20080617 arbJumpStartMinutes

From HL7Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Architecture Board

Minutes of the 20080617 June out-of-cycle Day 2


Attendance

NameRoleAffiliationemail
BGguest??
Charlie, Mead ArB Booz Allen Hamiltoncharlie.mead@booz.com
Curry, Jane ArB Health Information Strategiesjanecurry@healthinfostrategies.com
Julian, Tony ArB Mayo Clinicajulian@mayo.edu
Koisch, John ArB Bozkoisch_john@bah.com
Larsen, Ed guest HITSPerlarsen@erlinc.com
Mulrooney, Galen guest VHAgalen.mulrooney@med.va.gov
Orvis, Nancy ArBDODnancy.orvis@tma.osd.mil
Quinn, John ArBHealth Level Seven, Inc.jquinn@HL7.org
Rogers, Rich guest IBMrrogers@us.ibm.com
Robertson, ScottguestKaiser Permanentescott.robertson@kp.com
Shakir, Abdul-Malik ArB Shakir ConsultingShakirConsulting@cs.com

Agenda

  • 8-9 - review of OASIS, CBDI work
  • 9-11 – tbBAM modeling
  • 11-12 – open discussion with Observers
  • 12-1 – lunch
  • 1-2 – review of relevant NCI work
  • 2-3 – review of relevant DoD work
  • 3-4 – review of relevant Infoway work
  • 4-5 – open discussion with Observers

Minutes

  • Oasis Service Description Model
  • NCI Service Taxonomy
  • CBDI Taxonomy of Services
  • Discussion of the HITSP / NHIN services, and the use cases for architecture itself. JC - the problem is not a system architecture, it is enterprise in scope and we need enterprise architecture. JK - discussed the NCI service taxonomy's assumption as a way to get buy in from organizations (using use cases, and describing dependencies for those use cases that are specified as services). EL - HITSP / NHIN really needs the architecture offerings from the HL7 ArB, including principles, taxonomy, service offerings, contract specifications.
  • Principles
    • Initial cut at principles:
      • Virtualization
      • Aggregation / Composition
      • Unity of Purpose
      • Technology Independence
      • Service Specification should support a Layered Conformance Policy
    • Each Service Specification (each service has many service specifications) must belong to a conformance layer. Each conformance layer must have rules associated with it.
    • each service should also belong to the HL7 taxonomy
    • use Should Shall May
    • We should follow the Oasis Format (Statement, Rationale, Implications)
    • Additional Principles (from other sources - Oasis)
      • Separation of Concerns should be added
      • Parsimony should be added to unity of purpose
      • RR suggested looking at soaprinciples.com
      • AMS - This architecture is not a replacement for or an alternative to XXX - it encompasses, supports, and facilitates the stuff that we already have. The Health Domain Enterprise domain needs services in conjunction with the other components, and HL7 needs to take a leadership position. There is an aculturation issue.
  • Lunch
  • Conformance and Compliance - A profile is a set of constrained assertions that force a yes | no answer to the question "are you compliant to ..." Conformance Assertions that are present in the services specs are equivalent to the conformance profile (HL7). Each viewpoint makes a set of assertions as part of its specifications. Conformance statements historically further constrain the conformance assrtions to demonstrate the degree of compliance of an implementation.
Conformance Levels
Assertions Per Viewpoint
- Business Information Computation Engineering Technology
Reference / / / / /
Domain + + + - /
Use Case + + + - /
Implementation Spec - - + + -
Key: +: Required -: Optional /: Not Allowed