Difference between revisions of "20140618 FMG concall"
Line 144: | Line 144: | ||
*Andy will take a look at the security fix on the objective C reference implementation (Lloyd) | *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. | *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) | * 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) | * Policy statement on pre-DSTU draft for comment ballot rounds for development materials (Lloyd) |
Revision as of 13:38, 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 | 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)
- 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