20100902 arb minutes
ArB Minutes
Meeting Information
| HL7 ArB Work Group Meeting Minutes Location: Telcon |
Date: 20100902> Time: 11:00am U.S. EDT | |||||
| Facilitator | Ron Parker | Note taker(s) | Tony Julian | |||
| Attendee | Name | Affiliation | ||||
| . | Bond,Andy | NEHTA | ||||
| X | Curry, Jane | Health Information Strategies | ||||
| . | Grieve, Grahame | Kestral Computing | ||||
| X | Julian, Tony | Mayo Clinic | ||||
| X | Koisch, John | Guidewire Architecture | ||||
| . | Loyd, Patrick | Gordon point Informatics LTD. | ||||
| X | Lynch, Cecil | ontoreason LLC | ||||
| . | Mead, Charlie | National Cancer Institute | ||||
| . | Nelson, Dale | II4SM | ||||
| . | Ocasio, Wendell | Agilex Technologies | ||||
| X | Parker, Ron | CA Infoway | ||||
| . | Quinn, John | Health Level Seven, Inc. | ||||
| . | Shakir, Abdul-Malik | Shakir Consulting | ||||
| . | Guests | |||||
| . | Hufnagel, Steve | U.S. Department of Defense, Military Health System | ||||
| . | Koehn, Marc | Gordon point Informatics LTD | ||||
| . | Laakso, Lynn | Health Level Seven International | ||||
| X | Robertson, Scott | Kaiser Permanente | ||||
| X | Thompson, Cliff | OntoSolutions LLC | ||||
| Quorum Requirements Met: Yes | ||||||
Agenda
Agenda Topics
- Call to order
- Agenda review and approval
- Approve previous meeting minutes
- Need strategy for cambridge by next week
- Distillation of Johns comments
- Ron will have outline of practical presentation.
- TSC agenda item on our learnings.
- Other business and planning for next meeting
- Adjournment
Minutes
Minutes/Conclusions Reached:
- Agenda review and approval
The agenda was approved by affirmation.
- Approve previous meeting minutes The minutes of the previous meeting were approved by affirmation.
- Need strategy for cambridge by next week.
- Attempt to determine the appetite for ownership of elements of SAIF work
Implementation/Conformance has agreed to take on ECCF.
John Koisch: I discussed the BF with Jane: The BF is strategic as it looks at definition of specification and constraints. There are Core MIF schemas the BF changes. This is in the purview of MnM. People are hiding behind a few peoples negative comments. There are questions as to how to move forward. Two issues, how the model moves forward, and how do people go get busy.
Ron Parker: Legitimate concerns.
Jane Curry: Task force on V2/V3 hearing criticism on how hard V3 is to implement on large scale. There were changes made to MIF based on changes requested by Vocab. there is a call going out to WG's about MIF 2.2, which has been harmonized to requested changes. If we need to change MIF, we need to have specificity, or we are not following the HL7 process. If we have concerns with MIF and MIF design, they need to come out. Otherwise there will be disagreements between MnM/Tooling and the ArB, since ArB is not using HL7 methods.
Ron Parker: Any other comments on BF.
John Koisch: I agree with Jane.
Ron Parker: HL7 has been focused on V# and the MIF. We must treat those and engage with them to help realize the benefit of the BF to the organization. When discussing contract model and governance, we need to be elevating within the organization the elements of BF. IN Canada there are several vendors who move the message to a canonical form V3 compliant, but not in the message model. The real challenge as a group is that we need to engage MnM/Tooling - the meta-constructs should live with MnM. Service Contract Templates for messaging or interactions, is it MnM, SOA, or INM? The TSC has to explicitly endorse the idea the BF is not bound to MIF.
John Koisch: MIF should look a lot more like the BF in some elements - there is some loose coupling.
Ron Parker: I agree.
Jane Curry: There is a timing issue - it has to do with budget. The HL7 budget is not in dire shape, but conservatives do not want to launch new things in order to keep the budget in line. Next week we will be looking at MIF 2.2 - which includes the vocab bindings. The current tooling cannot handle 2.2, nor can the static model designer from NHS. If we are going to change MIF, we should do so now.
John Koisch: I am on the back-end of the tooling discussions. I am not sure the perspective on tooling from the board is right. At the MCI we are getting useful specifications using the current RMIM designer as is, with other tools. It is not easy or ideal, it is not comprehensive. Maybe ArB should push for MIF 3.0 before we push tooling.
Ron Parker: I agree with MIF 3.0.
Jane Curry: We have taken the current tooling as far as we can go. This has come from core-principle analysis, as well as vocab binding. The methodology is more formal -and beyond the current tooling. We need to determine whether we need to make changes to the meta-model - that should be a priority.
