20090709 arb telcon minutes
Architecture Board
July 9,2009
Contents
Attendance
| Name | Present | With | Affiliation | E-mail address |
| Curry, Jane | Yes | ArB | Health Information Strategies | janecurry@healthinfostrategies.com |
| Grieve, Grahame | No | 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 | Yes | 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 | Yes | ArB | CA Infoway | rparker@eastlink.ca |
| Quinn, John | No | ArB | Health Level Seven, Inc. | jquinn@HL7.org |
| Shakir, Abdul-Malik | Yes | ArB | Shakir Consulting | ShakirConsulting@cs.com |
| Tubman, Ken | Yes | Guest | ? | ? |
| Yan, Peter | No | Guest | NCI | ? |
Agenda
- Call to order
- Approval of Agenda
- Questions from Karen Van Hentenryck
- Agenda for August Out of cycle
- Adjournment
Call to order
The meeting was called to order at 3:00pm U.S. Eastern. Quorum was achieved.
Agenda approval
Agenda was approved by affirmation.
Question from Karen Van Hentenryck
- What problem is SAEAF supposed to solve (I’m looking for an a sentence or two answer, not a paragraph)
- The purpose of the safe is to provide consistency between all HL7 artifacts, and enable a standardized approach to Enterprise Architecture Development and implementation, which includes a means to measure the consistency.
John Koisch: The HL7 Services Aware Enterprise Architecture Framework (SAEAF) consists of the means of capturing the essential integration semantics for a particular topic, a conformance and compliance model, and a governance structure.
- How close would you say the documents on the wiki are to being “final” (i.e., ready to edit)? I ask this because I see some blank slides. Do these represent data gaps that you want the technical editors to help fill, or will that content be inserted before editing starts?
- The documents are on gforge, not on the wiki. They are stable, but not final. The intent is to publish an annual edition.
Abdul-Malik Shakir: Will we finalize at august meeting?
John Koisch: NO, what will happen between now and august we will meet with EA roll-out, and have revisions.
Jane Curry: With platform we saw changes.
John Koisch: and with governance.
Abdul-Malik Shakir: There will need to be publication releases.
John Koisch: Woody said it should be published yearly, or bi-yearly, like the RIM. The SAEAF book becomes the holding ground for all of the documents, including core principles.
Abdul-Malik Shakir: There will be a 2009 edition that identifies known deficiencies that will be covered in 2010 version.
John Koisch: Published?
Jane Curry: Published with anticipate content.
Abdul-Malik Shakir: Publishable by august?
John Koisch: Where do we draw the line? Do we have enough, is it stable enough, that the technical editor can stamp it, or do we have to include material from EA roll-out to get it to version 1? The EA roll-outs will give feedback, and if the gap is substantial, we will have to add the content, else we will put a bow on certain sections.
- The Governance deck does not have an accompanying Word document. Is that something that will come later, or is it not necessary?
- Neither does the Behavioural framework. The slide decks are authoritative, the word documents are narrative providing further documentation.
John Koisch: They wanted to get the document down, and worry about the presentation later. This is problematic, since it is hard to create document when you do not know the final format. The pictures will have to be there regardless of publishing format. John is trying to get Version 1 of Version 1.
Jane Curry: By august we should mark the core, to be relied on as authoritative content.
John Koisch: Put a bookmark on that concept.
Abdul-Malik Shakir: Even if it were a blog on the wiki.
John Koisch: Maybe - it is not as convenient as it should be. It is a thorny problem. We have core images that have changed over the past.
Abdul-Malik Shakir: If you do not publish the word, each viewer will see a different thing.
Jane Curry: I agree. I am struggling with taking the power-point and writing to it.
John Koisch: The behavioral framework I have had to break down into specification, theory, etc.
Jane Curry: Trying to talk about four governance frameworks, between four different types of whoms.
Cecil Lynch: Each dependency spawns another use case, which is connected to something else.
John Koisch: Leveling is a problem: Use cases are at several levels.
Jane Curry: The governance issues around interpretation of content in the business rule context of different participants.
Cecil Lynch: We have come to many stakeholders contribute to the process, there must be an ultimate decision maker, who enforces the rules.
