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

Difference between revisions of "2017-04-19 FMG concall"

From HL7Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 
(4 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 13: Line 13:
 
|colspan="4" align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"| '''yes/no'''
 
|colspan="4" align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"| '''yes/no'''
 
|-
 
|-
−
| Co chairs|| ||David Hay || ||Lloyd McKenzie
+
| Co chairs||x ||David Hay || x||Lloyd McKenzie
 
|-
 
|-
 
| ex-officio|| ||Woody Beeler,<br/> Dave Shaver <br/>FGB Co-chairs||.||Wayne Kubick, CTO
 
| ex-officio|| ||Woody Beeler,<br/> Dave Shaver <br/>FGB Co-chairs||.||Wayne Kubick, CTO
Line 22: Line 22:
 
| colspan="2"| Members ||colspan="2"|Members||colspan="2"|Members ||colspan="2"|Observers/Guests
 
| colspan="2"| Members ||colspan="2"|Members||colspan="2"|Members ||colspan="2"|Observers/Guests
 
|-
 
|-
−
| || Hans Buitendijk|| ||Brian Postlethwaite  || ||Paul Knapp || || Anne W., scribe
+
|x || Hans Buitendijk||x ||Brian Postlethwaite  || x||Paul Knapp || x|| Anne W., scribe
 
|-
 
|-
−
| ||Josh Mandel  || ||John Moehrke|| ||Brian Pech || ||  
+
|x ||Josh Mandel  ||x ||John Moehrke||x ||Brian Pech || ||  
 
|-
 
|-
−
| ||Grahame Grieve  || || || || ||.||<!--guest-->
+
| x||Grahame Grieve  || || || || ||x||Bryn Rhodes
 
|-
 
|-
 
|}
 
|}
Line 61: Line 61:
  
 
==Minutes==
 
==Minutes==
 +
*Agenda Check
 +
**Add technical corrections
 +
*Minutes from [[2017-04-12_FMG_concall]]
 +
**MOTION to approve: Hans/Lloyd
 +
**VOTE: All in favor
 +
*Action items
 +
**Brian to ensure Publishing reviews balloting process PSS on 2017-04-24
 +
***Forthcoming
 +
**Paul to take publication naming convention ideas (R3 vs. STU3) to TSC
 +
***Continues to be on hold - will be discussed in Madrid
 +
**David to reach out to QA reviewers to find out if they would be willing to assist in sample generation
 +
***Discussion over this task. Perhaps we should reach out to encourage them to work on this with the appropriate WG; they could forward samples to WG for review and adding to the resource. David will attempt to complete by next week
 +
**Grahame/Wayne to formalize proposal on document naming confusion between IGs and US Core and take to TSC
 +
***Add for next week. Discussion has started but more is needed. Hans expresses that this is the way it is always done without undue confusion but is willing to wait and see how it turns out. John agrees. Grahame notes it is solvable with education and training but they're just seeing if there is  better way.
 +
**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
 +
*Discussion Topics
 +
**Review Grahame's list of priorities/objectives for R4
 +
***Add for next week
 +
***ACTION: Grahame to send out for review
 +
**Retention of ST3-tc0
 +
***Grahame notes that in R1 and 2, we overwrote existing spec with technical correction and did not retain the original. Some feel we should retain the original version. Grahame describes how he's handling it this time by retaining original as ST3-tc0. Lloyd's opinion is that we should get rid of it because no one should ever use it. Grahame notes it's retained only for standards audits, etc but it should not be findable. Discussion over value for recordkeeping/technical correction situations like were mentioned earlier. Hans: We should hold onto it with a path to get there, but not in the main list. Lloyd: Comfortable with us having a zip file sitting around with it, but should not be available to the community. Grahame: It's true that we haven't previously made them available but Paul expressed concern that ANSI requires us to maintain the original published good plus any errata. Publishing a consolidation is an option that we choose to do. That consolidated version is not the normative good in the eyes of ANSI; the original published good plus the errata are the normative goods. Josh: We should zip it in a zip file - that solves all three problems.
 +
****MOTION to retain it in a zip file with a link from the directory of the published version: Josh/John
 +
****VOTE: All in favor
 +
**Technical corrections
 +
***Tracker 13217:
 +
****MOTION to accept correction: Lloyd/Grahame
 +
****VOTE: all in favor
 +
***Tracker 13218: issue with logical vs. literal references. Discussion over fix helping some and hurting others. More robust fix would come later. Grahame will see if he can make the redirection work.
 +
****MOTION to accept correction: Josh/Grahame
 +
****VOTE: All in favor
 +
***Tracker 13221:
 +
****MOTION to accept correction: Grahame/Paul
 +
****VOTE: All in favor
 +
****Hans asks if the root cause will be fixed? Grahame responds that it will.
 +
***Lloyd reports that RequestGroup was marked FMM0 on the grounds that it was a new resource; however it did exist at part of GuidanceResponse and they want to use it in CDS Hooks; FMM0 is a problem for that. Proposed FMM level is 2. Questions over why that matters. Bryn arrives. Bryn states it was balloted as part of GuidanceReponse; RequestGroup is a refactoring of that and has been the subject of lots of ballot comments. Bryn requests that it be made FMM2 as the content has been in 3 ballots. Has also been through 4 Connectathons. Josh wonders what the practical applications of having it at 2 is. Bryn: If an implementer sees that it's 0, they may not commit to piloting. It has an impact on the willingness of people to consider using it. John asks what balloting it did receive? Balloted as part of the initial CQF on FHIR; balloted again as GuidanceResponse in the second round of CQF on FHIR; then again as part of Clinical Reasoning module. Hans: So the issue is that it has not been balloted in its current form as a resource. Clarification that GuidanceResponse wasn't in the STU2 ballot, but it was in the STU3 ballot.
 +
***MOTION to update FMM level: Grahame/Lloyd
 +
***VOTE: All in favor
 +
*Reports
 +
**Connectathon management (David/Brian)
 +
***Connectathon is up to 65 with a room size of 100. Have done a number of promotions.
 +
**[[FHIR Governance Board|FGB]] –
 +
***No report
 +
**MnM –
 +
***No report
 +
**[[FMG Liaisons]] –
 +
***No report
 +
*Resource proposals
 +
**SpecimenDefinition: Hans describes. Grahame asks if we've seen Catalog or CatalogEntry, or are they future? They are for the future.
 +
***MOTION to approve: Hans/Grahame
 +
***VOTE: Brian Post abstains. Remaining in favor.
 +
*Grahame notes he put a redirect to a survey monkey survey regarding implementer experience. Needs a little work from FMG. Lloyd thinks we need to get rid of this survey and come up with something different. What are the resources/elements/extensions being used; capability statements; getting a sense of size of implementations and location of implementations. Hans states the architectural context list is limited and inaccurate.
 +
**ACTION: Add for next time: Discuss what we want to capture from FHIR implementers in survey or other method
 +
*Brian Post: PA has a PSS coming through that was originally US Realm but because only the bindings are US they want to make it universal. Decision to chat about it with US Realm.
 +
**Add to next week
 +
*Adjourned at 5:31 pm Eastern
 +
<!--
 +
*Precepts
 +
**
 +
-->
 +
*Process management
 +
**Ballot Planning
 +
<!--**Developing FMG Management Methodology - see [[FHIR Methodology Process]] and [[FHIR Guide to Designing Resources]]
 +
**FHIR Design patterns - see [[FHIR Design Patterns]] -->
 +
**Ballot content review and QA process [[FHIR QA Guidelines]]
 +
*AOB (Any Other Business)
  
