This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here

20140625 FMG concall

From HL7Wiki
Revision as of 13:29, 27 June 2014 by Llaakso (talk | contribs)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
HL7 TSC FMG Meeting Minutes


(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


  • Roll Call
  • Agenda Check
  • Minutes from 2014mmdd_FMG_concall
  • Administrative
    • Action items
  • Reports
  • Process management
  • AOB (Any Other Business)


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


Started 5:30 NZ Time


  • 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)


  • 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