20121024 FGB concall notes

HL7 TSC FGB Meeting Minutes Location: call 770-657-9270 using code 985371# GoToMeeting ID: 489-406-709		Date: 2012-10-24 Time: 5:00 PM U.S. Eastern
Facilitator: Ron Parker		Note taker(s): Lynn Laakso

Quorum = TBD				yes/no
Chair/CTO		Members		Members
x	Ron Parker	x	George (Woody) Beeler	x	Ewout Kramer
.	John Quinn	x	Grahame Grieve	.
observers/guests				x	Austin Kreisler Lynn Laakso, scribe

Proposed Agenda

• Target deliverables for the next WGM
  1. A working set of precepts to understand product line behavior
  2. priority list for resource development
  3. operating principles defined for FMG
  4. Accountability and governance in interaction with external organizations

Minutes

Call to order 5:07 PM

• Roll call
• Minutes approval of 20121017 FGB concall notes Woody moves acceptance Ewout seconds and abstains; passes 1/0/1
• List of FGB nominations for FMG to Monday's TSC agenda
• With nomination to FMG they need operating principles and a working set of precepts for them to start from
• Initial precepts discussed in Baltimore not advanced; Ron having day job crunch. He'll try to get to it on the weekend, so for today let's look at priority list from 20120912 WGMQ6 adhoc meeting notes.
  • Top-down and bottom-up resource requests. Core team has initial list.
  • Need to document list of resources being developed now and what should be next.
  • Who does the development, assuming it moves beyond the core team?
  • Ewout notes that exercise of the methodology includes requests from inside and outside the membership. How to harness the external interest but ensure the development is under the management of HL7. What are their requirements, what would their use cases be, etc.
  • Woody asks if IHE stuff is healthcare resource or infrastructure resource? Grahame feels it is primarily infrastructure but the line gets blurred. Woody thinks we might devote some HL7 resources to focus on infrastructure rather than IHE. XDS solves a problem using FHIR but not all interest is to solve problems with XDS (help interpreting here, Woody/Grahame?).
  • Woody notes RIM has some classes designed for messaging not usable for services, etc. Does FHIR want to address this? FHIR has RESTful paradigm, messaging and documents. Patterns of interaction built on top of RESTful interface is where XDS comes in. hData is another one.
  • Perspectives of XDS discussed.
  • Ron notes organizational boundaries: IHE offers value in history of vendor-implementer based expression on how to accomplish interoperability between systems with expressing a specific implementation pattern/profile. HL7 not prescriptive in that area. Problem is that they don't use an architectural backplane. They proclaim not to be standards developers but they declare architectural elements. HL7 wants to develop implementation guides for standards products. IHE develops IGs for specific implementations of those products. HL7 doesn't describe workflow patterns, but SAIF perspective dynamic modeling will likely get there. He'd like to see a clear boundary of HL7 as standards balloted and resources defined, able to use in different patterns and IHE describes a pattern that can be used in industry. If they need something to be a standard it should be brought to HL7 and balloted.
  • Grahame states the difference between a standard and what's a profile of a standard is unclear. XDS thought of as a set of profiles on a standard but it might be regarded as a standard. Grahame working on it as stepwise process, offering users something better, but focused on the use case, gets people in the door. Employ process between Draft for comment and normative to introduce reusable approach.
  • Ron says IHE profile expressions show up in RFPs. HL7 org has not expressly positioned assets in way to be incorporated in RFP. If HL7 is not comfortable in that arena that may be part of the IHE paradigm.
  • Set a list of priorities for resources, one set of precepts in setting list is what is the appetite in the community at large for certain resources, and what strategically will bring product along that provides best result for market space and allow market to understand, and embrace concepts with the project lines.
• First set:FHIR methodology resources; Second set: Attribution resources is important, as being developed by PIFM; third set is marketing potential archetypes from potential funders having interest.
  • Such Resources useful because they are state-rich notes Ewout.
  • Ron thinks we have opportunity to draw in funding capacity. We may want to create tension in list of priorities to do so based on resources. Element of prioritization is who will provide resources to get the work done. Grahame notes that speaks back to bottom-up approach.
  • Ewout proposes that the contents of each quarter's connectathon can also be driven by funder interest or provision of resources.
  • Discussion ensued on use of 'connectathon' term in conflict with IHE.
  • Evolve criteria around these three focal points. Ron asks if we have the correct resources to evolve that first set. Having Attribution, Pharmacy, what remains to drive the methodology. Ewout posits a resource that contains large image data? Grahame has a methodology reasoner on handling binary content. He has concerns on ordering, workflow.
  • Ron asks Woody what we have to harvest methodology and re-express it. How do we document the structured methodology to allow people to pick it up and go work on it. To capture it and keep it managed we have that but Woody says we have not expressed it.
  • How do we discover the bottom-up resource requests. Connectathon is one important way. Folks with great ideas may not have resources to deliver against the great idea. Connectathon is opportunity to understand prospective use case. May need to connect the dots between that idea and the folks with the resources to get it done.
  • Ewout notes that IHE is a source of bottom up. Grahame adds that X-paradigm is another source but won't be ready for next connectathon.
  • Ron notes the criteria are not only financial resources but also enthusiasm. Austin may want to task ArB to find the skills in the organization to help us do the market segmentation. What does it look like, who are they, what's their value proposition, how do we develop funding model. Austin adds the key may be to linking this to membership and segmenting the membership and prioritizing member needs over non-member needs.
  • Ron notes the nature of FHIR is appealing to others in the market that are not represented today. Austin adds that having a voice in setting priorities should be a benefit of membership to drive them to be members.
  • Ron suggests checkpoint periodically in FGB meetings to look at responsiveness and adjust priorities based on what we see in the market, every three months or at WGM.
  • Ron asks: If we establish a prioritized list of resources; how do we communicate that? How do we position them in the organization so they get done? Grahame suggests we delegate that problem to the FMG. Then we have to give a charge to the FMG and the parameters within they should work and the responsibilities they cover. We need to work up that set of actions, boundaries, etc and communicate our expectations. Managing list of priorities, communicating the organization, and exercising the governance points to do it. They may not have to do it directly but they're tasked with keeping their eyes on the ball and ensure it gets done.
• Good exercise for next call; work out terms of reference for FMG. They have a draft M&C notes Austin, and a draft DMP.
• Next week Wednesday night is Halloween - it's a problem for Ron as the time is peak time for escorting trick-or-treaters around . The week after will follow Harmonization. Ewout clarifies daylight savings time updates. Cancel next week and plan for two weeks out.

Adjourned 5:58 PM EDT