This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here
Difference between revisions of "20141119 FMG concall"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(→Agenda) |
|||
| (2 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||.||John Quinn, CTO | | ex-officio|| ||Woody Beeler,<br/> Dave Shaver <br/>FGB Co-chairs||.||John Quinn, 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|| || Hugh Glover || ||Paul Knapp || || Anne Wizauer, scribe | + | |x|| Hans Buitendijk||x|| Hugh Glover ||x||Paul Knapp || || Anne Wizauer, scribe |
|- | |- | ||
| − | | ||Josh Mandel || ||John Moehrke|| ||Brian Pech || || | + | |x||Josh Mandel || ||John Moehrke||x||Brian Pech || || |
|- | |- | ||
| || || || || || ||.||<!--guest--> | | || || || || || ||.||<!--guest--> | ||
| Line 69: | Line 69: | ||
==Minutes== | ==Minutes== | ||
| + | *Called to order at 12:33 by Lloyd. | ||
| + | *Additions to agenda: | ||
| + | **Whether or not we do a call next week. | ||
| + | **Connectathon discussion | ||
| + | **Additional member | ||
| + | David moved to accept; Josh seconded the additions. | ||
| + | *Minutes from last call: David moves to accept minutes; Paul seconds. | ||
| + | *Meeting next week: Will cancel due to lack of availability. Looking at the 25th from 12:30-2:00. | ||
| + | *Reaching out to Brian Postlethwaite to join FMG: agreement that he is a good candidate. | ||
| + | *Connectathon: The notion of doing CarePlan fell flat with implementers. Counterproposals were to do Blue Button and some more work on the conformance aspect. We will have to flesh out the details of the proposals; these are just the themes. Are we comfortable with these themes? Motion to approve by David; Josh seconds. No objections or abstentions. Josh will work on the details. | ||
| + | *Lloyd attended FTSD to talk about FHIR timelines and they were comfortable. FHIR WG issue reported on by Paul – being looked at by FTSD but needs further review. Did not come up at TSC this week because it is sitting at PLA, which is working on accelerating their overarching structure. | ||
| + | *Paul submitted request for OperationOutcome. | ||
| + | *Anne poked at PA again regarding their proposal. | ||
| + | *Paul created tracker item. Lloyd remembers taking the liaison spreadsheet to Google docs – does anyone have a link to the document? | ||
| + | *FHIR change requests and IG balloting: Lloyd is leaning toward moving these to after December 7th. No objections. Paul: What is the status of the DSTU spreadsheets? Lloyd responds there are a few changes to the spreadsheets that will propogate through, but that should not keep anyone from using them. Paul: the video on the profiling – is that sufficiently current that one can use and follow along with? Lloyd: should be relatively narrow cognitive jump. | ||
| + | *DAF FHIR Profile: Lloyd abstains due to involvement. Hans wonders about scope – US only? Lloyd states it is US realm, MU specific. Paul wonders if the profiles are on a per-resource basis? Lloyd replies there will be multiple profiles having an aggregate IG. Feedback: we want them to identify the boundaries of the scope in terms of additional data elements, and who the stakeholders are. Action: Anne to update the profile proposal template to include a realm. David moves to approve with edit; Paul seconds. No objections or abstentions. | ||
| + | *DeviceCapabilities FHIR Resource Proposal: Anne – identify if there is a Project Insight ID? Discussion regarding name – maybe shouldn’t be DeviceCapabilities. Name should reflect purpose of defining content of the Device Log. Will also flag to discuss how Rest could apply or not. Contingent approval; Josh moves, Hans seconds. DeviceLogFormat, DeviceLogDefinition two potential names. | ||
