This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here
<meta name="googlebot" content="noindex">

2016-07-20 SGB Conference Call

From HL7Wiki
Revision as of 21:25, 26 July 2016 by Annewiz (talk | contribs)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

back to Standards Governance Board main page

HL7 SGB Minutes


Date: 2016-07-20
Time: 10:00 AM Eastern
Facilitator Paul/Calvin Note taker(s) Anne
Attendee Name

x Calvin Beebe
x Lorraine Constable
x Russ Hamm
x Tony Julian
Paul Knapp
x Austin Kreisler
Wayne Kubick
Mary Kay McDaniel
Ken McCaslin
x Rik Smithies
x Brian Pech

no quorum definition


  • Agenda review
  • Minutes review of 2016-07-13_SGB_Conference_Call
  • Discussion Topics
    • Review ARB guidance on using SAIF matrix
    • Look at requirements for each of our standards products in terms of logging issues and comments in a standardized way
  • Parking lot
    • Coordinate time with HTA to review risks and their likelihood and impact


  • Agenda review
  • Minutes review of 2016-07-13_SGB_Conference_Call
    • MOTION to approve: Lorraine/Russ
    • VOTE: all in favor
  • Discussion Topics
    • Review ARB guidance on using SAIF matrix
      • Group reviews ISM guide presentation from ARB. (Anne to insert link)
      • Calvin: (slide 13) Will each product family fill similar boxes with standard content? Lorraine: Product families will have a handful of patterns depending on which space they're in.
      • Paul: This is still at a level which is above easy for the domains to engage in. But we're getting closer. We've got two different views of the ISM here from a language perspective - perhaps we pick one set of language. Lorraine: We got rid of platform independent a couple of years ago. Paul: What might be useful is taking this (slide 10) and do one or two of the families to see how they fit. Lorraine: The IST pieces don't actually exist. We do have some groups that are laying out across product families how things relate. Clinical Genomics is working on a conceptual model that then will drive consistency across their FHIR profiles, V2 guides, and their V3 specifications. They have a piece of the different families tied together in that loop. That's one of the best examples I can think of.
      • Lorraine: We should probably pull in someone who is less close to this to help simplify it. Mary Kay, perhaps. Austin: CDA went through this process a few years ago. Paul: We need to show the issues that this solves and the value it provides. Austin: What risks are we addressing with this? This is a mitigation for something. Lorraine: One is to ensure that when we look at our specifications you can make sure you've covered all of the steps - best practices. Calvin: A product within a specification will typically live in one of these boxes. Lorraine: Almost all of our specifications live in informational and computational with a little of the other boxes in them. Paul: Risks fall into the area of separation of concerns and completeness. By having people think about where they fall within the ISM, they can more readily identify when they have put a series of things that should really be represented by independent specifications into one. Example would be VMR - specification and IG were all in one document; their methodology was never specified. Discussion over rapid implementation of FHIR and problems in this area. Not tying together the logical and implementable models. Lorraine: How do we go from this conversation to something that is usable by the WGs? Paul: I find it easier to walk down a logical path starting with a problem to be resolved, and then through the discussion, ending up at a solution. If we could articulate some of the risks that we see or have seen, and then discuss how SAIF addresses these risks. Need some name other than the acronym, perhaps. Lorraine: The reason it's hard to implement is that we were missing the IG guidance in the middle. Groups are implementing SAIF because they're going through deliberate documentation using best practices. Laying out the risks should be done here and then figure out what we can do to fill in the gaps. Paul: We need to present why to do it and how to do it. Calvin: These artifacts really are the tools that we're using in SGB and ARB, and if we send them out further, people's heads are going to pop off. Brian: Once you have the conceptual framework that works for ARB and SGB, you can distribute a simplified framework. Calvin: They just want a cookbook for what they're supposed to do. Paul: Perhaps all we do in the near term is provide a reduced form of the matrix and ask people to represent through check boxes. Paul: To have product lines they must be functionally interoperable; therefore, you must have some kind of functional modeling.
  • Next week:
    • review of the materials we did last week in advance of meeting with HTA
    • Calvin and Lorraine will look for work done by Structured Documents

    • Look at requirements for each of our standards products in terms of logging issues and comments in a standardized way
  • Parking lot
    • Coordinate time with HTA to review risks and their likelihood and impact

Meeting Outcomes

Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items

© 2016 Health Level Seven