Chair: Craig Newman
Scribe: Riki Merrick
Professional Associations, such as HL7, which bring together competing entities are subject to strict
scrutiny under applicable antitrust laws. HL7 recognizes that the antitrust laws were enacted to promote
fairness in competition and, as such, supports laws against monopoly and restraints of trade and their
enforcement. Each individual participating in HL7 meetings and conferences, regardless of venue, is
responsible for knowing the contents of and adhering to the HL7 Antitrust Policy as stated in §05.01 of
the Governance and Operations Manual (GOM).
NOTE: This attendance applies if you are present at the related meeting/call, regardless if you have signed a different attendance for your WG.
|X||Rob Snelick||NIST (member)|
|Nick Radov||United Healthcare (member)|
|X||Riki Merrick||Vernetzt, LLC / APHL (Co-Chair)|
|X||Craig Newman||Altarum (Co-Chair)|
|X||Amit Popat||Epic (TSC Representative)|
|X||Michael Faughan||NIST (member)|
|X||Frank Oemig||Oracle (Co-Chair)|
|Tony Julian||Mayo (member)|
|Elizabeth Newton||Kaiser Permanente (member)|
|X||Lynn Laakso||HL7 Staff|
Minutes Approved as Presented
This is to approve minutes via general consent. "You have received the minutes. Are there any corrections to the minutes? (pause) Hearing none, if there are no objections, the minutes are approved as printed."
Meeting Minutes from Discussion
|Decision Link(if not child)|
|Methodology||v2+ format email|
NIST position on V2+ email – to get us to the goals of phase 1 for next V2+ ballot
We (NIST) have been discussing the v2+ project and specifically its progress, direction, chance of success, and the effective use of our resources. We believe the project has made little progress in the past year and is, essentially, at a standstill. On-going discussions have drifted from the original intention to include scope expansion (which we thought had already been decided upon). We can’t seem to break away from it. The project is at a crossroads and must go firmly in one direction or the other. Below is a summary of the direction we think the project should focus on, and what we will participate in. We don’t want to overly influence a consensus group, but, at the same time, we can’t justify using our resources for a project we think is going in a direction that is in opposition to our program (i.e., the project is not what we signed up for) and in opposition to what we believe is a sound technical approach. We’re sure you can appreciate the situation, as all organizations need to periodically assess projects and allocate resources.
Below is a summary list of our position, followed by limited explanatory reasoning. On an upcoming call, we would like this list (a focused project direction) to be considered as a formal motion and, hence, a project roadmap. We want to make clear that the intention of the motion is to propose a path forward such that the group can focus on a distinct set of tasks so the project can be completed.
Rob and Michael (and NIST management)
List with Explanatory Reasoning (Note: The intent of the expanded explanations is to provide further insight such that those who are not seeing the whole picture might better understand why a particular stance is being sought. We can provide clarification, but do not intend to argue each point—this has been discussed ad nauseum in our meetings):
Develop software tools that consume the computable source of truth and produce a static HTML rendering that:
The HTML rendering will provide stakeholders with a single(!) representation of Data Type, Segment, and Message Structure definitions.
|Methodology||V2+ Format discussion|
Motion to adopt the email content as goals for phase 1 of V2+ and proceed and to keep the conversation in the V2+ topic to this scope on Friday calls – Rob, Amit further discussion: would the tooling be available to anyone if NIST does not continue past phase 1? – all NIST tooling is in public domain, source code, no restrictions on modifications – using MIT license, do we include phase 2 in the motion? – leave out for now – abstain: 0, against: 0, in favor: 6
Motion to have NIST develop the tooling for phase 1: Michael, Amit, no further discussion abstain: 0, against: 0, in favor: 6
Motion to plan for additional phase for V2+ and prepare content via zulip stream or in other venues Frank, Michael, no further discussion abstain: 0, against: 0, in favor: 6
|Management||Next couple of calls|
|Adjournment||Adjourned at 11:01 AM Eastern|
- Hans Buitendijk 9:17 AM
- I have to drop and hope to be back quickly. While I cannot vote, I would focus on a clear first publication and address anything else later, subsequently.
- Michael Faughn (NIST) 9:29 AM
- Why can’t patient name be made optional?
- Ralf Herzog to Everyone 9:30 AM
- The problem would be that standard conform receivers might reject the message ...
- (replace might with should)
- Riki Merrick 9:30 AM
- it breaks backwards compatibility - and yes we could do it just for PID-3, but without the analysis we won't know what we are up against
- Michael Faughn (NIST) 9:30 AM
- Frank Oemig 9:31 AM
- this is my reason for core and global profile :-)
- that is the reason why I propose not to insist on versions, but treat v2 as milestones in developing the standard
- Frank Oemig 9:41 AM
- 2nd Amit
- Amit Popat (V2MG) to Everyone 9:43 AM
- Sorry then if I recollect incorrectly.
- Frank Oemig 9:57 AM
- v2+ website updated according to our last discussion. Maybe still not quite correct