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

Difference between revisions of "20140618 FMG concall"

From HL7Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 68: Line 68:
  
 
==Minutes==
 
==Minutes==
 +
 +
Present
 +
Lloyd McKenzie (LM)
 +
Paul knapp (PK)
 +
Andy Stechishin (AS)
 +
Hugh Glover (HG)
 +
David Hay (DH)
 +
 +
Started 5:10 (NZ time)
 +
Not at quorum
 +
Minutes not approved
 +
Agenda changes to discuss registry first
 +
 +
*Action items review
 +
 +
**Andy will take a look at the security fix on the objective C reference implementation (Lloyd)
 +
***David will check with those that supplied the javascript code as well as with the server side javascript problems in the DSTU build to ensure it has the security fix. - to do
 +
**Ewout will document the offer from Furore to host the FHIR registry (Lloyd) Done
 +
**[http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/project/fhir/scmsvn/?action=browse&path=%2F%2Acheckout%2A%2Ftrunk%2Fdocuments%2Fgovernance%2FFMG%2FFHIR%2520DSTU%2520PSS.doc&revision=2553 PSS for DSTU2](Lloyd) done
 +
**Liaison responsibility review/ transfer from Lorraine (Hans)- to do
 +
**check that RP’s for current proposal have correct owner and approve as block. (David) - to do
 +
**Policy statement on pre-DSTU draft for comment ballot rounds for development materials (Lloyd)- to do
 +
 +
 +
Registries
 +
* AS: formal process to get to this point
 +
**Was a PSS (ES/Tooling) for registry. Evaluated according to requirements. Looked at Hinjax (didn’t meet requirements).
 +
**ES didn’t have bandwidth to do internally + lack of expertise in FHIR – decided to look externally. May need to be an education/hand off to get internal expertise.
 +
** Process
 +
*** if funded project then source of funds to be determined (chuck discretionary or tooling)
 +
*** then to RFP. Process determined. Preference towards people already working in space.
 +
*** Tooling will review RFP if from their budget.
 +
*** John/Karen to determine Contract. Signed by Mark.
 +
FMG Role:
 +
* create RFP (to be vetted by Tooling, ES)
 +
** templates available
 +
* part of selection process (joint with Tooling/ES)
 +
* involved in acceptance of deliverables (ES as well)
 +
WorkGroup roles (informally)
 +
* ES – Managebility
 +
* Tooling – Architecture
 +
* FMG – functionality
 +
 +
AS: Login details HL7 should be OAuth Provider (Personal opinion)
 +
 +
LM: Our next steps taking initial drafts and other material (eg Furore material) to create RFP
 +
AS: workgroups vote to accept RFP, then go to Karen/John
 +
PK: do we want to send estimated costs to Karen ?
 +
AS: HQ may state budget – do we have any thoughts?
 +
LM: not clear
 +
AS: do we want to add suggested business model to reduce cost to HL7? Ie shared costs with downstream benefits to vendor. Costs to HL7 above about 60K would be difficult...
 +
LM: discussion of requirements.
 +
* Content from Lloyd / Furore.
 +
* OID registry probably out. Will have namespace registry – similar to OID registry but doesn’t issue OIDs. Plus OID registry moving to pay model and will increase scope cost. Will consider integration later.
 +
* concern about public vote up/down. (crowd sourcing)
 +
** PK: concerned about political impact. Organization might have concerns. Might have impact in standards creation (there’s a process to follow to get a standard which is then fixed.) Crowd sourcing is different. What is the impact on standards? Basically need to get input from HQ.
 +
** LM: can the submitter controlled the ability for this to occur. Community endorsement might be good for some, Name recognition (e.g. ONC) for other.
 +
** LM: HL7 endorsed content needs to be distinct from community content.
 +
** PK: is community approval appropriate for balloted material in general. If not then is it OK for the HL7 site to have both options (fixed & community).
 +
** LM: how to do curation? Crowd source is an option (alternative is individual – free or paid).
 +
** AS: there are other models of curation (eg internal, ‘iStore’, I use this) (Templates registry business requirements document has a list of options)
 +
** PK ‘I use this’ different to ‘I like this’. We should state requirement for curation to remove redundancies. LM: need to be specific about mechanism for RFP.
 +
** LM: curation very hard if not done by community that uses it. (need the context that it’s being used in)
 +
LM: at time. Discussion to continue on list – especially curation model given constraints/requirements.
 +
Close at 6”07
 +
 +
 +
  
  
Line 74: Line 142:
 
|-
 
|-
 
|colspan="4" |'''Actions''' ''(Include Owner, Action Item, and due date)''<br/>
 
|colspan="4" |'''Actions''' ''(Include Owner, Action Item, and due date)''<br/>
−
*  
+
 
 +
*Andy will take a look at the security fix on the objective C reference implementation (Lloyd)
 +
*David will check with those that supplied the javascript code as well as with the server side javascript problems in the DSTU build to ensure it has the security fix.
 +
*Liaison responsibility review/ transfer from Lorraine (Hans
 +
* check that RP’s for current proposal have correct owner and approve as block. (David)
 +
* Policy statement on pre-DSTU draft for comment ballot rounds for development materials (Lloyd)
 +
* LM – update requirements for registry
 +
* Create RFP draft for registry
 +
** (include curation mechanism)
 +
* Tooling/ES to draft requirements for registry also
  
 
|-
 
|-

Revision as of 20:07, 18 June 2014

HL7 TSC FMG Meeting Minutes

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

Date: 2014-06-18
Time: 1:00 PM U.S. Eastern
Chair: Lloyd Note taker(s): David
Quorum = chair + 4 yes/no
Co chairs David Hay Lloyd McKenzie
ex-officio Woody Beeler,
Dave Shaver
FGB Co-chairs		 . John Quinn, CTO
Members Members Members Observers/Guests
Hans Buitendijk Hugh Glover Paul Knapp regrets Lynn Laakso
Josh Mandel John Moehrke Brian Pech Austin Kreisler
.