  
Line 71: Line 139:
 
|-
 
|-
 
|colspan="4" |'''Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items'''<br/>
 
|colspan="4" |'''Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items'''<br/>
−
[[2017mmdd FMG concall]]
+
[[2017-04-26 FMG concall]]
  
 
|}
 
|}

Latest revision as of 20:15, 26 April 2017

HL7 TSC FMG Meeting Minutes

Location:
https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/279790597
(voice and screen)

Date: 2017-04-19
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 Woody Beeler,
Dave Shaver
FGB Co-chairs		 . Wayne Kubick, CTO
Members Members Members Observers/Guests
x Hans Buitendijk x Brian Postlethwaite x Paul Knapp x Anne W., scribe
x Josh Mandel x John Moehrke x Brian Pech
x Grahame Grieve x Bryn Rhodes

Agenda

  • Roll Call
  • Agenda Check
  • Minutes from 2017-04-12_FMG_concall
  • Action items
    • Brian to ensure Publishing reviews balloting process PSS on 2017-04-24
    • Paul to take publication naming convention ideas (R3 vs. STU3) to TSC
      • Continues to be on hold
    • 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.
  • Discussion Topics
    • Review Grahame's list of priorities/objectives for R4
  • Reports
  • Process management
  • AOB (Any Other Business)

