20081218 arb minutes
December 18, 2008
|Curry, Jane||Yes||ArB||Health Information Strategiesemail@example.com|
|Grieve, Grahame||?||ArB||Kestral Computingfirstname.lastname@example.org|
|Julian, Tony||Yes||ArB||Mayo Clinicemail@example.com|
|Lynch, Cecil||Excused||ArB||ontoreason LLCfirstname.lastname@example.org|
|Mead, Charlie||Yes||ArB||Booz Allen Hamiltonemail@example.com|
|Parker, Ron||?||ArB||CA Infowayfirstname.lastname@example.org|
|Quinn, John||?||ArB||Health Level Seven, Inc.||jquinn@HL7.org|
|Shakir, Abdul-Malik||Yes||ArB||Shakir Consulting||ShakirConsulting@cs.com|
|Yongjian, Bao||Yes||ArB||GE Healthcareemail@example.com|
Call to order
The meeting was called to order at 3:05pm U.S Eastern by chair Charlie Mead with Tony Julian as scribe.
MMS to approve the agend below <name/name> Vote:(0-0-0)
- Call to order
- Approval of agenda
- Approval of minutes of the November20 and December 11 meetings
- Review of Education slide deck discussion
- ARB should vote/comment on these things:
- revisit the MOU between HL7 and OMG
- ARB needs to make some kind of comment about Governance - HL7 standards need to be HL7 standards. If we adopt another standard, it becomes part of our governance structure.
- the ArB needs to make some comment about the focus of the SOA WG with regard to HL7 business, as well as the way that it represents HL7 to the HSSP project. Regarding this latter, the issue is specifically making sure that HL7's interests are being met through the HSSP project's intersections with other SDOs like OMG and ASC X12.
- Orlando Detailed Agenda
- Other business, and planning for next meeting
Approval of minutes
MMS to approve the minutes of the November 20, 2008 and the
ARB should vote/comment on these things:
- HL7 should revisit the MOU between HL7 and the Object Management Group (OMG )
- The CDA document for OMG is not complete - yet that standard coming from OMG will move forward without HL7 input.
- OMG has offered that HL7 have a seat at OMG meetings - the details have not yet been worked out.
- What happens to HL7 materials after they move to OMG or X12
Jane Curry: This is part of the decision that will have to be made as there is collaboration is done between SDO's. None of the SDO's have the mechanism for a joint decision. There was a problem with IHTSDO - the expression language being promoted for public review of TERMINFO is dependent on it passing. We were recommending that it be given our notification that it was reviewed as OK. Does HL7 need to ballot, and what does the process look like? We have inadequate processes for joint decision making. We do not want to slow it up, but without any guidance of the board-level governance of any groups we will not have adequate, reliable, repeatable results. There will be more cases of doing our part, throwing it over the wall, and then someone else drops the ball.
John Koisch: HL7 has not described the business processes - the Services Aware Enterprise Architecture Framework ( SAEAF ) does so. IF SAEAF gets adopted, the need to specify behavior will need to be done. Who does own the process? I think HL7 should.
Jane Curry: We have the opportunity to specify the traceability, and show at the implementation guide that it meets the requirements for the beginning. HL7 needs to own the specification of information structures. It should go into the MOU between HL7 and OMG.
John Koisch: Right now the MOU states that HL7 describes technical specification that is handed to OMG. Is there a need for it to come back through the HL7 governance processes, so that an OMG specification gets blessed by HL7?
Jane Curry: The idea of it coming back for another cycle at HL7 will slow things down. There must be some particulars of the agreement about where the specifications are allowed to vary, with evidence of traceability. That is a more constructive approach, basically putting ourselves in their shoes. How would you like to be treated by another SDO? Should the development be done in a joint fashion? The formal spec. review process is owned by one or the other; members should be able to participate in the process.
John Koisch: we need to pass a motion that there is a more formal agreement between HL7 and sister organizations that allows HL7 to participate.
Jane Curry: The traceability back to the business requirements needs to be addressed.
Abdul-Malik Shakir: The MOU specifies how each organization participates in the work of each other. Right now the MOU states that each member can attend at member rates, but to have voting rights you must have to be a member of the organization. We are suggesting that HL7 become a member of OMG.
John Koisch: That is what was recommended by Richard Soley. There should be some flavor of it. The board would have to decide who would appoint the members. For w3c or OMG the members should be appointed by ARB, but ISO by the board.
Abdul-Malik Shakir: Any member of OMG could attend HL7 at membership rates.
John Koisch: Or could you specify that certain members attend.
Abdul-Malik Shakir: Who is HL7? Not the members- if HL7 joins OMG, who is joining staff?
John Koisch: Appointed by HL7.
