2018-09-12 FMG concall

HL7 TSC FMG Meeting Minutes Location: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/279790597 (voice and screen)		Date: 2018-09-12 Time: 4:00 PM U.S. Eastern
Chair:		Note taker(s): Anne W.

Quorum = chair + 4			yes/no
Co chairs		David Hay	x	Lloyd McKenzie
ex-officio	.	Wayne Kubick, CTO

Members		Members		Members		Observers/Guests
	Hans Buitendijk	x	Brian Postlethwaite	x	Paul Knapp		Anne W., scribe
x	Josh Mandel	x	John Moehrke	x	Brian Pech
x	Grahame Grieve					x	Amol Vyas

Agenda

• Roll Call
• Agenda Check
• Minutes from 2018-09-05_FMG_concall
• Action items
  • Grahame to put together something to describe a desired level of BR&R community engagement in order to own Substance
  • Lloyd to draft a process for approving technically breaking changes that are believed not to impact any implementations and submit for review by FMG, MnM and SGB
  • Anne to contact BR&R cochairs/modeling facilitator to ask them to update the resource relationships section of AdverseEvent
  • Hans to reach out to OO on BiologicallyDerivedProduct
  • Brian to add RIM scope and boundaries section to ChargeItemDefinition
  • Hans to check with OO, CDS, and CQI about DeviceUseStatement
  • Hans to check with Lorraine about EntryDefinition
  • Brian to update Invoice
  • Hans to follow up with OO on ObservationDefinition2
• Review Items
  • PicoElementDefinition Resource Proposal
  • PicDefinition Resource Proposal
  • EffectEvidenceSynthesis Resource Proposal
  • RiskEvidenceSynthesis Resource Proposal
• Discussion Topics
  • Virtual Connectathon
  • Criteria for inclusion of profiles and valuesets in FHIR Core
• Reports
  • Connectathon management (David/Brian)
  • SGB –
  • MnM –
  • FMG Liaisons –
• Process management
  • Ballot Planning
  • Ballot content review and QA process FHIR QA Guidelines
• AOB (Any Other Business)

Minutes

• Roll Call
• Agenda Check
  • No additions
• Minutes from 2018-09-05_FMG_concall
  • MOTION to approve: John/Josh
  • VOTE: All in favor
• Action items
  • Grahame to put together something to describe a desired level of BR&R community engagement in order to own Substance
    • Carry forward
  • Lloyd to draft a process for approving technically breaking changes that are believed not to impact any implementations and submit for review by FMG, MnM and SGB
    • Carry forward
  • Anne to contact BR&R cochairs/modeling facilitator to ask them to update the resource relationships section of AdverseEvent
    • Carry forward – no response yet
  • Hans to reach out to OO on BiologicallyDerivedProduct
    • Carry forward
  • Brian to add RIM scope and boundaries section to ChargeItemDefinition
    • Carry forward
  • Hans to check with OO, CDS, and CQI about DeviceUseStatement
    • Carry forward
  • Hans to check with Lorraine about EntryDefinition
    • Carry forward
  • Brian to update Invoice
    • Carry forward
  • Hans to follow up with OO on ObservationDefinition2
    • Carry forward
• Review Items
  • PicoElementDefinition Resource Proposal
  • PicDefinition Resource Proposal
  • EffectEvidenceSynthesis Resource Proposal
  • RiskEvidenceSynthesis Resource Proposal
    • All deferred to next week until Bryn can be present to walk us through them

• Discussion Topics
  • Virtual Connectathon
    • There have been two virtual Connectathon-like things through Da Vinci. Not sure they count in terms of FMM levels as they did not follow traditional format. Grahame has had a few requests for doing virtual Connectathons but his response has been they have not been very effective so far. John: Do we want to make a statement to this effect? Paul: If we have experience, we should share it. Josh: Fundamentally there’s no reason it couldn’t be done.
      • ACTION: John to draft language regarding virtual Connectathons
  • Criteria for inclusion of profiles and valuesets in FHIR Core
    • Reviewed/discussed previous edits and made new edits.
    • Lloyd: If it’s going to be a “shall” for implementation, it should be included in the spec.
    • Half of what we’ve got is international in scope.
    • Grahame: We need criteria for what you need to have to claim an IG is international in scope.
      • ACTION: Anne to add this to upcoming agenda
    • Most IGs that are international fall into two different camps: one is that they’re about a specific workflow, and the other is that they’re about a specific domain. SDC is in a funny place – most of the extensions are in core but aren’t very usable without the documentation that’s part of SDC. Lloyd: If you’re going to have an extension in the HL7 name space, it has to be in core…but how much documentation is necessary in the core specification, and is it legitimate to have essential documentation that only exists in an IG. Pure definition is in core but that’s not enough to understand how to use the thing. Grahame: If we have an extension in core that nobody knows how to use without an IG, that’s not good. Under what conditions would we define an extension in core is the main question. Lloyd: Would like to see the core specification make reference to relevant IGs but doesn’t try to encompass the material from the IGs. Grahame: it’s easier for us that way, but it is easier for implementers? Brian Pech: Does the publication process as its currently constituted contribute to this problem? The publication process could be modularized to make some of these issues easier. Grahame: We need to consider the versioning impact. Lloyd: There will be greater dynamic behavior in IGs than you are in the core specification. Could create version nightmares.
    • Lloyd: We could have three situations. We could have IGs or profiles that we’re saying are essential, you must adhere to them, and we embed them in core. There could be others that we consider to be sufficiently important to use that we not only reference its existence but also expect such a degree of continuity and alignment that we ask that there’s a new version of the IG when a new version of the spec is published. Then there would be other IGs where we don’t have that expectation. Lloyd adjusts verbiage.
    • Discussion over question: when included in the core specification, in which situations should content be included in the core as individual artifacts and when should they be organized into an IG within the core? Grahame: Namespaces are publishing constructs. Creating a new namespace means creating a lot of new infrastructure for tools. Lloyd: So if you bring these into core under one namespace, the question is how it impacts infrastructure.
      • ACTION: Anne to add criteria for inclusion of extensions in core vs. IGs to upcoming agenda
      • ACTION: Carry forward discussion to next time.
• Adjourned at 5:35 pm Eastern

Next Steps

Actions (Include Owner, Action Item, and due date)

Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items 2018-09-19 FMG concall

Back to FHIR_Management_Group

© 2018 Health Level Seven® International