This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here

20090326 arb telcon minutes

From HL7Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Architecture Board

March 26, 2009


Name PresentWith AffiliationE-mail address
Curry, Jane YesArB Health Information
Grieve, Grahame No ArB Kestral
Julian, Tony YesArB Mayo
Koehn, Marc No Guest Gordon Point Informatics Ltd
Koisch, John YesArB
Loyd, Patrick No ARB Gordon point Informatics LTD.
Lynch, Cecil YesArB ontoreason
Mead, Charlie No ArB Booz Allen
Nelson, Dale YesArB
Ocasio, Wendell YesArB Agilex
Parker, Ron No ArB CA
Quinn, John YesArB Health Level Seven,
Shakir, Abdul-Malik No ArB Shakir
Hufnagel, Steve YesGuest

Agenda Approval

Motion to approve the following agenda Dale/Tony (7-0-0 )

  • Approval of agenda
  • Approval of minutes March 5 Telcon
  • The Foundation's RASCI chart - relevance and feedback?
  • The EA Roll out project update, with a focus on the already stated goal of modifying the HDF
  • Update on current efforts
  • Other business and Planning
  • Adjournment

Minute approval

Motion to approve the minutes of the March 5 Telcon Dale/Wendell 7-0-0

The Foundation's RASCI chart - relevance and feedback?

Review of rascii chart: Item7: FTSD does not recognize the ArB's effort, and want to re-visit SOAML. ArB felt that it did not support a full framework.

Jane Curry: Practical guide?

John Koisch: SOAML is modeling language. We have aligned SOAML with the behavioral framework. For question look at the appendix of the BF paper.

Jane Curry: Ioana's recent e-mail states that FTSD considers the RASCI as a draft, waiting for our change.

John Koisch: Does the ArB have anything to add. The fact that this does not align with the SOAML is significant.

John Koisch: There are a number of items which we do not care about. Is the next step and ArB commentary on these points - one or two people to provide feedback to FTSD or ArB so we can move forward?

Jane Curry: I would like to hear John Quinn's comments on the process(s)

Cecil Lynch: The re was one specific cell that defined the ontology of the artifacts of the services framework, under the SOA groups responsibility, so it should be in responsibility for ArB.

Jane Curry: There might be some confusion about taxonomy of services, or artifacts.

Cecil Lynch: It should be our responsibility. Taxonomy of services is only part of the problem.

John Koisch: I think you are right.

Jane Curry: Given that SOA is working with a strong relationship with OMG should not OMG be a column? OMG should be consulted.

Dale Nelson: The first example of a column with a responsibility outside of HL7?

Jane Curry: At least an acknowledgement that the relationship exists, and expect them to be engaged.

Cecil Lynch: OMG does not take into account Healthcare data types - which is part of my concern with them taking responsibility for the BF. Need consultation from HL7. They can bring experience to us from other areas, to put them on our radar.

Jane Curry: Maybe it is something that needs to be discussed at TSC - that we recommend that the MOU be developed - that we take the lead.

John Koisch: One of the problems with this RASCI is the SOA perspective, does not recognize the harmonization of messages/documents/services. Goes back to Jane's point, hear about what John Quinn has to say about this. The TSC needs to comment on the broadness/shallowness of the chart.

Jane Curry: it is a good tool, talking about the reference layer, we needed a chart like this for clarification. The nature of the roles in that rasci chart would look different than this one does. The product of the chart needs to be TSC product. It left out VOCAB, EHR-FM, and other independent functions, isolating services.

John Koisch: Yes,

Jane Curry: The involvement of this at the TSC is too late. It is a neat tool, but from a SAEAF perspective there are missing participants, OMG, EHR, VOCAB, all of whom should have participation at the line item level. It seem to be premature to be getting this resolution at this time, instead as part of the roll out project.

John Quinn: SOA and HSSP produced it.

Jane Curry: It retains isolation instead of understanding across all of the work-groups.

John Koisch: ArB: if We were to do a chart, it would be differently focused, and harmonized?

John Quinn: Absolutely - push back, and give another chart - Ioana and Ken will make changes, or take to the TSC. The fact that ArB is not a part of the FTSD is by design. The BOD and TSC want it that way, not below foundation.

