This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here
<meta name="googlebot" content="noindex">

RIMBAA 201005 Minutes

From HL7Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Rimbaa in rio.png

Tuesday Q6 (Bandeirantes, 19:00-21:00) Technical med.gif

  • Work on the deliverable(s)
    • Grahame Grieve, to lead a discussion on RIM ITS implementation experiences
    • Presentations/discussion related to data type / RIMBAA issues:
      1. Grahame Grieve: Using R2 data types in your object model, and R1 data types on the wire. The differences will be explored - with Eclipse parser examples. Grahame: I convert between the forms in my parser and base all the other code off the proper object model R2 represents. You can also substitute R2 for R1 on the wire if you control both ends. It's a fairly simple change to do it minimally, all you need is a mapping schema that aliases BN to BL, CE and CV to CD (an up to date list is at RIM_ITS_Specification#Appendix_.231)
      2. Cecil Lynch: CD datatype implementation in a RIM based backend database used at MD Anderson Cancer Center.
      3. Some data type specific issues will be addressed, e.g. software implementation of GTS
  • Project Presentation, Maqbool Hussain (NUST, Pakistan)
    • These are more technical variants of presentations held during the IHIC conference.
    • Subject is the (automatic) mapping of legacy/proprietary ER database schema to in-memory RIM(RMIM)-based objects (and vice versa). Using technology matrix terms: the AP-CO transition - Mapping AP (legacy ER databases) to CO (in memory R-MIM based RIM objects)
    • We have only seen Robert Worden's mapping tool which can also be used for this transition. The approach taken here is a different one and tries to automate the mapping process in different ways.
    • These papers were presented during IHIC this week, which you could choose to read prior to the meeting Tuesday Q6 (or if you're not in Rio: to send questions to the RIMBAA e-mail list to be answered by the presenters). See www.ringholm.de/persist/20100514_IHIC_mapping_RIM_db_schema.pdf and www.ringholm.de/persist/20100515_IHIC_Interactive_Mapping_Tool.pdf

Wednesday Q4 (Queluz III, 15:30-17:00) Technical med.gif

  • Product/Tooling demonstrations
  • Cecil Lynch (Ontoreason LLC) on a RIMBAA implementation
    • Experience at MD Anderson Cancer Center in building a RIM based backend and an application to transformed their "structured documents" from their EMR into CDA and the transform to the backend RIM model.
      • It is based on an OWL ontology of the CDA model so that we can bind terminology to the CDA attributes using the inferencing from OWL. Expressing the v3 RIM in OWL. Cecil's company is fully based on OWL and RIM based artifacts and they have built the US CDC National Surveillance for Tuberculosis fully in OWL. That system has been in full production across the entire US since April of last year with no downtime and no errors.
    • Owl reasoning across large data sets is extremely computationally expensive and I would never consider expressing a medical record in owl. There must be some mistake here in the interpretation of comments I have made but I want to clear it up here so there is no confusion about what people expect at the demonstration.
      • All I had intended to demonstrate was the standard relational model for a very flexible rim-based database and how it is not necessary to express each class in the model. There are advantages in the flexibility to have an abstract model and in these days of high performance relational databases, the flexible model may outweigh the concerns about performance issues that can be overcome with hardware.
      • The other item I was going to demonstrate which is also within the rim-based model, is a way to efficiently handle post-coordinated concepts of the CD data type in a model.
      • These were the only things I had intended to show, however there seems to be some desire to see how the rim objects can be expressed in owl and how those might be used. In our own experience, we use ontology languages to represent the information models from HL 7 to organize the semantics and to build a profile over which to reason. We use both frames based ontology's where extensive metaclass objects are required and we also use OWL based ontology's. The purpose of expressing these in owl is to test the logic of the model and demonstration instances in the model so that we are sure that the reasoning is accurate. In either case of frames or owl, we take the ontology constructs of the model and express these in Jess facts.
      • Jess provides a multithreaded highly efficient rule engine which we use to reason over the facts expressed in the ontology. This provides an advantage over owl in that we can do both more efficient processing of rules and can also do backward chaining against a profile which cannot be done in owl. I will also be prepared to show how a reasoning platform based on an HL7v3 based ontology works and go over some ways that we have used and are using ontology models of version 3 artifacts for different kinds of reasoning applications.
      • Cecil will also talk about the 'table per class or per hierarchy' discussion, he feels it is the is the wrong approach. You really need to think about relational theory and the cost of joins. I don't think the issue of performance is really debatable with so much literature addressing it from Codd and others. This is partly why triple stores tend to outperform relational equivalents.
  • Work on the deliverable(s) - continued from Monday Q1

Workgroup Date/Time Location Chair/Scribe
RIMBAA WG 2010-05-17,
09:00-10:30		 Rio, Brazil C/S: Rene Spronk

Attendees (marked X)

