen)

Date: 2017-04-12
Time: 4:00 PM U.S. Eastern
Chair: Note taker(s): Anne W.
Quorum = chair + 4 yes/no
Co chairs Regrets David Hay x Lloyd McKenzie
ex-officio Woody Beeler,
Dave Shaver
FGB Co-chairs
. Wayne Kubick, CTO
Members Members Members Observers/Guests
x Hans Buitendijk x Brian Postlethwaite Paul Knapp x Anne W., scribe
x Josh Mandel x John Moehrke x Brian Pech x Ken Rubin
Regrets Grahame Grieve .

Agenda

  • Roll Call
  • Agenda Check
  • Minutes from 2017-04-05_FMG_concall
  • Action items
    • Josh to invite one of the authors of the SOA methodology document to an upcoming call
      • Ken Rubin scheduled to attend today
    • Brian to check with Publishing on approval for balloting process PSS
    • Paul to take publication naming convention ideas (R3 vs. STU3) to TSC
      • Continues to be on hold on the agenda
    • David to reach out to QA reviewers to find out if they would be willing to assist in sample generation
    • Grahame/Wayne to formalize proposal on naming confusion between IGs and US Core and take to TSC
    • David will suggest some words to add to the stale items summary spreadsheet to explain the columns
    • Grahame will write up response for draft/STU FMM rationale for review and approval. Will talk about what was done as well was what will be done in the future.
  • Discusion Topics
    • Review of SOA Methodology Document
    • Questions from Education re: FHIR Proficiency Certification
    • Technical Corrections Update
    • Review of Feedback on R3
    • Priorities/Objectives for R4
  • Reports
  • Process management
  • AOB (Any Other Business)