John Koisch: Action item - we will move on this.

Jane Curry: This would be useful to fill out during our Face-to-Face.

John Koisch: We will have to go long on one day.

Jane Curry: It is complementary.

John Koisch: And use it as a tool during the F-F. Creating our own is best.

John Quinn: There are a lot of people who have signed up for the ArB meeting In LasVegas.

John Koisch: into the next issue . . .


The EA Roll out project update, with a focus on the already stated goal of modifying the HDF

John Koisch: During the summer, one of the initial tasks, was to re-evaluate the HDF in light of an enterprise architecture. We shelved that because we did not understand the EA, and the core-principles document. Given that, the ArB tabled the issue. As we went through the jump-start meetings, we looked at how the SAEAF affected the HDF.

John Koisch: There has been some thinking on how we would impact the HDF. Charlies point is that the HDF is focused on messaging and history - there are elements of the integration semantics between systems , governance, Charlie said we need to look at the HDF from the ground up. If you follow the HDF now, you will not follow the SAEAF. Ioana wants us to participate now, charlie feels it needs to be put off.

Dale Nelson: That seems accurate.

John Koisch: Ioana/MnM will not need to scrap everything, rather do a bottom up review.

Dale Nelson: It is so hard to say, the HDF work has been going on for a number of years - everyone was hoping we were getting to the final review processes. Reopening it - it is hard to get a lot of participation in HDF. Politically this comes to bear. I tend to agree with Charlie, that in light of the SAEAF framework, there are things that need to be re-visited in HDF, not just a peer-review. Some of it needs to be re-written.

Dale Nelson: I can see both sides.

John Koisch: From an architecture perspective, if you follow the HDF step-by-step, you will miss things e.g. the traceability of formal requirements.

Jane Curry: It is tooling as well as informality of the process. We have not convinced people of why it is important to deal with it. It is viewed as an implementation issue, not a standard issue.

John Koisch: At the risk of jumping the gun, John how do you take this? Is the peer review the right level?

John Quinn: Peer review works well for review, but there is an impedance mis-match : we are more than a peer-review away.

John Koisch: What is the process?

John Quinn: We should have a meeting with MnM - we are adding services as a modality, without denigrating Messages ans documents.

John Koisch: What we discussed with discussion with Marc Koehn is to have someone within MnM

John Quinn: What are the changes in the HDF?

John Quinn: we know how some users do their methodology.

Dale Nelson: I have to look at the latest HDF to see . .

John Quinn: As we define these tools, they will implicitly define the process.

Dale Nelson: Has the LV schedule have a session co-scheduled between ArB and MnM?

John Koisch: Not an official meeting, but the point of doing this within harmonization is to invite MnM to a particular session.

Dale Nelson: I will be in the ArB discussions, and represent MnM. We have a good number of people in the rooms.

John Quinn: It is obvious there will be time for conversation.

John Koisch: Who in MnM should be approached?

Dale Nelson: Woody as well as Ioana, and AMS as a past co-chair and author of HDF.

John Koisch: I will reach out to them.

Jane Curry: It is relevant to what is on the ArB's plate. There are pages that impact what is currently written there. Part of the problem is that the HDF is prs-mature, should be part of the roll out process, instead of an input. It is irritating to spend volunteer time to have people not have time to look at it. That may be where some of the angst is coming from.

John Koisch: Yes, there is a lot going on. John, are there additional steps we need to do?

John Quinn: LV is only two weeks away, I want to tell everyone that DHS want to rely on us heavily, expect that we have a methodology, though we do not have the tools. We got what we wished for - but it is due by 2012.

John Quinn: It would be great if the current version was ready to read BEFORE Las Vegas.

John Koisch: We need to have a one-page tear sheet, that everyone can read on the airplane.

John Quinn: I do not want to go into meetings knowing less than the others.

John Koisch: We will try

Jane Curry: On that note - Charlie has produced the revised version of the paper. Who is responsible for the paper portion of governance?

John Koisch: Charlie is the author, owing us the conformance/compliance as well as governance. I owe the BF paper. There are not other volunteers. If you want to sign up, send an e-mail.

John Koisch: There should not be anything in the papers that is not in the deck.


adjourned at 4:01pm U.S. Eastern

Tony 20:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC)