Versions Compared


  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.

Date: 2020-09-10



  Anthony Julian

Note Taker: Anne Wizauer




xConstable Consulting Inc.
xMayo Clinic
xParker Digital Health Computing 

xDuteau Design

Deontik Pty Ltd
xCigna Healthcare Services
xBlue Wave Informatics
xAndy Stechishin





ICode Solutions
xPKnapp Consulting


Agenda Outline
Agenda Item
Meeting Minutes from Discussion
ManagementMinute Approval

MethodologyHREX Content Review

We were asked to comment on this in terms of architecture and whether it's headed down the right or wrong path.

  • Lorraine is concerned that people won't know to look for this material here. The material includes a decision tree to guide the selection of a data exchange approach - concern is this is broadly applicable and is buried here.
  • Tony argued that this material belongs somewhere like this instead: They've stated their publishing it within Da Vinci for convenience.
  • Jean: It wouldn't take much to make this FHIR agnostic. Could ARB make this an HL7-wide document for architecture recommendations?
  • Lorraine: They note that this won't ever become normative, but this is actually core material.
  • Paul: This material is good but it needs to live outside of here because of wider applicability. If there is anything truly Da Vinci-specific, it could stay here. Need to be careful about making broad industry statements of applicability that goes beyond our actual knowledge, such as in the re-use and adoption sections of the approach table. 
  • Lorraine: When we get into architectural considerations, the stuff in the material often doesn't reflect real world architectural experience.
  • Hugh: If it's removed from here, where do we put it? Paul: Could go within the FHIR spec or stand on its own. But we need to separate the opinion from the actual guidance.
  • Cecil: It seems more informative than normative. Jean: Moving it into FHIR core spec ensures people will look at it and we have a way to ballot it.
  • Tony has concerns about bias expressed for RESTful actions. 
  • Discussion over potential ballot comments regarding separating this material and why this wasn't discovered earlier in review.
  • Jean: We should create guidance for WGs to help them handle projects not done entirely within the WG.
    • Issues:
      • We need guidance for WGs on how to interact with projects to ensure quality and help them succeed.
      • How do we get this visible in the right spot?
      • Do we issue our opinion as ARB ballot comments or use our individual ballot mechanisms?
        • General agreement that ARB should comment and also raise it to the TSC
  • Tony asks people to get opinions to him by Sunday and he will enter them in on Monday.

MethodologyExternal Content - HughCarry forward

ManagementNext agendaNext scheduled meeting: October 1

 Adjourned Adjourned at 5:02 pm Eastern

Supporting Documents