Difference between revisions of "20140618 FMG concall"
(6 intermediate revisions by 2 users 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 || regrets|| Lynn Laakso | + | | || Hans Buitendijk||x || Hugh Glover || x||Paul Knapp || regrets|| Lynn Laakso |
|- | |- | ||
| ||Josh Mandel || ||John Moehrke|| ||Brian Pech || || Austin Kreisler | | ||Josh Mandel || ||John Moehrke|| ||Brian Pech || || Austin Kreisler | ||
|- | |- | ||
− | | || || || || || || | + | | || || || || || ||x||Andy Stechishin |
|- | |- | ||
|} | |} | ||
Line 49: | Line 49: | ||
*Project reviews deferred from last week | *Project reviews deferred from last week | ||
**[http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/project/fhir/scmsvn/?action=browse&path=%2F%2Acheckout%2A%2Ftrunk%2Fdocuments%2Fprojects%2F2014SEP_PSS_CQI_FHIR2.doc&revision=2555 CQI FHIR] update | **[http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/project/fhir/scmsvn/?action=browse&path=%2F%2Acheckout%2A%2Ftrunk%2Fdocuments%2Fprojects%2F2014SEP_PSS_CQI_FHIR2.doc&revision=2555 CQI FHIR] update | ||
+ | **[http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/download/trackeritem/3278/12005/%48%4c%37%46%48%49%52%2d%50%53%53%5f%48%43%44%2d%44%65%76%69%63%65%41%6c%61%72%6d%5f%61%6e%64%5f%43%6f%6e%74%72%6f%6c%5f%32%30%31%34%2d%30%34%2d%33%30%5f%48%43%44%57%47%2d%64%72%61%66%74%5f%76%30%37%2e%64%6f%63 Project Approval request] of ''Health Care Devices to Develop FHIR resources and profiles for the second DSTU release'' for Health Care Devices WG of DESD at [http://www.hl7.org/special/Committees/projman/searchableProjectIndex.cfm?action=edit&ProjectNumber=1103 Project Insight # 1103] and [http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/project/tsc/tracker/?action=TrackerItemEdit&tracker_item_id=3278&start=0 TSC Tracker #3278] | ||
**[http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/project/fhir/scmsvn/?action=browse&path=%2F%2Acheckout%2A%2Ftrunk%2Fdocuments%2Fprojects%2F2014May_PSS_PatientAdmin_deLeon_FHIRResourcesforPA.doc&revision=2502&pathrev=2502 PA FHIR Resources DSTU2] Project Scope Statement at Project Insight #1102 - | **[http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/project/fhir/scmsvn/?action=browse&path=%2F%2Acheckout%2A%2Ftrunk%2Fdocuments%2Fprojects%2F2014May_PSS_PatientAdmin_deLeon_FHIRResourcesforPA.doc&revision=2502&pathrev=2502 PA FHIR Resources DSTU2] Project Scope Statement at Project Insight #1102 - | ||
**[http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/download/trackeritem/3305/12034/%4f%4f%20%46%48%49%52%20%52%65%73%75%6c%74%73%20%50%72%6f%66%69%6c%65%20%50%53%53%2e%64%6f%63 OO FHIR Results Profile] PSS for OO of SSD SD cosponsored by PHER of DESD at Project Insight #1113] | **[http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/download/trackeritem/3305/12034/%4f%4f%20%46%48%49%52%20%52%65%73%75%6c%74%73%20%50%72%6f%66%69%6c%65%20%50%53%53%2e%64%6f%63 OO FHIR Results Profile] PSS for OO of SSD SD cosponsored by PHER of DESD at Project Insight #1113] | ||
Line 67: | Line 68: | ||
==Minutes== | ==Minutes== | ||
+ | |||
+ | Present | ||
+ | Lloyd McKenzie (LM) | ||
+ | Paul knapp (PK) | ||
+ | Andy Stechishin (AS) | ||
+ | Hugh Glover (HG) | ||
+ | David Hay (DH) | ||
+ | |||
+ | Started 1:10pm (US Eastern) | ||
+ | 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 2:07pm | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
Line 73: | Line 141: | ||
|- | |- | ||
|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 | ||
|- | |- | ||
|colspan="4" |'''Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items'''<br/> | |colspan="4" |'''Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items'''<br/> | ||
− | [[ | + | [[20140625 FMG concall]] |
|} | |} |
Latest revision as of 13:39, 27 June 2014
HL7 TSC FMG Meeting Minutes Location: |
Date: 2014-06-18 Time: 1:00 PM U.S. Eastern | |
Chair: Lloyd | Note taker(s): David |
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 | ||||
Hans Buitendijk | x | Hugh Glover | x | Paul Knapp | regrets | Lynn Laakso | |
Josh Mandel | John Moehrke | Brian Pech | Austin Kreisler | ||||
x | Andy Stechishin |
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)
- Action items
- Combined project review for FHIR-CCDA (Austin)
- SDC PSS updates requested (Paul/Lloyd)
- Project reviews deferred from last week
- CQI FHIR update
- Project Approval request of Health Care Devices to Develop FHIR resources and profiles for the second DSTU release for Health Care Devices WG of DESD at Project Insight # 1103 and TSC Tracker #3278
- PA FHIR Resources DSTU2 Project Scope Statement at Project Insight #1102 -
- OO FHIR Results Profile PSS for OO of SSD SD cosponsored by PHER of DESD at Project Insight #1113]
- OO FHIR Lab Orders PSS at Project Insight #1067
- OO FHIR DSTU Maintenance PSS at Project Insight # 1115
- Imaging FHIR Resources PSS at Project Insight # 1107
- Reports
- Connectathon management (David/Brian)
- FGB –
- Provide input/feedback on Fundamental Principles of FHIR
- MnM –
- FMG Liaisons –
- Process management
- Ballot Planning
- Ballot content review and QA process FHIR QA Guidelines
- AOB (Any Other Business)
Minutes
Present Lloyd McKenzie (LM) Paul knapp (PK) Andy Stechishin (AS) Hugh Glover (HG) David Hay (DH)
Started 1:10pm (US Eastern) 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 2:07pm
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