20090114 arb minutes

From HL7Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Architecture Board

January 14, 2009



Attendees

Name PresentWith AffiliationE-main address
Curry, Jane Yes ArB Health Information Strategiesjanecurry@healthinfostrategies.com
Grieve, Grahame Yes ArB Kestral Computinggrahame@kestral.com.au
Julian, Tony No ArB Mayo Clinicajulian@mayo.edu
Koisch, John Yes ArB NCIkoisch_john@bah.com
Lynch, Cecil Yes ArB ontoreason LLCclynch@ontoreason.com
Mead, Charlie No ArB Booz Allen Hamiltoncharlie.mead@booz.com
Orvis, Nancy No ArB DODnancy.orvis@tma.osd.mil
Parker, Ron Yes ArB CA Infowayrparker@eastlink.ca
Quinn, John No ArB Health Level Seven, Inc.jquinn@HL7.org
Shakir, Abdul-Malik Yes ArB Shakir ConsultingShakirConsulting@cs.com
Walker, Mead NoArB Health Data and Interoperability Incdmead@comcast.net
Yongjian, Bao No ArB GE Healthcareyongjian.bao@med.ge.com
Boyes, Paul YesGuest NCI/BAHboyes.paul@bah.com
Bond, Andy YesGuest ????
DeJong, Alex YesGuest Siemens Healthcarealex.dejong@siemens.com
Koehn, Marc YesGuest Gordon Point Informatics LtdMarc.Koehn@GPInformatics.com
Maclsee, Peter NoGuest?peter.macisaa@eds.com
Mckenzie, LloydYesGuest HL7 Canada lloyd@lmckenzie.com
Neel, Lyssa YesGuest HL7 Canada>pneel@infoway.ca

Minutes

Meeting was called to order at 3:30 by John Koisch with Grahame Grieve as scribe.

Meeting tomorrow is in Salon Q1 - Q4 Review of SAEAF with everyone as part of the Architectural Roll-Out On Thursday ArB will review mission statement

Central Lore of HL7

  • GOM
  • PIC
  • HDF
  • SAEAF
  • Core Principles

MnM is committing to work on the HDF and core principles document, where SAEAF impacts on the MnM documents. MnM are revising their mission statement and scope. This raises wider issues about how architecture, methodology, and the various reference platforms are maintained.

OMG/HL7 ArB relationship

4 new touch points

  1. a healthcareInfrastructure email list shared between HL7 and OMG communities (and W3C) to discuss shared architectural/infrastructural issues. Email list to be announced when it's set up
  1. Possibility of a special joint meeting between OMG, HL7 and W3C communities to discuss shared architectural/infrastructural issues
  1. We discussed the possibility of holding an ArB out of cycle meeting co-located with an OMG meeting. This is something we should do if possible
  1. HSSP has offered for ArB to have a seat at the table for the EIS/RLUS finalisation task force. We are looking for someone to carry this role for us. Ron Parker to investigate whether he can source this effort.

AMS to follow up for the effect of all this and other OMG related relationship changes on the OMG/HL7 MoU


AMS's SAEAF concerns

Concerns:

  • that we learn from HDF experience so that the project doesn't get stalled
  • need to prevent proliferation of mis-information and mis-expectations
  • Needs to be a roadmap with milestones for rolling out the SAEAF
  • make sure the process is tolerant of divergant views without losing our directions

ArB adopted the concerns and Mark - who is acting as a project lead for one of the alpha projects - took note of them.


SOA RASCI

Worked with SOA on a RASCI chart in Q1 SOA worked on it more in Q2, and are planning to have a plan. ArB looks forward to further engagement with SOA on this matter. Possibility of some discussion on this in the grand 2 quarter meeting tomorrow.


Backwards Compatibility

PMO maintains project scope statement. Project scope statements have a new piece: will your project be creating artefacts that are not backwards compatible. Answers to yes trigger the PMO to look at the project more closely.

This requires a definition of what backwards compatibility is. Fortunately MnM has come up with a definition of what this means at http://wiki.hl7.org/index.php?title=Semantic_Backward_Compatibility

Motion: MnM has defined backwards compatibility for  existing conformance points which MnM owns, and which ArB  endorses.   
SAEAF  proposes that we create new exit paths  for standards associated with conformance points. ArB  will need to work with 
appropriate committees to define  backwards compatibility for each of these conformance points, and decide which committee is
responsible for making backwards compatibility determinations. MnM is responsible for the  determinations on the conformance
points they currently own. For other existing conformance points ArB will work with  other committees to ensure that proper 
backwards  compatibility is defined.

We recommend that the PMO include space for yes/no/NA/comments below

Moved Grahame/Jane. Passed 5-0-1

Jane notes that we need to learn and bank our knowledge in this respect so that the same issues do not keep coming up again and again.

Action to be further discussed on telecon.


Motion To Adjourn (at 5:15!) Tony Julian