Minutes

  • Roll Call
  • Agenda Check
    • MOTION to approve: Brian Pech/John
    • VOTE: All in favor
  • Minutes from 2017-04-05_FMG_concall
    • MOTION to approve: Hans/Josh
    • VOTE: All in favor
  • Action items
    • Josh to invite one of the authors of the SOA methodology document to an upcoming call
      • Ken Rubin scheduled to attend today
      • Complete
    • Brian to check with Publishing on approval for balloting process PSS
      • Will be reviewed on the 24th.
    • Paul to take publication naming convention ideas (R3 vs. STU3) to TSC
      • Continues to be on hold on the agenda
    • David to reach out to QA reviewers to find out if they would be willing to assist in sample generation
      • Add for next week
    • Grahame/Wayne to formalize proposal on naming confusion between IGs and US Core and take to TSC
      • Add for next week
    • David will suggest some words to add to the stale items summary spreadsheet to explain the columns
      • Add for next week
    • Grahame will write up response for draft/STU FMM rationale for review and approval. Will talk about what was done as well was what will be done in the future.
      • Add for next week
  • Discusion Topics
    • Review of SOA Methodology Document
      • Ken Rubin here to review. Relationship between FHIR and SOA is being explored as to how they may fit together. This document describes how they'd like to proceed. Taking advantage of several established extension mechanisms used in a collective set to document SOA services. It would be beneficial to have templates or boilerplate versions for some of the artifacts targeted to a SOA consumption. Would like to mature this so it can affect some of the scheduling FHIR work that is joint with PA.
      • Lloyd: Most of this made sense until we got to the OMG request for proposals section. In earlier stages you fully developed your profiles and FHIR artifacts, which automatically determines the operations and wire format. Not clear what the purpose of an RFP would be or how that would relate to the typical FHIR process of iteration through Connectathon, implementer feedback, etc. What is it trying to achieve? Ken states these are happening in parallel. Key benefit from OMG side of things is that we're not bound to one platform. It's not creating additional steps, it's adding consistency. Lloyd: Typically the platform specific specifications are created by the RFP component; does that mean the FHIR specifications would be crafted from the RFP component? Ken: Probably, but we don't have the benefit of experience to know how it will or will not work yet. Lloyd: As written, the document doesn't suggest or imply that parallel process; it looks like it happens after trial use balloting. Ken offers to update/fix. However, the SOA ask is seeking the next level of depth regarding profiling. Looking for guidance on extension of operations, profile and implementation guide. How do you do exception handling when you are doing scheduling and you want to book a new appointment and the operation fails?
      • Lloyd: Unsuccessful operations are responded to with an operations outcome resource. Ken: Another example is transactional integrity - if any one fails, the whole thing fails. How do you manage the exceptions or roll-back? Lloyd: FHIR defines the transaction operation and the mechanism by which you invoke that and specify what child operations are part of the transaction. Brian Post: Missed deployment design in this document - where you've got multiple systems playing ball instead of just one. It's how it's deployed across systems and how they work together. In that transactional case, it's across three systems in FHIR. Ken: The challenge around exception handling is if one of those systems has a failure you have to roll back across all three systems. SOA removes a lot of burden to the calling client. In FHIR a lot of the burden falls on the client. John: It's not that FHIR doesn't define it, but there is a missing link. Ken: The question is what confidence do we have that we can achieve orchestrated behavior through the existing profiling mechanism? There needs to be some guidance to do that consistently. Lloyd: Right now we have not created artifacts that deal with orchestration. Everything so far in terms of behavioral side of things has been focused on what is the engagement between exactly two systems. We have the notion of the planned definition resource which talks about protocols and deals with sequencing and conditionality and timing of steps, which could potentially be leveraged to define workflows, behavioral patterns, and orchestrations, but it hasn't yet been exercised. We can work with you in exploring that, or perhaps we need a distinct resource. IN terms of exception behavior, it may be that there is a need as part of operation definition to point to a profile operation outcome. Ken: There is an opportunity here to meet in the middle - SOA is top down and FHIR is bottom up. Lloyd: Most of what you're describing will involve working with the FHIR-I WG. Ken will coordinate with Brian to clarify the ask and engage with FHIR-I as the next step. Ken agrees to make amendments as discussed and send back to FMG for endorsement.
    • Questions from Education re: FHIR Proficiency Certification
      • Brian Pech raises issue from Education. They've put forth two PSSs for a proficiency exam and a certification exam. Proficiency is intended to be first and the certification would be dealt with later. Virginia Lorenzi has had discussions with Grahame and she thinks that the materials for the proficiency exam are insufficiently adequate at this point and we should pilot it at the September meeting. Education in conjunction with Grahame and FMG would have to come up with a 2-page study guide, give exam takers information about logistics, craft a 20-question practice exam, craft a 40 question real exam. HQ would have to build the questions in Web Assessor. We'd also have to come up with recommendations in terms of course work including WGM and webinars.
      • Question to FMG: Does this make sense, or is the timeline too short? Should it be pushed to January? Lloyd: That's in line with the previous timelines. Fair amount of work has already gone in to test questions and process. Looking to pilot in September seems reasonable. Brian: Practice test would have to be available around June. Hans: When people take the pilot, what is the status of those people after? Brian: If they pass, they are considered to have passed and eligible for the proficiency certificate. Clarification that the practice test is different than the pilot test.
      • Outstanding question: Does FMG want to meet with Education in Madrid on Monday Q3/Q4? Lloyd: That's a hard ask in terms of our schedule. The only possible person available is Josh for Q3. We could discuss during Monday lunch if that would be enough time.
    • Technical Corrections Update
      • MOTION to formally endorse the content and send to Wayne for publication approval: Hans/Brian Post
      • VOTE: All in favor
    • Review of Feedback on R3
      • Reviewed document. Core feedback is the SVN didn't work, need better technical QA at the end. The other piece is that we seek QA from a whole lot of wonderful volunteers who go through and make sure that colors, formatting, punctuation, etc. looks good; many of them don't have a firm grasp on the content that they're reading so they can't do content review. In several places in the spec there were things that weren't right that we caught late. However, many of these areas will no longer be subject to significant change so we can start the review earlier. Brian Post: The substantive change happening after the substantive change cutoff was a problem. Lloyd: The process for that was people had to seek permission from Grahame and there was a review period on the committers' stream for people to voice concerns. Brian states it caused substantial difficulty and it should be a fallback process rather than a standard process.
    • Priorities/Objectives for R4
      • Grahame has a list.
        • ACTION: Add to next week to look at Grahame's list.
  • Reports
    • Connectathon management (David/Brian)
      • No current update on registration. Richard asks if he should do the Saturday morning presentation as he did last time - decision to go forward with it. Need to make sure breakout room is arranged size wise - may need a bigger room than last time depending on number of attendees.
    • PSS will be coming from PA for next week
  • Adjourned at 5:11 PM Eastern

Next Steps

Actions (Include Owner, Action Item, and due date)
  • Brian to seek approval from Publishing for balloting process PSS on 3/24
  • Paul to take publication naming convention ideas (R3 vs. STU3) to TSC
  • David to reach out to QA reviewers to find out if they would be willing to assist in sample generation
  • Grahame/Wayne to formalize proposal on naming confusion between IGs and US Core and take to TSC
  • David will suggest some words to add to the stale items summary spreadsheet to explain the columns
  • Grahame will write up response for draft/STU FMM rationale for review and approval. Will talk about what was done as well was what will be done in the future.
Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items

2017-04-19 FMG concall


Back to FHIR_Management_Group

© 2017 Health Level Seven® International