Abdul-Malik Shakir: HL7 only has two employees.
Rich Rogers: The employer is not significant, they could have a role.
John Koisch: There is a feeling that HL7 interests are not represented at OMG.
Abdul-Malik Shakir: A person can be appointed, but they must represent HL7, not their employer, and cast their vote accordingly, regardless if it is counter to the employer’s desires.
John Koisch: Should an organization have veto rights?
Jane Curry: It is reasonable to say that HL7 does not consider the resulting specification conformant to the business requirements should we discover it.
John Koisch: Back to traceability.
Jane Curry: The critical requirement is to maintain traceability right to the end. We need to emphasize this, since it may seem to be threatening.
John Koisch: This needs to be a motion to recommend to the Technical Steering Committe (TSC).
ARB makes a series of recommendations to the TSC to revisit the MOU between HL7 and OMG in light of the discussion. Jane Curry/ Abdul-Malik Shakir. (6-0-0)
Abdul-Malik Shakir: Who on the board is the keeper of MOU's? It used to be me; I was also on committee relations.
Jane Curry: I think it is Chuck Meyer. Most MOU's are drafted in consultation with the organization.
John Koisch: HL7 need to decide how to do MOU's, in particular this one.
Jane Curry: If Chuck is not, then he will know who is.
Abdul-Malik Shakir will follow up on this.
John Koisch: What is your timeline?
Abdul-Malik Shakir: January 8, 2009
John Koisch: Could you circulate something to the ARB prior to January 8, 2008 so we can discuss it before the WGM?
Abdul-Malik Shakir: Is January 6, 2009 ok? I will want to talk to someone in HL7, as well as Richard Soley.
Recommendation that ARB issue series of topics for SOA
John Koisch: SOA workgroup wants a more concrete set. Last week I put together a straw man proposal for things the SOA workgroup should potentially discuss. I think that Galen was willing to re-visit the agenda.
Rich Rogers: SOA discussed the items during the Telcon this week: SOA workgroup has revised the agenda. There were only a couple of questions of being in scope.
John Koisch: The really big issue is that those issues should be picked up. None of those things are things that the ARB should do, except the Behavioral Framework. We are trying to find a home for some of the issues - if they do not belong to ARB they should be handled by SOA or INM. The issue for the ARB is that if the list is not sufficient, the additional items should be submitted to the list and SOA.
John Koisch: Any other SOA workgroup Items?
Review of Education slide deck discussion SAEAF
John Koisch: the slide deck latest version will be updated this evening.
Charlie Mead: I hope to have a re-tooling of the deck based on giving it to a live audience before Christmas.
John Koisch: We can have a sidebar call afterword.
Charlie Mead: My experience is that most of the material is good, but there are a few overt errors. There is some inconsistency in the layering of the information. The ordering is not right. Slide 12 or so needs to be in the front, but starting at current slide 1 is confusing.
Charlie Mead: There are some ordering problems.
John Koisch: Halfway through the deck we get into the user case - how integration proceeds, the 'stairway to heaven'. Having that up front, right after the history, may be a helpful thing - it frames how the rest of it lays out. We are not that far away. The education session has over 40 signups.
Abdul-Malik Shakir: It is because of whom is giving it.
Jane Curry: Timing - those working in a multi-organizational environment are interested on what this represents. One other suggestion right around stairway to heaven, to point out that people have to go through these stages.
John Koisch: There is a sentence about short cutting the lead time for development.
- WGM Saturday Q1 is joint meeting with the TSC to work out.
- Are there things I missed in the straw proposal? (No answer)
John Koisch: I left Thursday open so we could discuss the fall-out from wednesday..
Tony Julian: The agenda is posted to the WIKI: Orlando Agenda
John Koisch: TSC will run a session with everyone invited to discuss the SAEAF. Other discussions will include the project manager for the SAEAF implementation. ARB needs to be there to support and answer questions. The impacts will be discussed there, I do not know if they will be brought up.
Tony Julian: Agenda has been updated to account for meeting both Q3 and Q4 wednesday.
John Koisch: If there are updates to the agenda, it is getting more concrete.
Jane Curry: Can someone send me the current information so I can define tooling requirements.
John Koisch: I will send you a copy as soon as I can, before Christmas.
Jane Curry: So I will have half a chance to integrating it into my database. The current publishing database is on the plate to be revised.
John Koisch: No meeting next week, or the following week. We can call sidebars if we need them.
Jane Curry: A critical success factor should be to nominate Tony for volunteer of the year.
Charlie Mead: I concur.
John Koisch: I agree.
The meeting was adjourned at 4:03pm U.S. Eastern.
Tony 21:03, 18 December 2008 (UTC)