20110609 arb minutes

logistics

1. Time: 4:00pm U.S. Eastern Please consult http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock for your local times
2. Goto Meeting Info
   1. https://www2.gotomeeting.com/join/535702651
   2. OR go to www.gotomeeting.com Meeting ID: 535-702-651
3. Join the conference call:
   1. Dial 770-657-9270
   2. Passcode 854126#}

ArB Minutes Template

Meeting Information

HL7 ArB Work Group Meeting Minutes Location: TBD		Date: 20110609 Time: 4:00pmU.S. EDT
Facilitator	Ron Parker	Note taker(s)	Tony Julian
Attendee	Name	Affiliation
.	Bond,Andy	NEHTA
.	Curry, Jane	Health Information Strategies
.	Grieve, Grahame	Kestral Computing
.	Julian, Tony	Mayo Clinic
.	Koisch, John	Guidewire Architecture
.	Loyd, Patrick	Gordon point Informatics LTD.
.	Lynch, Cecil	ontoreason LLC
.	Mead, Charlie	National Cancer Institute
.	Ocasio, Wendell	Agilex Technologies
.	Parker, Ron	CA Infoway
.	Quinn, John	Health Level Seven, Inc.
.	Milosevic, Zoran	NEHTA
.	Hufnagel, Steve	U.S. Department of Defense, Military Health System
.	Guests
.	Kramer, Mark	MITRE
Quorum Requirements Met: YES

Agenda

Agenda Topics

1. Call to order
2. Agenda review and approval (Suggestions or additions to and acceptance of agenda)
3. Approve previous meeting minutes
   1. MMS approve WGM Stephen/Jane (5-0-0)
4. Official welcom to Zoran as a member of ArB
5. MMS to thank AMS for his work on the Saif (Tony/Stephen) 5-0-0.
6. SAIF Canonical ballot schedule
   1. June 30, Content available for review by ArB
   2. July 3 (Sunday) Editors documents ready – Tony will paste together this initial load
   3. July 24 (Sunday) Final Content Deadline
   4. August 1 (Monday) Provisional Ballot Opening
7. Discussion of appropriate Domain Analysis Model
   1. Cecil:Couple of camps:
   2. ArB needs to address - Cecil is addressing a guide for Domain Analysis Models.
   3. Steve: Conceptual and logical models
   4. Cecil: It is spelled out in SAIF - that area may have to be fleshed out and separated into its own section.
   5. Jane: We had different styles of engagement of experts in the development, which are reflected into the discussion. Some prefer tight link to RIM - as a shortcut. Does not lend itself to validation as business model.
   6. Steve: More than just expedience - some dont know how.
   7. Cecil: A lot of people are doing what Jane described. They are thinking in an application mode, not an enterprise mode. I have to teach my class to think differently, how it fits into the enterprise. Some are thinking narrowly about the task at hand, and put into a DAM to leverage their thinking. WE have laid out well in canonical model - but people have not read. They are not missing it, it is somewhere else in an enterprise framework.
   8. Ron: Is this an adjunct to the SAIF?
   9. Steve: It is an implementation guide.
   10. Cecil: that is the best worked out framework. LLoyd and Arb are in agreement. We need to get them involved.
   11. Steve: Does John need to be involved?
   12. Jane: Eventually - Have you looked at the SAIF artifact development project on the wiki? That would be the first place to look.
   13. Cecil: This is where there needs to be the tie-in to the Canonical - if their definitions dont fit, we have a problem with conformance.
   14. Zoran: This comes after the submission?
   15. Jane: They are targeting the artifact definitions for September - at least to complete the initial draft. There is a lot of work.
   16. Ron: we need to focus on the other content, but the DAM discussion needs to come about quickly. We need to close on this topic at a meeting before fall.
8. Tutorials:
   1. Ron: We will be doing intro tutorial in September.
   2. Implementation tutuorial needs to be done by the developers, which will not be done by September. We are past promotion.
   3. Jane: We need to discuss the reason for the Canonical in the intro, and invite others to get involved.
9. Implementation guide:
   1. Ron - can we get pulled into the calls?
   2. Jane: there are two calls
      1. Artifact definition
      2. Architecture program is lead by Austin, with help from staff and PS.
   3. Jane: People should come in on the governance - which is taken by the program. Next week will see if strategic initiatives help us with our current items as well as emerging.

TONY: Pull in the contact information for the saif architecture meetings.

1. 1. Jane: I am on both because the enterprise conceptual definition stuff is on my plate, and I am trying to make concrete.

1. • Motion:

Supporting Documents

1. ballot recon spreadsheet

Minutes

Minutes/Conclusions Reached:

1. (Suggestions or additions to and acceptance of agenda) #(One efficient method used for meeting minutes is approval by general consent, of non-controversial topics like minutes when there are no corrections: “You have received the minutes. Are there any corrections to the minutes? Hearing none, if there is no objection the minutes are approved as posted.”)
2. (Discussion on agenda topic 3; If voting on ballot reconciliation item:
   Agenda business is ballot reconciliation? Yes / No
   Ballot reconciliation posted to ballot desktop? Yes / No
   If no, where is ballot reconciliation posted? ________________)
   if voting on ballot reconciliation, please indicate the votes are documented elsewhere, and note the item numbers from the spreadsheet, but you may document the actual vote tallies in the ballot reconciliation spreadsheet.
3. Discussion on agenda topic 4; Motion (if amended) can be retyped in bold. Discussion on motion back to regular type. Vote on Motion in bold Identify the vote distribution across affirmative, negative, or abstention; numbers in format “for/against/abstain”, or ‘unanimous’.
4. Discussion on agenda topic 5; if no conclusion reached and issue tabled to next meeting, add to ‘next meeting’ items below. If action items are identified, add to ‘Actions’ below.
5. Adjourned <hh:mm am/pm> <timezone>.

Meeting Outcomes

Actions (Include Owner, Action Item, and due date) .

Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items .