This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here
<meta name="googlebot" content="noindex">

April 22, 2015 Security WG Conference Call

From HL7Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Meeting Information

Back to Security Main Page


Member Name Present Member Name Present Member Name Present
Mike Davis Security Co-chair x John Moehrke Security Co-chair x Trish Williams Security Co-chair
Bernd Blobel, Security Co-chair . Johnathan Coleman x Kathleen Connor x
Duane DeCouteau . Reed Gelzer . Suzanne Gonzales-Webb CBCC Co-chair x
Rick Grow x David Henkel x Mohammed Jafari .
Don Jorgenson . Diana Proud-Madruga x Harry Rhodes .
Ioana Singureanu . . . Ross Freeman .
Amanda Nash Walter Suarez . Tony Weida x
Chris Clark . Paul Petronelli . Aaron Seib, 2311, LLC x
. . .

Back to Security Main Page


  1. (05 min) Roll Call, Approve [1]
  2. (15 min) HL7 Security WGM AGENDA
  3. (15 min) topic “What is FHIR Provenance integrity control?
  4. (10 min) Scope Statement - Natural Language
  5. (10 min) Scope Statement - Data Provenance

Meeting Minutes

Meetings Minutes from 4/15: Objections: none; Abstentions: none; Minutes approved

Meetings Minutes from 4/08: Objections: none; Abstentions: none; Minutes approved

WGM Agenda

Project Scope Statement: Patient Natural Language

  • Discussed in CBCC, some information to be added
  • Draft ready for Security to look at

Project Scope Statement: Data Provenance

  • under development and ready some time next week,
  • primarily driven by CBCC but supported by Security and other working groups.
  • Johnathan leaving early Thursday AM, add Wed time to do a joint CBCC-Security discussion on the Data Provenance Project

Within the Provenance there is an integrity from 0...1

  • you can only have one signature, the intent is so that it is a single digital signature that it is pointing at... it is intended to be an integrity signature. Its a minimalistic functionality to support early in FHIR. Explicitly in the security section, it speaks to the digital signature--they are more complex than are carried within the provenance signature.
  • why would this resource have an integrity signature if it is also meant to be for another...?? Why is this not on every resource?

<<add to data provenance discussion>>

Meeting adjourned at 1458 PST --Suzannegw (talk) 21:58, 22 April 2014 (UTC)