20140625 FMG concall

HL7 TSC FMG Meeting Minutes Location: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/279790597 (voice and screen)		Date: 2014-mm-dd Time: 1:00 PM U.S. Eastern
Chair:		Note taker(s):

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		Lynn Laakso, scribe
	Josh Mandel		John Moehrke		Brian Pech
						.

Agenda

• Roll Call
• Agenda Check
• Minutes from 2014mmdd_FMG_concall
• Administrative
  • Action items
• 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

Next Steps

Actions (Include Owner, Action Item, and due date)

Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items 2014mmdd FMG concall

Back to FHIR_Management_Group

© 2014 Health Level Seven® International

Minutes

Started 5:30 NZ Time

Present

• Paul Knapp
• Hugh Glover
• John Moerhke
• Ken McCaslin
• Hans
• Josh Mandel

Reviewing the document re registries

• paul – some FMG, some others eg tooling / ES
• paul – concerns with charging – note that everything related to FHIR should be free
• ken does that apply to FHIR?
• hugh document suggests free to all but different service models
• paul what does service level mean? Function or timeliness
• hugh – service model for scale eg free is 20x day
• david ? push on to vendor to suggest
  • hugh - a strategic level – need principles – viewpoint may differ
  • principles established by FGB/ TSC
• list of registries:
  • JM why security event / subscription
    • queried by functionality but not a registry as such
    • PK – may be viewable / support
  • suggest re-ordering
    • profile, namespace, valueset, conformance, conceptmap ,data element
  • dh any missing registries?
    • none noted
• general review of doc
  • business case – hl7 developed – may need to review approval processes for HL7 developed
  • should there be both HL7 developed and individually developed artifacts in the same registry
    • advantages in a single registry, but costs / processs involved + opportunities for revenue etc.
      • who should curate? Would other organizations want HL7 to curate

• paul is there sufficient detail in document to involve other working groups?
  • yes - action noted

Meeting finished 6.04 (NZ time)

actions

• LM why include event / subscription registries?
  • suggest re-ordering or registries
  • profile, namespace, valueset, conformance, conceptmap ,data element

• DH - reach out to FGB, Tooling, ES to start their review. Questions raised so far:
  • FGB – consider financial principle of registry
  • should there be both HL7 developed and individually developed artifacts in the same registry