At Name Affiliation Email Address
x Amnon Shabo IBM, IL shabo@il.ibm.com
x Lorraine Constable Constable, CA lorraine@constable.ca
x Mark Shafarman Shafarman Consulting, US mark.shafarman@earthlink.net
x Peter Hendler KP, US peter@hendler.net
x Rene Spronk Ringholm, NL rene.spronk@ringholm.com
x Rik Smithies NProgram Ltd, UK rik@nprogram.co.uk

Minutes

  • Call to order by Rene at 09:10
  • Approval of agenda for the week.
    • Approved by general consensus.
  • Administrative agenda items
    • Announcements
    • Approval of the minutes of the Out-of-cycle meeting on March 11 in Amsterdam, the minutes/attachments are available at http://www.hl7.org/library/committees/java/minutes/20100311_RIMBAA_minutes_attachments.zip
      • MOTION to approve the minutes of the March 11 RIMBAA meeting (Peter/Amnon, 4-0-1)
    • Review Draft agenda for the September meeting in Rome and the Cambridge WGM.
      • As a result of the review we'll meet during four quarters during the Cambridge WGM. Tuesday Q6, Friday Q1, and 2 other quarters (preferrably monday and thursday).
      • ACTION ITEM: (co-chairs) to request four quarters for RIMBAA meetings during the Cambridge WGM. Tuesday Q6, Friday Q1, and 2 other quarters (preferrably monday and thursday)
    • Discussion related to the creation of a third RIMBAA co-chair position. Our scope has increased which means such a position would be welcome.
      • MOTION to request the TSC to create a third RIMBAA co-chair position (Peter/Lorraine, 5-0-0)
      • ACTION ITEM: to communicate the request to the TSC to create a third RIMBAA co-chair position
      • Amnon Shabo (IBM) has volunteers to fill such a position as an appointed ad-interim co-chair, with elections to be held at the next WGM in Cambridge.
        • MOTION to appoint Amnon Shabo as the interim co-chair for the third co-chair position, on the assumption that the TSC will approve the third co-chair position (Peter/Mark, 5-0-0)
        • ACTION ITEM: to communicate the appointment of Amnon as the interim co-chair to HQ
    • Create/update RIMBAA DMP.
      • Rene presents the highlights of the changes made with respect to the default/template DMP as created by the PIC WG. These issues include quorum (chair plus three members), proxy votes (we don't use them), notification (allow Wiki for agenda's, not just the website), and video/audio recordings of parts of RIMBAA meetings.
      • MOTION to approve the new RIMBAA DMP as presented (see http://www.hl7.org/library/committees/java/RIMBAA%20WG%20DMP%20v20.doc) (Peter/Mark, 5-0-0)
      • ACTION ITEM: to inform HQ of our new DMP
    • Review/update RIMBAA mission&scope statement. See http://wiki.hl7.org/index.php?title=RIMBAA_Mission_and_Charter&oldid=36639 (the URL of the version which was approved after discussion) on the wiki.
      • One of the main changes was to dropNotably to see how we should/could add serialization of in-memory objects to the scope.
      • MOTION to approve the new RIMBAA Mission and Charter (Peter/Mark, 5-0-0)
      • ACTION ITEM: to inform HQ of our updated mission & charter
      • ACTION ITEM: for Rene to ask HQ to remove the Java SIG project from HL7 GForge and the project management tool (project #549).
    • Review/update RIMBAA Action Items.
      • The action items were reviewed; a new item related to updating the introductory text of the RIM ballot (to ensure the RIMs purpose isn't documented as being solely for interoperability was assigned to Peter Hendler.
  • Updates from the recent RIMBAA meeting in Amsterdam:
    • Rene very briefly points out that the highlights of that meeting can be found here:
      • Context Conduction (see [1])
      • MIF meta model browser (see [2])
  • Create a "Services with RIMBAA" project
    • Ann Wrightson (co-chair, SOA) suggested that we (SOA, RIMBAA) jointly create a specification of services to be used on top of a RIMBAA application. This may be abstract in nature, or based on a specific use-case. It would include a specification based on RIM-based semantic signifiers.
    • Discussion of whether we want to engage in such an effort; if so we should ask SOA for a joint meeting in Cambridge.
    • MOTION to engage in a joint project with SOA to develop a services specification for RIMBAA applications; the exact scope of the project will be jointly determined at a later stage. (Amnon/Peter, 5-0-0)
    • ACTION ITEM: to arrange a joint meeting with SOA should SOA also decide to accept this joint project
  • Work on the deliverable(s)
    • This agenda item wasn't discussed due to a lack of time.
  • MOTION to adjourn at 10:34 (Peter/Mark)

Appendix: summary of motions

The table below captures all substantial motions.

Motions
MOTION to
MOTION to

Appendix: summary of action items

The table below captures all newly created action items.

Actions
ACTION
Retrieved from "https://wiki.hl7.org/w/index.php?title=RIMBAA_201005_Minutes&oldid=36677"