This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here
2018-02-14 SGB Conference Call
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
back to Standards Governance Board main page
| HL7 SGB Minutes |
'Date: 2018-02-14 Time: 10:00 AM Eastern | ||
| Facilitator | Paul/Lorraine | Note taker(s) | Anne |
| Attendee | Name
| ||
| x | Calvin Beebe | ||
| x | Lorraine Constable | ||
| Russ Hamm | |||
| Tony Julian | |||
| x | Paul Knapp | ||
| x | Ewout Kramer | ||
| Regrets | Austin Kreisler | ||
| x | Wayne Kubick | ||
| x | Thom Kuhn | ||
| Ken McCaslin | |||
| x | Rik Smithies | ||
| x | Sandy Stuart | ||
| Quorum: Chair + 4 | |||
Agenda
- Agenda review
- Approve Minutes of 2018-01-24_SGB_Conference_Call
- Approve Minutes of 2018-01-28_SGB_WGM_Agenda
- Approve Minutes of 2018-02-02_SGB_WGM_Agenda
- Action Items
- Paul waiting to hear back from Vocab and PA re: approval of items balloting at STU in FHIR R3
- Will then verify with Karen that the documentation on the FHIR R3 ballot STU approvals is sufficient
- Calvin/Austin to take the issue of bringing large projects into HL7 to the board level
- Ask methodology groups to define how the definition of substantive change applies to their product family; management groups must then operationalize
- Add ISM product matrix to upcoming CDA management call
- Anne to add Scope of Product Management Group responsibilities to upcoming TSC agenda and to Precepts page
- Post documents regarding HTA/vocabulary precepts and send out
- Paul waiting to hear back from Vocab and PA re: approval of items balloting at STU in FHIR R3
- Discussion Topics Carried Forward from New Orleans:
- Drafting Shared Product Management Responsibilities
- Technical Alignments Between Product Families
- How groups are to interact with publishing, EST, Vocabulary, etc.
- Precept on bringing in large projects
- Vocabulary - review HTA material for precepts
- Precept for adding new tools (include that WGs with a specific mandate must be involved, such as EST, Publishing, Vocabulary, etc.) - was this covered by the tooling precept we created in New Orleans?
- Precepts We Need to Develop
- Parking Lot
- BAM guidance on process for product adoption
- Create PRECEPTS that require that it be articulated in the standards how the value sets specified within the standards respond to changes in regulation, licensing, time, etc.- to do in April/before Cologne
- Review GOM with respect to where SGB and precepts should be reflected
- FHIR Product Director Position Description: we should 1) review further and draft feedback, then 2) map back the description to the role of FGB
- Ownership of content
Minutes
- Agenda review
- Approve Minutes of 2018-01-24_SGB_Conference_Call
- MOTION to approve: Calvin/Rik
- VOTE: All in favor
- Approve Minutes of 2018-01-28_SGB_WGM_Agenda
- MOTION to approve: Rik/Thom
- VOTE: All in favor
- Approve Minutes of 2018-02-02_SGB_WGM_Agenda
- Made edits for clarity/accuracy.
- MOTION to approve: Calvin/Thom
- VOTE: All in favor
- Action Items
- Paul waiting to hear back from Vocab and PA re: approval of items balloting at STU in FHIR R3
- Will then verify with Karen that the documentation on the FHIR R3 ballot STU approvals is sufficient
- Calvin/Austin to take the issue of bringing large projects into HL7 to the board level
- Ask methodology groups to define how the definition of substantive change applies to their product family; management groups must then operationalize
- Add ISM product matrix to upcoming CDA management call
- Anne to add Scope of Product Management Group responsibilities to upcoming TSC agenda and to Precepts page
- Post documents regarding HTA/vocabulary precepts and send out
- Paul waiting to hear back from Vocab and PA re: approval of items balloting at STU in FHIR R3
- Discussion Topics:
- HAI PSS
- They are developing a DAM, and they want that DAM to be expressed across various specifications to ensure consistency. They eventually want to ballot an IG and a FHIR profile at the same time, coming out of the same project. Cannot be done as one ballot and Paul expresses concern that the WG didn't understand that. Lorraine didn't pick up that same feeling. Need to refresh training on how to ballot such items where artifacts from two product families are coming out of one project. Perhaps we need a guidance document on determining the scope of a ballot. This is likely a job for TSC and the management groups. The WG cochairs should be working the project leads through these pieces of process. Bigger issue is how we document and disseminate this knowledge. Could do a TSC guidance document on determining the scope of the ballot pool. Calvin mentions having project scope statements that align across smaller issues. Project scope statements must sufficiently discuss the products that are coming out of a project. That should be caught at steering division/TSC.
