Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

Attendees Present

Chair:  @
Scribe: @ 


Calvin Beebe

xLorraine Constable
xRuss Hamm

Tony Julian

xPaul Knapp

Ewout Kramer
xAustin Kreisler
xWayne Kubick
xThom Kuhn
xRik Smithies
xSandy Stuart
xKatie Sullivan
xMary Kay McDaniel
xRick Haddorf
xRon Parker
xBrian Pech
xKen McCaslin
xFrieda Hall
xJeff Brown

Sunday Q2: Joint with ARB

Agenda topics:

  1. PLCPD Review with Project Services
  2. Substantive Change input from Methodology Groups
  3. Handling large architectures coming in


  1. Guests noted above
  2. Agenda review
    1. No additions
  3. PLCPD Review with Project Services
    1. Rick and Freida here to review. Has been published on the website but it is not formally published. One question is - should we get it to the stage where it is formally published? There are some updates that should be made. Paul states that it should maybe have more socialization. Freida notes that this was the third ballot and associated revisions. TSC has not publicized this document recently; many people likely don't know it exists. 
    2. Do we still see the value of capturing our project and balloting processes in a single document form, in addition to the rules we have in the GOM? Lorraine: Some of these pieces are in stage 3 and forward of the BAM that we never did. There are best practices in this document that most groups never do. Paul suggests a shorter form might be better that is more consumable. Would need to review this to make sure the shalls and shoulds are correct from multiple perspectives.  Could pull some things out for the cochair handbook on Confluence. Freida notes that Project Services has a space with numerous project management guidances. 
    3. Do we want to get it to the state that it's an Informative document? Discussion over how this relates to product management; they are intersectional. 
    4. Reviewed ARB's state machine diagram for STUs that matches current practice. We currently leave superceded STUs on the grid. Normative documents have a natural cleansing process if they're not reaffirmed, but we don't have the same thing for STU. We need a new state for STUs that are never going normative, like C-CDA. Perhaps we do something like "approved technical specification." Discussion over Informative documents living forever. 
    5. Ron: Is there a product family "work group health" equivalent? Austin: We've been empowering management groups to enforce quality criteria. There are many expired STUs that are sitting there. Two zombie state: Something expires and it's done, and then there are things that expire but we intend them to be used. Lorraine: Some people just leave stuff there without extending it because they don't want to go through that. They think it works fine. We need to be explicit about our expectations around expired STUs and be clear to our implementers. 
    6. Paul: Could STUs live for their term, extend under supporting circumstances, and then it either becomes withdrawn or you can explicitly move it from an STU to an Informative document? Won't work for C-CDA, but could work for many others. Jeff notes a situation where they created an IG that was expiring and no one wanted to do anything with it. Paul: We need another class that is not quite normative, but meets the level of consensus that STU and Informative documents do today. Ken: Could be a technical document. Paul: But we want to minimize people actually doing this. Lorraine: You'd have to have narrow circumstances where that is appropriate. 
    7. Recommendation to TSC would be that we create an additional classification. In the case of C-CDA, it's different because it's in US government regulation - it's a regional standard. Trying to recognize something that's community accepted and widely adopted in a particular country - a regional declared standard. We could hold it not as an HL7 declared standard but a regional declared standard. Lorraine: So for STUs that are not going to be superceded, withdrawn, or informative, we can have an "approved realm standard." Will need to be further fleshed out.
  4. Substantive Change input from Methodology Groups
    1. Responses will likely be received after they're discussed this week by the methodology groups.
  5. Handling large architectures coming in
    1. Need to list the specific issues we're dealing with. Lorraine: As these things come up, we don't see them at a governance level until long after they're in flight. Do we have a definition of how to trigger additional review/oversight/management steps? Paul notes these often come in as below the international level. Discussion over the true nature of US Core which is misleading. What are the risks involved that SGB can help manage? Risks are different in each category. 
      1. RDAM risks:
      2. External content risks:
        1. Volume and the ability to effectively review.
        2. Brand issues - material coming out of large projects often gets affixed with its own brand which creates confusion. Need assurances that once it has become an HL7 artifact that continues. Independent work has to stop. 
        3. Non-conformance to our materials and processes.
        4. Long term maintenance of artifacts and tooling.
      3. US Core/cross-domain content risks:
        1. Managing communication burden
        2. Managing coordination/avoiding redundant work
      4. Da Vinci clinical data exchange
  6. Adjourned at 12:28 pm

Friday Q1 and Q2

Agenda topics, Q1:

  1. Vocabulary - Ted Klein
  2. SGB representation in the GOM
  3. Standards as a service initiative

Agenda topics, Q2:

  1. Precept on balloted vs. non-balloted feedback
  2. SGB communication plan


Action items



DescriptionDue dateAssigneeTask appears on
  • Paul Knapp to send documentation to the cochairs of HTA and Vocabulary noting that we've drafted precepts on external terminologies and highlight questions on their currency document.
Paul Knapp2019-11-06 SGB Agenda/Minutes
Paul Knapp2019-09-20 SGB WGM Agenda/Minutes
Paul Knapp2019-09-20 SGB WGM Agenda/Minutes
Austin Kreisler2019-09-20 SGB WGM Agenda/Minutes
Lorraine Constable2019-09-20 SGB WGM Agenda/Minutes
  • ACTION: Paul Knapp will work on a grid with types of change/degree of review
Paul Knapp2019-05-22 SGB Agenda/Minutes
  • ACTION: Need to create precepts on stable identifiers for value sets, concept maps, and code systems
2019-01-18 SGB WGM
  • ACTION: Review proposed updates to the GOM, then determine how/where to represent SGB
2019-01-18 SGB WGM
  • Add Calvin's document on continuous maintenance and the decision to the SGB site.

2018-11-14 SGB Agenda/Minutes