CA Baseline Governance Stream Meeting - Friday May 28th, 2-3pm EST

What is "stable enough for demonstration use"? - that's *any* level. In HL7, FMM1 says "this is ready for use in production, we just can't guarantee there won't be breaking changes". The intent is very much that developers will go forth and build solutions and put them in production with FMM1 resources. If we're going to introduce a maturity that's before that, it would just be another type of 'draft', and I'm not sure what the point would be. You can build something for connectathon on a highly unstable draft resource whenever you wish. No need for any stability. All that's really needed is the ability to point to a specific snapshot and agree with your communication partners that that's what you're going to test against for the purpose of a particular connectathon.

My preference is for "experimental use" exactly because "trial use" is language that HL7 already uses for something different.

Under HL7 we have (Draft) Standard for Trial Use. This is a level of stability that indicates it has been reviewed by various HL7 workgroups, been demonstrated at multiple connectathons, been through a public ballot, had ballot feedback reviewed, and been officially published. STU standards are not yet cast in stone, but also are not expected to significantly change. Standards for Trial Use are ready for trial use. The transition between FMM2 and FMM3 requires the artifact be balloted for Trial Use.

Notice that one of the criteria for getting to Trial Use is that the artifact be exercised at a connectathon. How do we indicate that an artifact is sufficiently stable and complete that it is worth demonstrating at a connectathon? At FMM level 0, I have no expectation that the artifact is the same from day to day, or even continues to exist. I see FMM level 1 as a request for demonstration at connectathons, and FMM level 2 as proof that those demonstrations have been moderately successful.

What is the term we want to use for "ready to be demonstrated at a connectathon"? What is the equivalent of a connectathon in the context of CA Baseline? What indicates that the artifact is not at the "Trial Use" stage, is stable enough for a demonstration use, but is still under revision? In my mind, "experimental use" meets those criteria.

Whoops - table transposition error. The first column should be 0 not 1. Fixing now.

We talked briefly about socializing for public comment and trial implementation in level 2 with a mechanism to collect and respond to feedback, but didn't get to level 3's definition which I think is where formal balloting more typically comes into play. Thoughts?

I would agree with that. Also, I think we should stick with '0' for draft.

Is there no intention to have any kind of public ballot process for the artifacts?

I think we should use the language "ready for trial use" since that language aligns with the language that is used by FHIR proper. I think introducing "experimental use" will lead to confusion.

Joanie

On today's call we began defining how the CA Baseline would customize the FHIR Maturity Level language from the HL7 FHIR Maturity Level Guidance to better suit our particular scope and expectations as a national baseline.

We looked at the definitions that are in use for the UKs FHIR baseline (Called UK Core) .

Two areas of disagreement were identified for further discussion on next Governance Call.

• Whether we should use the language "ready for trial use" or "ready for experimental use" for Maturity Level 1.
• What our expectations are for demonstration/use at Maturity Level 2.

Demonstrated could mean 1) profiles formally derive from the baseline using the basedOn.element and show no conformance errors (there are tooling limitations and challenges with implementing this approach) OR 2) conformant example data to can be pointed to meta.profile: {BaslineProfileURL] and is conformance (produces no errors)nd/or conformant profile derivation can be demonstrated.

As a next step we will look other national base/baseline guidance and determine what our expectations for demonstration will be to meet maturity levels of 2 & 3: New Zealand Base , Netherlands Base , UK Core Development and Approach materials . If you know of others or would like to make a suggestion on this topic, please post it to this thread.

Current Progress on CA Baseline Maturity Definitions

Level	Current Definitions	Proposed CA Baseline Definition
0	FHIR Base Definition: the artifact has been published on the current build. This level is synonymous with Draft. UK Core Definition: The Profile has been published on the current build. This Profile has had no formal review and therefore may have quality issues. It is published only to allow the review process to start	The artifact has been published on the current build. This level is synonymous with Draft.
1	FHIR Base Definition: FMM0 + the artifact produces no warnings during the build process and the responsible WG has indicated that they consider the artifact substantially complete and ready for implementation. For resources, profiles and implementation guides, the FHIR Management Group has approved the underlying resource/profile/IG proposal. UK Core Definition: The Profile produces no warnings during the build process and has had a formal internal review by the UK Core development team	The artifact produces no warnings during the build process and has had a formal internal review by the CA Baseline Working Stream. The artifact is considered substantially complete and ready for XYZ use.
2	FHIR Base Definition: FMM1 + the artifact has been tested and successfully supports interoperability among at least three independently developed systems leveraging most of the scope (e.g. at least 80% of the core data elements) using semi-realistic data and scenarios based on at least one of the declared scopes of the artifact (e.g. at a connectathon). These interoperability results must have been reported to and accepted by the FMG UK Core Definition: The Profile has been released for review to the UK FHIR community, any feedback received has been addressed as far as possible	The artifact has been released for review to the CA FHIR community, and is being used and/or demonstrated by at least three implementations (e.g., pan-Canadian, jurisdictional, vendor, etc.) from at least two different jurisdictions. Implementer feedback has been addressed as far as possible.

Here is the updated CA Baseline Governance Call - Baseline Maturity Level Definition Discussion Slide Deck 2021-05-28

Attendees:
Michael Savage
Sheridan Cook
Harsh Sharma
Elliot Silver
Joan Harper
Alain Gauvin
Ghislain Bellemare
Irfan Hakim
Ken Sinn
Randy Nonay
Shamil Nizamov
Thomas Zhou