Minutes

  • Agenda Check
    • Add technical corrections
  • Minutes from 2017-04-12_FMG_concall
    • MOTION to approve: Hans/Lloyd
    • VOTE: All in favor
  • Action items
    • Brian to ensure Publishing reviews balloting process PSS on 2017-04-24
      • Forthcoming
    • Paul to take publication naming convention ideas (R3 vs. STU3) to TSC
      • Continues to be on hold - will be discussed in Madrid
    • David to reach out to QA reviewers to find out if they would be willing to assist in sample generation
      • Discussion over this task. Perhaps we should reach out to encourage them to work on this with the appropriate WG; they could forward samples to WG for review and adding to the resource. David will attempt to complete by next week
    • Grahame/Wayne to formalize proposal on document naming confusion between IGs and US Core and take to TSC
      • Add for next week. Discussion has started but more is needed. Hans expresses that this is the way it is always done without undue confusion but is willing to wait and see how it turns out. John agrees. Grahame notes it is solvable with education and training but they're just seeing if there is better way.
    • 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
  • Discussion Topics
    • Review Grahame's list of priorities/objectives for R4
      • Add for next week
      • ACTION: Grahame to send out for review
    • Retention of ST3-tc0
      • Grahame notes that in R1 and 2, we overwrote existing spec with technical correction and did not retain the original. Some feel we should retain the original version. Grahame describes how he's handling it this time by retaining original as ST3-tc0. Lloyd's opinion is that we should get rid of it because no one should ever use it. Grahame notes it's retained only for standards audits, etc but it should not be findable. Discussion over value for recordkeeping/technical correction situations like were mentioned earlier. Hans: We should hold onto it with a path to get there, but not in the main list. Lloyd: Comfortable with us having a zip file sitting around with it, but should not be available to the community. Grahame: It's true that we haven't previously made them available but Paul expressed concern that ANSI requires us to maintain the original published good plus any errata. Publishing a consolidation is an option that we choose to do. That consolidated version is not the normative good in the eyes of ANSI; the original published good plus the errata are the normative goods. Josh: We should zip it in a zip file - that solves all three problems.
        • MOTION to retain it in a zip file with a link from the directory of the published version: Josh/John
        • VOTE: All in favor
    • Technical corrections
      • Tracker 13217:
        • MOTION to accept correction: Lloyd/Grahame
        • VOTE: all in favor
      • Tracker 13218: issue with logical vs. literal references. Discussion over fix helping some and hurting others. More robust fix would come later. Grahame will see if he can make the redirection work.
        • MOTION to accept correction: Josh/Grahame
        • VOTE: All in favor
      • Tracker 13221:
        • MOTION to accept correction: Grahame/Paul
        • VOTE: All in favor
        • Hans asks if the root cause will be fixed? Grahame responds that it will.
      • Lloyd reports that RequestGroup was marked FMM0 on the grounds that it was a new resource; however it did exist at part of GuidanceResponse and they want to use it in CDS Hooks; FMM0 is a problem for that. Proposed FMM level is 2. Questions over why that matters. Bryn arrives. Bryn states it was balloted as part of GuidanceReponse; RequestGroup is a refactoring of that and has been the subject of lots of ballot comments. Bryn requests that it be made FMM2 as the content has been in 3 ballots. Has also been through 4 Connectathons. Josh wonders what the practical applications of having it at 2 is. Bryn: If an implementer sees that it's 0, they may not commit to piloting. It has an impact on the willingness of people to consider using it. John asks what balloting it did receive? Balloted as part of the initial CQF on FHIR; balloted again as GuidanceResponse in the second round of CQF on FHIR; then again as part of Clinical Reasoning module. Hans: So the issue is that it has not been balloted in its current form as a resource. Clarification that GuidanceResponse wasn't in the STU2 ballot, but it was in the STU3 ballot.
      • MOTION to update FMM level: Grahame/Lloyd
      • VOTE: All in favor
  • Reports
    • Connectathon management (David/Brian)
      • Connectathon is up to 65 with a room size of 100. Have done a number of promotions.
    • FGB –
      • No report
    • MnM –
      • No report
    • FMG Liaisons –
      • No report
  • Resource proposals
    • SpecimenDefinition: Hans describes. Grahame asks if we've seen Catalog or CatalogEntry, or are they future? They are for the future.
      • MOTION to approve: Hans/Grahame
      • VOTE: Brian Post abstains. Remaining in favor.
  • Grahame notes he put a redirect to a survey monkey survey regarding implementer experience. Needs a little work from FMG. Lloyd thinks we need to get rid of this survey and come up with something different. What are the resources/elements/extensions being used; capability statements; getting a sense of size of implementations and location of implementations. Hans states the architectural context list is limited and inaccurate.
    • ACTION: Add for next time: Discuss what we want to capture from FHIR implementers in survey or other method
  • Brian Post: PA has a PSS coming through that was originally US Realm but because only the bindings are US they want to make it universal. Decision to chat about it with US Realm.
    • Add to next week
  • Adjourned at 5:31 pm Eastern
  • Process management
  • AOB (Any Other Business)


Next Steps

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

2017-04-26 FMG concall


Back to FHIR_Management_Group

© 2017 Health Level Seven® International

Retrieved from "https://wiki.hl7.org/w/index.php?title=2017-04-19_FMG_concall&oldid=138198"