Ron Parker: We are going from high-level to specific. Strategy the ArB needs to close the bottom-up - peer-review was effective - but we are lacking the top-down. You are right John, we need a meta-model, especially for multiple targets. Meta-modeling combined with re-engineering, and new workflow. They are not trivial - first you have to get your head and feet in place. I would have liked to escalate to TSC. The problem is that with parallel efforts - product strategy - what constitutes fit for purpose. We presume V3 is a given, talked about V2, CDA, and web services.
Jane Curry: We need to do a better job to define what is meant by platform - platform means more things than the technology base. I thought IG had nothing to do with platform, but platform defines proposed physical constraints. Even at the computationally independent level, it is not just the technology - it is the skill set and existing environment, communication channels, and governance channels. There are constraints in peoples platforms, such that V3 is not a given. We need to for Cambridge, raise the question of platform, and what the constraints mean to our customers. If we cannot measure it, it is not governance.
John Koisch: My definition of platform, it is the last set of patterns you apply before it is ready to be used - v3 and v3 methodology is a platform. If people cant get it at the CIM and PIM level, we will have to get to a definition of platform - there is no satisfactory definition. We are defining a platform for specification. Services is another platform, maybe more than one. This has helped my day-job team to build exception management structures.
Jane Curry: We may have more than one platform.
Ron Parker: SAIF is a platform for the organization for building other platforms. My job is to determine the platform my team needs to stand on to build their platforms. Elements need to be well-framed, so that if underlying bits change, you do not loose coherence. We continue to refine/define the philosophy - and it is not embraced. We need governance framework to assert our strategy. To move forward we need to define the effect on the organization to applying the methodology. I am reasonably assured that we are not structured to do the job. Governance or the lack thereof is the root of all evil. When should we effect MIF? We are platforming for people to build their own platforms. Who has responsibility? ArB has the responsibility to assert, but not to implement.
John Koisch: We have discussed for two years. The top-down is not going to work. We have not been heavy-handed.
Ron Parker: not to everybody’s satisfaction.
John Koisch: I do not thing TSC understands the implications of re-doing the meta-model. I feel like the ArB needs to work with the bottom-up people to build MIF 3.0, and take to the TSC.
Jane Curry: I agree with bottom-up, but there is evidence that there is so much top-down work going on - multiple strategic issues defining audience, customers, business model - we need engagement with these additional bodies that are trying to sort this out - else we are working in parallel. Cecil Lynch joined.
Ron Parker: I like the bottom-up approach. John, you have done a great job working with people. We new MIF change was necessary. The methodology framing will need to be worked on by those with legs to carry it. We are calling out lessons learned - to determine the appropriate time to push a particular approach.
John Koisch: I do not know how to carry it forward organizationally. If we do not have concrete thing, we cant. ArB will have to guide the right groups. ArB needs a way to organize committees/task forces, to pull in persons who are not ArB - reach out to Eric Scripsma? Andy, John Deateau and Lloyd, and work out a meta-model - maybe not perfect, but a start. Do not know if doable or advisable?
Jane Curry: It is necessary - from a tooling perspective - Lloyd will not think it is concrete until it is a specification to tool to. We have made the point that tooling is a way forward to preserve V3. We get agreement to do the work since the current tooling cannot keep up with the agreed changes of the current meta-model expressed in MIF. Before we invest scarce resources in new tooling, we need to have this alignment exercise with SAIF for a new base(platform (:-}). I am not at a place to recommend significant investment. The Board launches the multiple task forces.
John (K as in Koncrete) Koisch: I would like to not take it to the board - the ArB needs to break down into committees/committee leads, and disperse into the organization. Then we need to reach-out informally for uptake from community members, without a contract.
Ron Parker: I want to be able to influence. There is not much convergence with board initiatives. We need to discuss with John Quinn, and report back to ArB. The people at the committee level are working without key information. Things need to work in parallel, but be aware of each other.
Jane Curry: We need to do top-down and bottom-up concurrently.
Ron Parker: The top-down is advisory. Tell people struggling with the issues that there is effort from rank-and-file to support. We are not yet at a point to determine what we will do at Cambridge. How do we discuss top-down, and work on bottom-up.
Jane Curry: It is good that there is no money - else we would charge forward, and we are not at that point.
Ron Parker: I share John's frustration. It is hard to move forward.
Cecil Lynch: I agree with John. The NCI semantic infrastructure is working on an RFP to build a model that is ECCF compliant. What will come from the planning process will be more concrete than what we have now, but less than what we need. Roadmap will be ready middle of October. I will send PDF capture of the work to the group.
Jane Curry: Propose an OHT analysis for requirements for a shared artifact repository. HL7 lead initiative, roping in other members. Will satisfy a large audience.
- Adjourned 12:00 pm USEDT.
Meeting Outcomes
Actions (Include Owner, Action Item, and due date)
|
| Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items *Call to order
|
