20090226 arb telcon minutes
February 26, 2009
|Curry, Jane||Yes||ArB||Health Information Strategiesemail@example.com|
|Grieve, Grahame||No||ArB||Kestral Computingfirstname.lastname@example.org|
|Julian, Tony||Yes||ArB||Mayo Clinicemail@example.com|
|Koehn, Marc||Yes||Guest||Gordon Point Informatics Ltd||Marc.Koehn@GPInformatics.com|
|Loyd, Patrick||No||ARB||Gordon point Informatics LTD.||firstname.lastname@example.org|
|Lynch, Cecil||No||ArB||ontoreason LLCemail@example.com|
|Mead, Charlie||No||ArB||Booz Allen Hamiltonfirstname.lastname@example.org|
|Ocasio, Wendell||Yes||ArB||Agilex Technologiesemail@example.com|
|Parker, Ron||No||ArB||CA Infowayfirstname.lastname@example.org|
|Quinn, John||Yes||ArB||Health Level Seven, Inc.||jquinn@HL7.org|
|Shakir, Abdul-Malik||No||ArB||Shakir Consulting||ShakirConsulting@cs.com|
Call to order
Call to order at 3:03pm U.S. Eastern by John Koisch with Tony Julian as scribe.
Approval of Agenda
Motion to approve agenda wendell/jane (5-0-0)
Approval of Minutes
MMS to approve the minutes of the Feb 19,2009 telcon Wendell/Tony (4-0-1)
Discussion / update on the SOA Practical Guide podcast
Tabled to next week. Mail out as homework item.
John Quinn: On a call with the HSSP/OMG side.
Discussion on NCI CC papers + other ECCF material.
John Koisch: Charlie sent out the ECCF paper for the NCI. The ECCF deck was posted to GFORGE. The governance deck is nearing completion. Charlie and Jane are working on it. Charlie will be putting together the deck for the Behavioral framework. Papers for each deck will be ready March 16, 2009. The deck is the outline for the paper.
John Koisch: Did anyone read the materials? If so are there any comments?
Wendell Ocasio: I had two dozen comments for each, and sent them to Charlie directly. I sent them to charlie via spreadsheet, since I did not have a GFORGE account.
Wendell Ocasio: The use of the terms compliance assertion instead of compliance statement - to be compatible with ISO/RM-ODP they need to be flipped around.
Wendell Ocasio: This is all about conformance. The conformation assertion is what an implementation provides. "My application applies to XYZ". The conformance specification is asserted by the standard.
John Koisch: It would be helpful to capture in gforge.
Wendell Ocasio: In the 3rd diagram do we have to change some things around.
John Koisch: Use gforge. At the end of Las Vegas we will do the re-write.
Wendell Ocasio: All comments from all users at Las Vegas.
John Koisch: Yes, so others can see.
Tony Julian: here is how the tracker works.
Marc Koehn and EA Rollout project
- Show the RUP-like process for creating SAEAF-like artifacts. Discuss timelines and April activities.
John Koisch: Talk to mark about the EA rollout project. There are three parts:
- If you could update the ArB with your timeline
Mark Koehn I am curious about the NCI. If you have followed, we have formal approval to be a phase 1 project - between now and KYOTO. Output plans etc for actually doing the implementation. We should be doing work such as alpha projects, and implementing elements that need to be done.
Mark Koehn Tuesday we had a meeting, and have a WIKI - we are forming and figuring how to move forward. Alpha projects: Over the next couple of weeks they will create some paperwork for dialog about the alpha projects. What are the ArB objectives for the ALPHA projects.
Mark Koehn The next big thing is to understand where the ArB is moving. What are the deliverables? We need to derive a list of artifacts, so we can compare the ArB roadmap to the alpha project roadmap. Additionally there is some HDF review. Thoes three strains have to flow from the first two items.
Mark Koehn What is your (ArB) roadmap and timeline.
John Koisch: Timeline: Between now and Las Vegas we(arb) are hoping to begin to elaborate a lot of the artifacts that are part and parcel of the SAEAF. Some can be brought in from other work streams - member organizations. There will be a fair amount of evaluation.
John Koisch: In Las Vegas we will hopefully be able to find a mapping gap between, with some chance to vet it with the project teams. IN RE Project engagement: The lsit of projects, we had a nominal list of things in which we are interested. Have you any luck reaching out?
Mark Koehn Those involved are connected to some projects, so we will not formally reach out to the projects, until we determine what makes a alpha project. There is a difference between people just doing stuff, and a true ALPHA project. We hope to have the principles laid out in the next two weeks.