| + | *DeviceLog FHIR Resource Proposal: looks very similar to DeviceCapabilities. Discussion over the fact that there is no indicator of what type of data is being recorded. The observations are dependent upon other resources to interpret. Question: how do the log and the definition of what is being logged connect? Motion for conditional approval from Josh; David seconds. | ||
| + | Lloyd asks: are we comfortable with material going to draft for comment without full review if we don’t complete it before the deadline? Motion to approve from Josh; second from Paul. No abstentions or objections. | ||
| + | *DeviceComponent FHIR Resource Proposal: (check for PI ID) Big question on this one is why is a component of a device not a device? We need an explanation of why we need this instead of making use of the device resource to model both the device and their components. Why you can’t represent device component as a kind of device. Why don’t devices contain devices? We’re not opposed to a distinct resource if we understand why it’s necessary. A component cannot function outside of the containing device? If we need to have both the device and the component it needs to be clear: when do you use device and when do you use component? Proposal deferred. | ||
| + | *DeviceMetric FHIR Resource Proposal: Discussion over the use of the word Metric. Lloyd wonders about the relationship between this and DeviceCapabilities. Why here instead of in the other? The measurements are in the DeviceLog; Capabilities are what they mean. Explain the difference between DeviceMetric and Device Capabilites and the relationship between them. | ||
| Line 75: | Line 96: | ||
|- | |- | ||
|colspan="4" |'''Actions''' ''(Include Owner, Action Item, and due date)''<br/> | |colspan="4" |'''Actions''' ''(Include Owner, Action Item, and due date)''<br/> | ||
| − | * | + | *Josh to work on fleshing out the details of the Connectathon themes |
| + | *Review/discussion of [http://wiki.hl7.org/index.php?title=FHIR_Change_requests FHIR Change Requests] | ||
| + | *Review/discussion of [http://wiki.hl7.org/index.php?title=FHIR_Profile_and_IG_Balloting FHIR Profile and IG Balloting] | ||
| + | *Anne to update FHIR Profile Proposal template to include "realm" | ||
| + | *Anne to identify Project Insight ID for DeviceCapabilities and DeviceComponent FHIR proposals | ||
| + | *Anne to followup with all contacts whose proposals require edits (all proposals today require edits) | ||
|- | |- | ||
Latest revision as of 21:49, 19 November 2014
| HL7 TSC FMG Meeting Minutes Location: |
Date: 2014-mm-dd Time: 1:00 PM U.S. Eastern | |
| Chair: | Note taker(s):Anne Wizauer | |
| Quorum = chair + 4 | yes/no | |||||
| Co chairs | x | David Hay | x | Lloyd McKenzie | ||
| ex-officio | Woody Beeler, Dave Shaver FGB Co-chairs |
. | John Quinn, CTO | |||
| Members | Members | Members | Observers/Guests | ||||
| x | Hans Buitendijk | x | Hugh Glover | x | Paul Knapp | Anne Wizauer, scribe | |
| x | Josh Mandel | John Moehrke | x | Brian Pech | |||
| . | |||||||
Agenda
- Roll Call
- Agenda Check
- Minutes from 20141112_FMG_concall
- Administrative
- Action items (most carried forward from 11/5/2014)
- Lloyd to attend FTSD call next Tuesday to discuss FHIR Resource Proposal
- Paul to submit change request on OperationOutcome that makes clear what its intended scope of use is, and on contraindication - when is contraindicaton appropriate vs. OperationOutcome.
- Anne to email for clarification requests for Appointment_FHIR_Resource_Proposal needed before approval can be made. (Completed 10/29/14 - followup)
- Paul to create tracker item to list WG responsible for a resource or profile
- Review/discussion of FHIR Change Requests
- Review/discussion of FHIR Profile and IG Balloting
- Action items (most carried forward from 11/5/2014)
- Resource Proposal Review:
- Reports
- Connectathon management (David/Brian)
- FGB –
- MnM –
- FMG Liaisons –
- Process management
- Ballot Planning
- Ballot content review and QA process FHIR QA Guidelines
- AOB (Any Other Business)
Minutes
- Called to order at 12:33 by Lloyd.
- Additions to agenda:
- Whether or not we do a call next week.
- Connectathon discussion
- Additional member
David moved to accept; Josh seconded the additions.
- Minutes from last call: David moves to accept minutes; Paul seconds.
- Meeting next week: Will cancel due to lack of availability. Looking at the 25th from 12:30-2:00.
- Reaching out to Brian Postlethwaite to join FMG: agreement that he is a good candidate.
- Connectathon: The notion of doing CarePlan fell flat with implementers. Counterproposals were to do Blue Button and some more work on the conformance aspect. We will have to flesh out the details of the proposals; these are just the themes. Are we comfortable with these themes? Motion to approve by David; Josh seconds. No objections or abstentions. Josh will work on the details.
- Lloyd attended FTSD to talk about FHIR timelines and they were comfortable. FHIR WG issue reported on by Paul – being looked at by FTSD but needs further review. Did not come up at TSC this week because it is sitting at PLA, which is working on accelerating their overarching structure.
- Paul submitted request for OperationOutcome.
- Anne poked at PA again regarding their proposal.
- Paul created tracker item. Lloyd remembers taking the liaison spreadsheet to Google docs – does anyone have a link to the document?
- FHIR change requests and IG balloting: Lloyd is leaning toward moving these to after December 7th. No objections. Paul: What is the status of the DSTU spreadsheets? Lloyd responds there are a few changes to the spreadsheets that will propogate through, but that should not keep anyone from using them. Paul: the video on the profiling – is that sufficiently current that one can use and follow along with? Lloyd: should be relatively narrow cognitive jump.
- DAF FHIR Profile: Lloyd abstains due to involvement. Hans wonders about scope – US only? Lloyd states it is US realm, MU specific. Paul wonders if the profiles are on a per-resource basis? Lloyd replies there will be multiple profiles having an aggregate IG. Feedback: we want them to identify the boundaries of the scope in terms of additional data elements, and who the stakeholders are. Action: Anne to update the profile proposal template to include a realm. David moves to approve with edit; Paul seconds. No objections or abstentions.
- DeviceCapabilities FHIR Resource Proposal: Anne – identify if there is a Project Insight ID? Discussion regarding name – maybe shouldn’t be DeviceCapabilities. Name should reflect purpose of defining content of the Device Log. Will also flag to discuss how Rest could apply or not. Contingent approval; Josh moves, Hans seconds. DeviceLogFormat, DeviceLogDefinition two potential names.
- DeviceLog FHIR Resource Proposal: looks very similar to DeviceCapabilities. Discussion over the fact that there is no indicator of what type of data is being recorded. The observations are dependent upon other resources to interpret. Question: how do the log and the definition of what is being logged connect? Motion for conditional approval from Josh; David seconds.
Lloyd asks: are we comfortable with material going to draft for comment without full review if we don’t complete it before the deadline? Motion to approve from Josh; second from Paul. No abstentions or objections.
- DeviceComponent FHIR Resource Proposal: (check for PI ID) Big question on this one is why is a component of a device not a device? We need an explanation of why we need this instead of making use of the device resource to model both the device and their components. Why you can’t represent device component as a kind of device. Why don’t devices contain devices? We’re not opposed to a distinct resource if we understand why it’s necessary. A component cannot function outside of the containing device? If we need to have both the device and the component it needs to be clear: when do you use device and when do you use component? Proposal deferred.
- DeviceMetric FHIR Resource Proposal: Discussion over the use of the word Metric. Lloyd wonders about the relationship between this and DeviceCapabilities. Why here instead of in the other? The measurements are in the DeviceLog; Capabilities are what they mean. Explain the difference between DeviceMetric and Device Capabilites and the relationship between them.
Next Steps
Actions (Include Owner, Action Item, and due date)
| |||
| Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items |
Back to FHIR_Management_Group
© 2014 Health Level Seven® International
