20090403 arb telcon minutes
Architecture Board
April 2, 2009
Contents
Attendance
| Name | Present | With | Affiliation | E-mail address |
| Curry, Jane | Yes | ArB | Health Information Strategies | janecurry@healthinfostrategies.com |
| Grieve, Grahame | Yes | ArB | Kestral Computing | grahame@kestral.com.au |
| Julian, Tony | Yes | ArB | Mayo Clinic | ajulian@mayo.edu |
| Koehn, Marc | No | Guest | Gordon Point Informatics Ltd | Marc.Koehn@GPInformatics.com |
| Koisch, John | Yes | ArB | NCI | koisch_john@bah.com |
| Loyd, Patrick | Yes | ARB | Gordon point Informatics LTD. | patrick.loyd@gpinformatics.com |
| Lynch, Cecil | No | ArB | ontoreason LLC | clynch@ontoreason.com |
| Mead, Charlie | No | ArB | Booz Allen Hamilton | charlie.mead@booz.com |
| Nelson, Dale | No | ArB | II4SM | dale@zed-logic.com |
| Ocasio, Wendell | No | ArB | Agilex Technologies | wendell.ocasio@agilex.com |
| Parker, Ron | No | ArB | CA Infoway | rparker@eastlink.ca |
| Quinn, John | No | ArB | Health Level Seven, Inc. | jquinn@HL7.org |
| Shakir, Abdul-Malik | No | ArB | Shakir Consulting | ShakirConsulting@cs.com |
| Hufnagel, Steve | No | Guest |
Approval of the Agenda
- Approval of Agenda
- Approval of minutes of the March 26, 2009 Telcon
- update on the "matrix"
- update on the Bf
- Review and approval of a SAEAF position paper
- Recommend projects for Alpha Project to TSC (specifically, CTS 2)
- adjournment
Call to order
Order at 3:10pm by John Koisch with Tony julian as Scribe.
Motion to approve agenda Patrick/Jane (4-0-0)
Approval of the Minutes
Motion to approve the minutes of the March 26, 2009 Telcon Jane/Patrick (3-0-1)
update on the "matrix"
John Koisch: I have just gotten to it.
Patrick Loyd: I am adding to the list there.
John Koisch: Jane and I realized the top page was misnamed from SAEAF constraint pattern to SAEAF specification Stack. Change Analysis to Conceptual. Added details, and notion of topic specification, since this is a sematic with meaning within this stack.
Jane Curry: We need to clarify the primitive versus the whole artifact that is usefull but covers multiple viewpoints.
John Koisch: Do you know the difference between primatives and composite?
John Koisch: We (NCI) have discovered that a lot of the work that we do is focused on implementation, we need to focus on architecture. This is the Zackman framework concept - difference between engineering and manufacturing. Engineering is concerned with primative, manufacturing with composite. My primative is your composite. What Jane is getting at is the we need to identify the primatives and composites. An activity diagram is though of by an implementation team as a primative, event though it is a composite. The activity diagram is made up of business orientated activity, roles, relationships. Even though we have a candidate artifact, e.g. activity diagram, you need to go furthere.
Jane Curry: When we start producing the example artifacts you have to describe the aspect of the artifact within the viewpoint. We need to clarify and dicuss in the context of the viewpoint the parts of the composite.
John Koisch: I dont want to get into trying to solve the whole problem. We would need another wiki that lays out the primatives - but there are problems from here to there. Do we need to rigoursly capture everything?
Jane Curry: It is iterative - on the initial go-round you need to be exhaustive rather than concise. People are acknowledging that harmonization across topics/viewpoints you have to analyze, discuss the common denominators to avoid a composite, whether CMET, or other. RUP idea of refactoring is about looking at the re-usable capabilities. We cant start solving that problem, but we need to acknowledge it, and begin the conversation. We cant ignore it. If nothing else, we need criteria to identify primative artifacts.
John Koisch: I dont want to spin out of control solving the whole problem. We have enough material, we just need to do it.
John will put out a page defining primatives and composites.
Jane Curry: When we look at what is being done, HL7 has already begun the conversation on how to solve this problem. We need to acknowledge/recognize, and encourage the process that allows the problem to be solved.
John Koisch: Right. Lets go to the next - Reference/Informational Patrick Loyd.
Patrick Loyd: I added other patter models, the orders , ITS, core principles and HDF? It touches all over, so it belongs here as a reference to the information model - flow is modeled in the HDF.
John Koisch: The HDF has processes that may not be valid.
Patrick Loyd: we all agree that this will be used in different ways for different use cases - but we pick the least or most, and dont document the rest.
John Koisch: The additional section is also important.
update on the Bf
John Koisch: Slide deck is finished, will put it out again, with the paper done by April 17.
Review and approval of a SAEAF position paper
John Koisch: Charlie sent a re-write of the position paper- send comment to John, so he can harmonize with Charlie
Recommend projects for Alpha Project to TSC (specifically, CTS 2)
John Koisch: Trying to get CTS2 rolled up as an alpha project. It would benefit form the extended semantics identified in the SAEAF. The whole process would benefit - HL7 needs to get CTS2 right, maybe make it an ontology standard throught OMG.
Jane Curry: I would be happy to get the feeling of the group of how to best use scheduled time.
Patrick Loyd: Updates would go to a couple of people, it would make more sense for me to work on my cell.
Jane Curry: I am working on the governance framework and paper, I took everything out of the cells that have my name on them. I will put them back as I work on the governance.
Patrick Loyd: For me this week is my week to pick this up and start again.
Adjournment
Adjourned at 3:34pm U.S. eastern
Tony 19:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
