This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here

20140721 FGB concall

From HL7Wiki
Revision as of 21:11, 21 July 2014 by Llaakso (talk | contribs)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
HL7 TSC FGB Meeting Minutes

Location: call 770-657-9270 using code 985371#
GoToMeeting ID: 136-494-157

Date: 2014-07-21
Time: 4:00 PM U.S. Eastern
Facilitator: Dave Note taker(s): Lynn Laakso
Quorum = Chair plus 2 yes/no
Co-Chair/CTO Members
voice only Woody Beeler x Lorraine Constable x Grahame Grieve x David Hay (FMG)
x Dave Shaver x Ewout Kramer x Lloyd McKenzie (FMG) Ron Parker
x John Quinn
observers/guests Austin Kreisler
x Lynn Laakso, scribe


  • Roll call -
  • Agenda Review
  • Approve minutes of 20140714 FGB concall
  • Action Item review:
  • Review precepts, associated governance points and risks
  • FMG update -
  • Methodology update-
  • Review precepts, associated governance points and risks
  • Next steps: Define and Resource other Governance processes.
    1. Conformity Assessment


Convened at 4:06 PM

  • Agenda Review – no changes identified; Lorraine moves acceptance. Lloyd seconds. Approved by general consent.
  • Approve minutes of 20140714 FGB concall Ewout moves acceptance and Lorraine seconds. Approved by general consent.
  • Action Item review:
    • Follow up with Provider candidate Catherine (Woody) – no update.
    • (All) review FHIR_Registry_Requirements
      • Lloyd notes they made updates based on discussion with Paul and Andy. They hope to approve on FMG and Electronic Services calls.
      • Lorraine notes the governance implications include: useful set of metrics provided by the use of such registries. This will be open to the public, not members only. There may be members-only benefits within it. Flagging content as hl7-owned for profiles and value sets would have administrative editing restrictions.
      • Risks include need for use of the registries at run time for validation.HL7 is not set up for production-level runtime capacity and availability. May need to track source of requests to identify users utilizing the registry for real time high frequency requests instead of caching a local copy.
      • Curation expected to be automated-level only not human curation. HL7 cannot adequately validate a value set of Zimbabwean drivers’ licenses, for example. Implementers may flag content to indicate a particular value set is actually being used, in order to influence the rest of the community on developing consensus on a particular value set instead of another.
      • Provision to capture security events also a source of metrics.
      • ConceptMap and DataElement registries will be lower priority. SecurityEvent and Subscription registries will be developed earlier. They won’t likely need new functionality developed for these registries.
      • Grahame asks if they will have an acceptance of IP policy to proceed. Lloyd suggests “SHALL redirect users to a webpage to accept HL7’s usage terms and conditions for content submission prior to receiving permission to post or download content”. Grahame suggests adding “The web page shall offer the user the ability to log in in a read only mode”.
      • Lorraine notes that OAuth with Google and Facebook can not establish role for curation. Grahame refers her to a blog post describing double layer, inner and outer OAuth.
      • Ewout refers to published user profiles on other sources like GitHub and cites a site and discussion ensued on download of packages and methods of maintaining and updating software using the profiles. Process for iterative review needed.
      • When do we need to have these requirements approved by? A registry was needed a few months ago already so something is needed in the short term. Ewout notes that Furore offered to start an open-source effort and he thinks they know what they need to get started and the community would contribute over time. HQ could publish this RFP and they will get a number of responses from companies that say they have this much of this functionality already and then contract for the remainder. Lloyd’s concern is to ensure they get all the needed functionality in the needed timeframe. Ewout cites discoverability as the primary goal.
      • Discussion followed on approaches to starting, review of realistic expectations of should and shall requirements against funding expectations. Lloyd asks Ewout and Grahame to review again for realistic scope and budget planning for next week. How to initiate iterative development and incorporate adherence to requirements concurrently.

Adjourned 5:08 PM

Next Steps

Actions (Include Owner, Action Item, and due date)
Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items

Back to FHIR_Governance_Board

© 2014 Health Level Seven® International. All rights reserved.