20140625 FMG concall

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