2018-02-14 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: 2018-02-14
Time: 4:00 PM U.S. Eastern
Chair: Note taker(s): Anne W.
Quorum = chair + 4 yes/no
Co chairs x David Hay x Lloyd McKenzie
ex-officio . Wayne Kubick, CTO
Members Members Members Observers/Guests
Hans Buitendijk x Brian Postlethwaite Paul Knapp x Anne W., scribe
x Josh Mandel John Moehrke x Brian Pech
x Grahame Grieve x Amol Vyas, Chris Johnson

Agenda

  • Roll Call
  • Agenda Check
  • Minutes from 2018-02-07_FMG_concall
  • Action items
    • Brian Post to write up proposal for community consultation on PatientAnimal
    • PA to consider other alternatives for PatientAnimal
    • John and Brian Post to work together to figure out how to express what Brian wants and compare it to what is already in Consent for review with Grahame and then FMG if necessary
    • Check with Grahame on implementation of distinguishing HL7 artifacts from others and controlling maintenance of the artifacts in the FHIR Registry
    • David to send out the call for Connectathon track proposals with due date at the end of March
  • Review Items
  • Discussion Topics
  • Reports
    • Connectathon management (David/Brian)
    • Standards Governance Board –
    • MnM –
    • FMG Liaisons
  • Process management
  • AOB (Any Other Business)

Minutes

  • Roll Call
  • Agenda Check
    • Added policy on publication of profiles within FHIR core vs. outside FHIR core
      • MOTION to approve: Brian Post/Brian Pech
      • VOTE: All in favor
  • Minutes from 2018-02-07_FMG_concall
    • MOTION to approve: Josh/Brian Post
    • VOTE: all in favor
  • Action items
    • Brian Post to write up proposal for community consultation on PatientAnimal
      • Complete. Awaiting further feedback before final decision.
    • PA to consider other alternatives for PatientAnimal
    • John and Brian Post to work together to figure out how to express what Brian wants and compare it to what is already in Consent for review with Grahame and then FMG if necessary
      • Carry forward
    • Check with Grahame on implementation of distinguishing HL7 artifacts from others and controlling maintenance of the artifacts in the FHIR Registry
      • Carry forward
    • David to send out the call for Connectathon track proposals with due date at the end of March
      • Complete
  • Discussion Topics
    • Policy on publication of profiles within FHIR core vs. outside FHIR core
      • Grahame: There has been discussion over what should be in the base specification and what should be in implementation guide. Lloyd: Once you start getting a decent number of profiles and you want to present a coherent package of information, IG is the way to go with that. The core spec is the foundational material and implementation guidance better lives as Implementation Guidance. It helps ballot the material in a clearly scoped way, and avoids pressure of people trying to put stuff into core and us having to draw boundaries over what's appropriate. Lloyd notes that Grahame has a different viewpoint.
      • Grahame's view is that the implementation community will see stuff in IGs as having less standing and endorsement than the stuff in the core spec. People in other countries view US IGs have little to do with them. IGs are more opt in as far as relevancy. If we can all agree to something that is relevant to many implementers, it should be in the core spec.
      • Lloyd: For vital signs profiles that are shalls, those should be part of core. But if it's a best practice or preferred/recommended mechanism for doing clinical genomics or patient directories, then it doesn't feel like something that needs to be part of the core spec. These are HL7 International guides that will eventually be normative. If the sole dividing line is whether you want implementers to do something, then everything will be in the core spec.
      • Grahame: Does everybody agree? If this is the way to do clinical genomics, then why wouldn't it go in the spec? If it's "a" way, it doesn't; but if it's "the" way, why not make it part of the spec? Lloyd: The community is going to be the community that pays attention to HL7.
      • Brian Pech: Given the way Clinical Genomics has evolved - and the fact that it's been a dynamic area - it seems that if we were to err on the side of caution, we would land on Lloyd's side of making it an Implementation Guide rather than core.
      • Lloyd: If content isn't universal in scope, it shouldn't be in the spec. Much of what we've put into IGs so far has been realm specific.
      • Grahame: Do we have precedent in other product families for universal scope IGs? Lloyd: Some of the V2 stuff is universal in scope. Grahame: We did draft ballot two IGs marked as universal in the last ballot cycle. Both were out of Devices.
      • Lloyd: It makes it easier to track who is responsible for particular pages and QA errors. If it's something you must do to be conformant with FHIR, it should be in the core spec. If it's something we must adhere to when authoring FHIR, that needs to be part of the core spec. We have some example profiles in the core spec, that makes sense. If you've got a stand-alone profile and it would be an imposition to create a full IG around it, that may make sense to be in the core spec. If you get to the point where you have a normative IG, you are obliged from the perspective that this is an HL7 standard and this is the standard way to do it.
      • Brian: IGs evolve over time, so the cleaner the base standard is the better. In that aspect it makes sense to have it separated from the core spec.
      • Grahame: If you prototype something as a separate IG, you could eventually elevate it in to the spec anyway. Want to avoid having a slew of things that people can't keep track of. The version question around IGs is already causing concern. That's an aspect of this that is concerning, that we'll have all kinds of IGs floating around the specification, and people won't know which IGs have which standing. Are these going to be updated with the core specification? Lloyd: We can set an expectation the IGs need to be and that's one of the things that a WG needs to commit to when they bring an IG forward.
      • Grahame: Should we add to proposal for universal IGs a checkbox for the committee to indicate their commitment that the IG will be balloted in sync with the specification? Josh: It may not be reasonable to expect that, especially with things that will be used for awhile and then retired.
      • Lloyd proposes that, in the IG proposal, have a section called "maintenance plan" that outlines the WG's commitment/intentions around maintaining the IG.
      • Regarding publication within or outside of core - Lloyd feels the issues will be the same. If an IG is outside of core, it does allow for the possibility of it being abandoned/not updated for a new release, which wouldn't be possible if its within core.
      • Grahame: Would like to have a better understanding of the effectiveness of the universal realm IGs that we already have. Lloyd: Maybe we should start a Google doc to identify the risks we're trying to mitigate, and what our strategies are for mitigating them. Grahame will ask on international council about the role of international IGs.
        • ACTION: Lloyd/Grahame to work on Google doc
        • ACTION: Grahame to reach out to international council re: international IGs
  • Review Items
    • Clinical Genomics FHIR IG Proposal
      • Does not have a maintenance plan as discussed above, but Lloyd is confident in their ability to maintain it going forward.
      • MOTION to approve: Grahame/Brian Post
      • VOTE: All in favor
  • Reports
    • Connectathon management (David/Brian)
      • No report
    • Standards Governance Board –
      • Anne will be sharing Product Life Cycle Governance document from SGB with FMG cochairs and product director for review before moving on to TSC.
    • MnM –
      • No report
    • FMG Liaisons
      • Lloyd is not CBCP's liaison, but they have been pushing the use of Contract for Consent purposes again. Is there anything we can do about that? We have an approved resource designed for this purpose but confusing information is being given. Grahame notes that actions are limited here. David suggests we could ask what she perceives is lacking in the Consent resource that is compelling her to use Contract instead?
        • ACTION: Lloyd will draft an email to run past David and Grahame to address the issue
    • Ballot Planning
      • We are two and half weeks away from substantive freeze for core stuff. Grahame states we'll need to reassess next week.
        • ACTION: Add freeze date evaluation to next week's agenda
  • Adjourned at 5:20 pm Eastern

Next Steps

Actions (Include Owner, Action Item, and due date)
Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items

2018-02-21 FMG concall


Back to FHIR_Management_Group

© 2018 Health Level Seven® International