This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here
2018-05-13 FMG WGM
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| HL7 TSC FMG Meeting Minutes Location: Salon 21, Mannheim |
Date: 2018-05-13 Time: 12:30 pm | |
| Chair: | Note taker(s): Anne W. | |
| Quorum = chair + 4 | yes/no | |||||
| Co chairs | x | David Hay | x | Lloyd McKenzie | ||
| ex-officio | x | Wayne Kubick, CTO | ||||
| Members | Members | Members | Observers/Guests | ||||
| x | Hans Buitendijk | x | Brian Postlethwaite | Paul Knapp | x | Anne W., scribe | |
| x | Josh Mandel | x | John Moehrke | x | Brian Pech | x | Ewout Kramer |
| x | Grahame Grieve | x | Kevin Sheckleton | ||||
Agenda
- Roll Call
- Agenda Check
- Minutes from 2018-05-02_FMG_concall
- Review items
- Discussion Topics
- Ballot
- Priorities for the Week
Minutes
- Roll Call
- Agenda Check
- Minutes from 2018-05-02_FMG_concall
- MOTION to accept; Lloyd/Brian Post
- VOTE: All in favor
- Review items
- FHIR Resources for Evidence-Based Medicine Knowledge Assets (EBMonFHIR)
- This should be harmonized with what is coming out of BRR and Pharmacy. Should add Pharmacy and Patient Care as cosponsors. Grahame: This is larger than just a project – this is a scope change for HL7. Don’t know the implementers. Should be a larger community around this effort. Should talk to the TSC about it. Grahame suggests kicking to the TSC but have them evaluate if it’s bigger than a project, and if there should be community engagement as part of the PSS.
- MOTION to defer until TSC has had time to consider it at tonight’s meeting: Lloyd/Grahame
- VOTE: All in favor
- ACTION: Add to next FMG agenda
- This should be harmonized with what is coming out of BRR and Pharmacy. Should add Pharmacy and Patient Care as cosponsors. Grahame: This is larger than just a project – this is a scope change for HL7. Don’t know the implementers. Should be a larger community around this effort. Should talk to the TSC about it. Grahame suggests kicking to the TSC but have them evaluate if it’s bigger than a project, and if there should be community engagement as part of the PSS.
- FHIR Resources for Evidence-Based Medicine Knowledge Assets (EBMonFHIR)
- Discussion Topics
- Ballot
- Grahame: Ballot responses shows some nervousness on behalf of the balloters, which is understandable – but it would be detrimental if it stopped the normative material from moving forward. Infrastructure looks positive, but Conformance doesn’t look as good. Also some work to do on Vocabulary. Other areas look okay. Seems likely to publish the rest on schedule. Some of the issues people are having seem vague – we need specific concerns.
- Priorities for the Week
- Get a sense from WGs of how comfortable they are with managing both ballot reconciliation and outstanding tracker reconciliation. Resolution for STU can include punting it to R5. Normative negatives cannot be punted but can be designated considered for future use if added as a disposition to tracker.
- Plan for Monday
- JIRA demo/discussion
- Forwards compatibility rules
- Regarding normative content – it has happened that things have been deprecated in other standards, such as V2. In some cases something was broken; another reason is that new requirements came out. We usually use the words backwards compatible, but it should really be forwards compatible. There are some things in the FHIR spec that we haven’t explored in regards to this – we don’t really know the version compatibility. If we pass R4, and then in R5 we make a response that must include a new parameter that hasn’t been described before, is that allowed after the content goes Normative? Hans notes precedence for doing so, but you can’t apply it to everything or have a blanket requirement, unless it’s a new segment or message or something that hasn’t been touched before. You could deprecate it for a few versions for people to have time to adjust to it. Grahame states we may be in unchartered territory as far as compatibility. Will discuss in MnM and on Zulip.
- ACTION: Add forwards compatibility to upcoming FMG agenda
- Regarding normative content – it has happened that things have been deprecated in other standards, such as V2. In some cases something was broken; another reason is that new requirements came out. We usually use the words backwards compatible, but it should really be forwards compatible. There are some things in the FHIR spec that we haven’t explored in regards to this – we don’t really know the version compatibility. If we pass R4, and then in R5 we make a response that must include a new parameter that hasn’t been described before, is that allowed after the content goes Normative? Hans notes precedence for doing so, but you can’t apply it to everything or have a blanket requirement, unless it’s a new segment or message or something that hasn’t been touched before. You could deprecate it for a few versions for people to have time to adjust to it. Grahame states we may be in unchartered territory as far as compatibility. Will discuss in MnM and on Zulip.
- On the ballot, people have submitted line items on the wrong ballot. Can’t simply move it to the right ballot with normative ballots according to Karen. People have voted negative and then referenced the same set of tasks on all the ballot pools rather than separating the votes. Anything referenced on the wrong ballot should be voted as out of scope (not related) and handled separately by the committees. They could put it in a new tracker item for handling by the correct committee. Lloyd will write this policy up for review by Austin and Wayne with a potential message to committees on Monday night.
- Ballot
- Adjourned at 1:48 pm
Back to FHIR_Management_Group
© 2018 Health Level Seven® International