John Koisch: When you engage, there will be the priNCIples, artifact milestones
Mark Koehn When you use 5-6 weeks, we need to go back to the end game. We need a balloted architecture. Are we targeting December to have all of it done? Can you paint the picture broader?
John Koisch: I wanted to say "Here is how a group would go about building these artifacts". Thinking about this a s a process, to understand how a alpha project goes forward.
Jane Curry: There is another aspect - using the application team to clarify the responsibilities of Work Groups, harmonization processes, and the business architecture stuff, which is in your project, Marc, not ArB.
John Koisch: When we though about the layout, we were thinking about the implications to HL7. Domain subject matter experts would write a DAM - how those people play with the other groups, an embedded architect from ArB , or SOA.
Mark Koehn Yes, we need to write down the tasks - no one has groked the documents - we need to understand your progression, timeline, inputs, outputs. We are kick-starting it now. We need to build a timeline and anticipations.
Mark Koehn when is Las Vegas?
John Koisch: April 15-17 Hopefully by Las Vegas we will be vetting the documents. That is part of next weeks ArB call - who owns what - what are the candidate artifacts
Mark Koehn there would be a couple of projects ready to be engaged in Las Vegas formally?
John Koisch: I was not that far yet.
Mark Koehn there are lists of artifacts, that the architecture requires, that the project people can begin to understand from a process perspective.
John Koisch: (Discussing Upf_soa) Any project to create service specific. CAT on the diagram is an internal review process. In inception you would see various groups involved
John Koisch: As you move through this, you proceed stepwise through the process. This is what the ArB - yo are going to build an information model, subject to the architect as well as the subject matter experts.
Jane Curry: What is does bring up is the responsibility to align language of the HDF with the SAEAF. They cover the same territory, not using the same terms.
Wendell Ocasio: The overlap is substantial.
John Koisch: This is the NCI's
Mark Koehn Using this, what are the steps the projects take? Do they point inside the prototype, or to HL7? Which is a product of the HL7 process? We need to draw it out, to understand the decision making process.
Jane Curry: That is the point - we have a responsibility to consider candidate artifacts and processes - take in from the HDF, and align to SAEAF. The artifacts that we have identified are a part of the messaging realm. It will help if the SAEAF and the HDF are in alignment.
Mark Koehn Our review and validation are along the business stream, and how it could drive service/message/document design? One of our goals? As you walk through the architecture.
Jane Curry: The HDF has requirement documented at a finer grain than that currently define, since the newer use cases require a greater specificity. We have opportunities to align the documents - with the ArB responding to the HDF peer review, and make sure the terminology is consistent.
John Koisch: That may wind up with some re-writes of the HDF.
Jane Curry: There is no question . .
Mark Koehn You are outlining the critical design artifacts. Between that and the HDF there must be 100% alignment - and there will have to be to-dos, with assigned people.
Mark Koehn Your assumptions around Las Vegas, how can we help?
John Koisch: I did not expect to have alpha projects at the table, but personally I am open to that.
John Koisch: We are already working along parallel paths.
Mark Koehn If you would take a portion of your agenda to do some planning, I would be there for a day. Define the journey, so we can review.
John Koisch: Since this is a harmonization effort with MnM, John Quinn, - there is a long discussion about modifying the HDF - Charlie expressed the opinion that the HDF needs to align itself with the SAEAF.
John Quinn: HDF is owned by FDSD. Only the user half has been written.
Mark Koehn There is a difference between how to get there? Is there any question?
John Quinn: Short of charlie taking it to the TSC, the project alignment needs to be revisited.
John Koisch: It is a matter of conformance/compliance. Everyone on this call would agree.
Mark Koehn If we think it is a good thing, it behoves us to get together with the HDF folks so that there would be an opportunity for success. If we wrote down the overlapping parts - these ten things align - make sure these ten things are addressed. Then we can design the approval process. If we started with that conversation, we could form a baseline to align the conversation.
Mark Koehn If we could bring HDF designers to the table.
Dale Nelson: From MnM - my understanding from MnM was that no one is working on the HDF.
John Quinn: the user manual' for HL7 has not been written - which is what Ioana is writing now.
John Koisch: For this meeting, Mark why don't you plan on us being responsive to your comments. - at least two quarters in Las Vegas. In the next week we will come up with a plan. We were working on the candidate artifact types. We need to come back to the workstream to finish the cells
Jane Curry: The artifacts within the cells.
Meeting was adjourned at 4:02 u.s. Eastern Tony 17:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)