This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here

2017-08-16 SGB Conference Call

From HL7Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

back to Standards Governance Board main page

HL7 SGB Minutes


Date: 2017-08-16
Time: 10:00 AM Eastern
Facilitator Paul/Calvin Note taker(s) Anne
Attendee Name

x Calvin Beebe
x Lorraine Constable
x Russ Hamm
x Tony Julian
x Paul Knapp
Austin Kreisler
Wayne Kubick
x Thom Kuhn
Ken McCaslin
Rik Smithies
x Sandy Stuart
Quorum: Chair + 4


  • Agenda review
  • Approve Minutes of 2017-08-09_SGB_Conference_Call
  • Action Items
    • All to look at the tooling document and review tooling inventory
    • Paul to reach out to EST cochairs regarding meeting on Friday in San Diego.
      • Anne to look into possibility of having David J and Laura dial in
  • Discussion Topics
    • State Machine Alignment call with FGB
    • FGB Vitality Review
    • Agenda for San Diego
  • Parking Lot
    • Paul to finish detailed list of 23 items for FHIR ballot that were approved by WG to be STUs
    • Paul to draft a precept on state machine alignment
    • Paul to find principles document and write precept on mixed ballot content
    • Draft precept on use of new tools/coordinate with Wayne
    • Review Publishing M&C updates regarding dual roles
    • Write/post precept on vitality assessment
    • Next steps on Substantivity (from ARB)
    • How do we deal with making sure that WGs involve those whose content domain they’re touching? (CIMI and Pharmacy and Lab models)
    • Review Mission and Charter
    • PSS approval process: managing unresponsive parties - propose new precept to TSC
    • Handling situations where two documents come out of one project
    • FHIR Product Director Position Description: we should 1) review further and draft feedback, then 2) map back the description to the role of FGB
    • Drafting Shared Product Management Responsibilities
    • Vocabulary precepts
    • General precepts
      • Precept around training WGs in CDA methodology and management principles
    • Levels of standards
    • Separation of concerns
    • Ownership of content
    • ISM
    • Ask methodology groups to define how the definition of substantive change applies to their product family; management groups must then operationalize
  • Agenda items for San Diego
    • Re-appointments to SGB


  • Agenda review
  • Approve Minutes of 2017-08-09_SGB_Conference_Call
    • MOTION to approve: Sandy/Calvin
    • VOTE: All in favor
  • Action Items
    • All to look at the tooling document and review tooling inventory
      • ACTION: Lorraine to send to Anne for distribution
    • Paul to reach out to EST cochairs regarding meeting on Friday in San Diego.
      • Add for next week
      • Anne to look into possibility of having David J and Laura dial in
        • ACTION: DJ and Laura are available. Will schedule for beginning of Q2
        • ACTION: Anne to coordinate with Mary Ann
  • Discussion Topics
    • State Machine Alignment call with FGB
      • Met on Monday. Took a look at FHIR advice, challenges brought forward, things that should be fixed in FHIR spec. Grahame will write up guidance for CDA section in FHIR ballot spec and send back to SGB review. FHIR has a looser approach to managing the status. Can't readily expect to be able to map status from content model to content model; may have to go down to use case level. Will attempt a joint meeting in San Diego, SGB with FGB including Lisa so she can get the guidance she needs as she approaches doing the mapping. Not sure there is a precept that has come out of it. Value is being able to acknowledge the issue and bring focus on addressing interoperability between specifications. Calvin: Grahame understands what we need but the body of the work may not be up to that level yet. If there are pragmatic issues in making it mappable, we may need to make a recommendation. We should let Lisa work with this guidance and get her feedback on how to warn people. May be a management function, not done here. The precept may be that if it doesn't work how it's supposed to work, you have to be clear and transparent to the community regarding the issue. Paul asks about the vocabulary surface - how they handle state in FHIR. Confounds the notion of the state of the record and the business or clinical state associated with the contents of the record. Is it consistent with how it's managed in other versions of HL7? Grahame indicated it is more commonly the case in V3. Lorraine: I think it's more that we didn't always effectively deal with the different states in V3. Need logical pairings to be defined. Calvin: If we went to the canonical set and asked what's the mapping to the V3 states - if it makes sense, then we're done. If it doesn't make sense, then we've got a problem.
    • FGB Vitality Review
      • Question we're going to face in San Diego is whether or not there is a need, value, or purpose to having an FGB, or if the work could be handled by SGB. Some questions would be - in terms of quorum, are they normally able to meet? Lorraine: There's quorum and then there's effective quorum. Often we don't have the key people we need from the FHIR core space. Example is the FHIR life cycle discussion. In terms of topics, are they things that aren't applicable to any other standard? No precept construction going on. It's more like an exec oversight or advisory group. They will want a seat at the table if we're working on precepts that affect them, but the FGB function is not precept making currently. Discussion over other advisory groups being proposed - may need to see if/how those develop. If we were to subsume governance functions within SGB, would we be able to meet their governance needs? May need additional participation from the FHIR community in SGB. What would remain that would not be covered by that function? Calvin: Does the governance function go into advisory mode, or does it focus on precept establishment to set up the boundaries for how the organization is supposed to behave? If we focus on precepts, we don't conflate management and governance. We should work with FGB to discuss that we would only be subsuming governance functions; not the advisory functions. Need a boundary around it regarding the scope. Governance is applied equally but not identically; advisory is more focused on the family. PLA may need to consider advisory capabilities, especially with families that are earlier in their life cycle. May need to go back and look at advisory or executive management services to product families that are forming.
      • Sunday: discuss reporting of advisory at joint session with ARB on Sunday
      • ACTION: Add advisory/executive management discussion to PLA agenda on Friday and joint FGB/SGB session agenda
    • Agenda for San Diego
      • ACTION: Paul will draft for next time
  • Anne out next time; Lynn will cover
  • Adjourned at 11:02 am Eastern

Meeting Outcomes

Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items

© 2017 Health Level Seven® International. All rights reserved