- ACTION: Put together draft guidance on determining the scope of a ballot for TSC review
- ACTION: Add discussion of omnibus project scope statements to next week's SGB call
- They are developing a DAM, and they want that DAM to be expressed across various specifications to ensure consistency. They eventually want to ballot an IG and a FHIR profile at the same time, coming out of the same project. Cannot be done as one ballot and Paul expresses concern that the WG didn't understand that. Lorraine didn't pick up that same feeling. Need to refresh training on how to ballot such items where artifacts from two product families are coming out of one project. Perhaps we need a guidance document on determining the scope of a ballot. This is likely a job for TSC and the management groups. The WG cochairs should be working the project leads through these pieces of process. Bigger issue is how we document and disseminate this knowledge. Could do a TSC guidance document on determining the scope of the ballot pool. Calvin mentions having project scope statements that align across smaller issues. Project scope statements must sufficiently discuss the products that are coming out of a project. That should be caught at steering division/TSC.
- Discussion with HTA
- For certain standards there are obligations with what versions of the terminology we use in our publications. For some of them, such as SNOMED, we've agreed to use the current version. So if a specification is published using the current version, if 5 years later that spec comes up for reaffirmation, you can't do that - you have to re-ballot it because the terminology must change to the now current version. Calvin: We have to disassociate the vocabulary binding out of the specifications somehow so it doesn't affect the standards themselves. Wayne: Not sure it's an obligation; it's not in the signed SOU agreement. Examples can be addressed through a simple process by citing the SNOMED version used and then stating that implementers should use the current version. Paul: This would have to be expressed in some kind of license they give us. They're not going to describe our rights/obligations on this topic in the SOU.
- ACTION: Determine what our licensing terms are with SNOMED
- Lorraine asks if coordination with IEEE came up in HTA. Paul confirms that it didn't. When a WG says they're going to coordinate mapping codes between LOINC and IEEE, should HTA be involved? Paul: They're formally a liaison body, so they should be involved if the committee needed to communicate with IEEE, and they needed access or permission to use IEEE codes in examples, that would be negotiated by HTA on behalf of HL7. Wayne: HTA requests the need and HL7 HQ makes the contact and completes the action. This is another process that we need to outline for people.
- ACTION: Forward issue of communicating HTA coordination process to WGs
- For certain standards there are obligations with what versions of the terminology we use in our publications. For some of them, such as SNOMED, we've agreed to use the current version. So if a specification is published using the current version, if 5 years later that spec comes up for reaffirmation, you can't do that - you have to re-ballot it because the terminology must change to the now current version. Calvin: We have to disassociate the vocabulary binding out of the specifications somehow so it doesn't affect the standards themselves. Wayne: Not sure it's an obligation; it's not in the signed SOU agreement. Examples can be addressed through a simple process by citing the SNOMED version used and then stating that implementers should use the current version. Paul: This would have to be expressed in some kind of license they give us. They're not going to describe our rights/obligations on this topic in the SOU.
- Product Life Cycle Management document: Was sent for FGB review, but they dissolved before reviewing it.
- ACTION: Send Product Life Cycle Management document to FHIR product manager and cochairs of FMG for review
- HAI PSS
- Carry forward to next week:
- Drafting Shared Product Management Responsibilities
- Technical Alignments Between Product Families
- How groups are to interact with publishing, EST, Vocabulary, etc.
- Precept on bringing in large projects
- Vocabulary - review HTA material for precepts
- Precept for adding new tools (include that WGs with a specific mandate must be involved, such as EST, Publishing, Vocabulary, etc.) - was this covered by the tooling precept we created in New Orleans?
- Precepts We Need to Develop
- Items from Parking Lot
- Review GOM with respect to where SGB and precepts should be reflected
- Need to make sure that SGB is accurately reflected in the GOM, and figure out what precepts should appear in the GOM
- ACTION: Add to next week
- ACTION: Review M&C next week
- Need to make sure that SGB is accurately reflected in the GOM, and figure out what precepts should appear in the GOM
- Review GOM with respect to where SGB and precepts should be reflected
Meeting Outcomes
| Actions
|
| Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items |
© 2018 Health Level Seven® International. All rights reserved