Agenda

  • Roll Call
  • Agenda Check
  • Minutes from 20140611_FMG_concall
  • Administrative
    • Action items
      • Andy will take a look at the security fix on the objective C reference implementation (Lloyd)
      • David will check with those that supplied the javascript code as well as with the server side javascript problems in the DSTU build to ensure it has the security fix.
      • Ewout will document the offer from Furore to host the FHIR registry (Lloyd)
      • PSS for DSTU2(Lloyd)
      • Liaison responsibility review/ transfer from Lorraine (Hans)
      • check that RP’s for current proposal have correct owner and approve as block. (David)
      • Policy statement on pre-DSTU draft for comment ballot rounds for development materials (Lloyd)
  • Combined project review for FHIR-CCDA (Austin)
  • SDC PSS updates requested (Paul/Lloyd)
  • Project reviews deferred from last week
  • Reports
  • Process management
  • AOB (Any Other Business)

Minutes

Present Lloyd McKenzie (LM) Paul knapp (PK) Andy Stechishin (AS) Hugh Glover (HG) David Hay (DH)

Started 5:10 (NZ time) Not at quorum Minutes not approved Agenda changes to discuss registry first

  • Action items review
    • Andy will take a look at the security fix on the objective C reference implementation (Lloyd)
      • David will check with those that supplied the javascript code as well as with the server side javascript problems in the DSTU build to ensure it has the security fix. - to do
    • Ewout will document the offer from Furore to host the FHIR registry (Lloyd) Done
    • PSS for DSTU2(Lloyd) done
    • Liaison responsibility review/ transfer from Lorraine (Hans)- to do
    • check that RP’s for current proposal have correct owner and approve as block. (David) - to do
    • Policy statement on pre-DSTU draft for comment ballot rounds for development materials (Lloyd)- to do


Registries

  • AS: formal process to get to this point
    • Was a PSS (ES/Tooling) for registry. Evaluated according to requirements. Looked at Hinjax (didn’t meet requirements).
    • ES didn’t have bandwidth to do internally + lack of expertise in FHIR – decided to look externally. May need to be an education/hand off to get internal expertise.
    • Process
      • if funded project then source of funds to be determined (chuck discretionary or tooling)
      • then to RFP. Process determined. Preference towards people already working in space.
      • Tooling will review RFP if from their budget.
      • John/Karen to determine Contract. Signed by Mark.

FMG Role:

  • create RFP (to be vetted by Tooling, ES)
    • templates available
  • part of selection process (joint with Tooling/ES)
  • involved in acceptance of deliverables (ES as well)

WorkGroup roles (informally)

  • ES – Managebility
  • Tooling – Architecture
  • FMG – functionality

AS: Login details HL7 should be OAuth Provider (Personal opinion)

LM: Our next steps taking initial drafts and other material (eg Furore material) to create RFP AS: workgroups vote to accept RFP, then go to Karen/John PK: do we want to send estimated costs to Karen ? AS: HQ may state budget – do we have any thoughts? LM: not clear AS: do we want to add suggested business model to reduce cost to HL7? Ie shared costs with downstream benefits to vendor. Costs to HL7 above about 60K would be difficult... LM: discussion of requirements.

  • Content from Lloyd / Furore.
  • OID registry probably out. Will have namespace registry – similar to OID registry but doesn’t issue OIDs. Plus OID registry moving to pay model and will increase scope cost. Will consider integration later.
  • concern about public vote up/down. (crowd sourcing)
    • PK: concerned about political impact. Organization might have concerns. Might have impact in standards creation (there’s a process to follow to get a standard which is then fixed.) Crowd sourcing is different. What is the impact on standards? Basically need to get input from HQ.
    • LM: can the submitter controlled the ability for this to occur. Community endorsement might be good for some, Name recognition (e.g. ONC) for other.
    • LM: HL7 endorsed content needs to be distinct from community content.
    • PK: is community approval appropriate for balloted material in general. If not then is it OK for the HL7 site to have both options (fixed & community).
    • LM: how to do curation? Crowd source is an option (alternative is individual – free or paid).
    • AS: there are other models of curation (eg internal, ‘iStore’, I use this) (Templates registry business requirements document has a list of options)
    • PK ‘I use this’ different to ‘I like this’. We should state requirement for curation to remove redundancies. LM: need to be specific about mechanism for RFP.
    • LM: curation very hard if not done by community that uses it. (need the context that it’s being used in)

LM: at time. Discussion to continue on list – especially curation model given constraints/requirements. Close at 6”07



Next Steps

Actions (Include Owner, Action Item, and due date)
  • Andy will take a look at the security fix on the objective C reference implementation (Lloyd)
  • David will check with those that supplied the javascript code as well as with the server side javascript problems in the DSTU build to ensure it has the security fix.
*Liaison responsibility review/ transfer from Lorraine (Hans
  • check that RP’s for current proposal have correct owner and approve as block. (David)
  • Policy statement on pre-DSTU draft for comment ballot rounds for development materials (Lloyd)
  • LM – update requirements for registry
  • Create RFP draft for registry
    • (include curation mechanism)
  • Tooling/ES to draft requirements for registry also
Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items

2014mmdd FMG concall


Back to FHIR_Management_Group

© 2014 Health Level Seven® International

Retrieved from "https://wiki.hl7.org/w/index.php?title=20140618_FMG_concall&oldid=87845"