Jane Curry: you need a decision.
- The Snapshot documents have a different look and feel than the other documents. I’m assuming the same look and feel should be applied to all documents. Is that correct?
- Yes - separate content from presentation to the best of the editors ability.
Agenda for out-of-cycle
John Koisch: Next few weeks an implementation guide to the SAEAF, from the EA projects. I have a meeting I cannot miss, so we need a back-fill.
John Koisch: After the initial call of laying it out, subsequent calls members of the ARB volunteer to work with projects to lay out artifacts, existing work, logical models, platform specific, and conceptual models. These should drive our conversations in august to determine the state of the SAEAF. Do we need richer content, implementation guide? Marc Koehn will come to discuss needs.
Jane Curry: Are we still sticking with SAEAF, or change the name?
John Koisch: John Quinn went back on changing the name.
Patrick Loyd: I would say I found myself immediately 1. Frustrated because we could not make a decision. 2. Had to start referring to it as SAEAF. As we have done more publication and outreach, people are feeling more comfortable that their needs are being represented. I believe that for internal reasons changing the name would buy us something. But we have more important things to do.
John Koisch: Groups outside of HL7 are referring to it as SAEAF.
Abdul-Malik Shakir: We went through the same thing with Version 3.
Ron Parker: If we made it funny, it would buy us a lot of points.
John Koisch: waste no more time on the name.
Ron Parker: more socialization, then ask if the name is ok.
Abdul-Malik Shakir: It may become a time when sub-components have a name of their own.
John Koisch: It is a working title - once we change the presentation format into the SAEAF book, people will consume sections of it.
Anthony Julian: So we will have a control section.
John Koisch: Maybe.
John Koisch: agenda for august out-of-cycle. Woody wants a full day session. I am not sure we have time - we have content maturation issues coming out of the EA roll-out, and formalization.
Abdul-Malik Shakir: A lot of the MnM issues will be transition.
John Koisch: There are a lot of things that people have opinions, but do not have the energy to weigh in on. I have talked with Woody and Lloyd about the Behavioral Framework. People feel that the decisions are not getting enough publication, else people do not have enough energy.
Abdul-Malik Shakir: Return of the backroom zealots.
John Koisch: Trust, not advocate backroom zealotry. Definition of SOA and Service are references.
Abdul-Malik Shakir: MnM had the same reputation of making decision without involving others. We do not want that label. MnM communication was not effective. We should meet with them, and make sure the topic would have been covered anyway.
Ron Parker: I agree. I am not sure we need to give the same to other work groups.
Jane Curry: what are the issues.
Ron Parker: they have not stated.
Abdul-Malik Shakir: we need to publish our agenda, and where we want to include MnM. MnM should not be involved in tooling, data-types, etc. There is a topic of how are we going to transition. What are we going to do about it?
John Koisch: I will reach out to Woody and Lloyd to see what topics they want to cover.
Jane Curry: which day?
John Koisch: Wednesday.
Jane Curry: Last time they suspended harmonization - they took it that seriously.
Abdul-Malik Shakir: All of MnM
Jane Curry: portions.
John Koisch: Leaving aside the joint meeting, what are topics?
Jane Curry: do we have an agreement on what the core is? We need that for direction to the editors.
John Koisch: A small caution I think part of the job of the editor is to sift through and discover the core.
Cecil Lynch: We will have to go through the slide deck and find gaps that we have question about, and make sure they are satisfied before we hand if off.
John Koisch: Homework -review the components.
Cecil Lynch: I have reviewed, and discussed with Jane. Others may have comments that have surfaced since then. Make sure documents have our internal question answered.
John Koisch: Do people have time to look at chunks, or decks, and return .
Abdul-Malik Shakir: I am interested in the behavioral framework, and would comment.
John Koisch: Are you still interested in getting together to discuss>?
Abdul-Malik Shakir: Yes.
Jane Curry: Your one term was all that was out of scope.
Jane Curry: I have not released the new version.
Cecil Lynch: The distance between points in a PowerPoint leaves more wiggle room than some other format.
John Koisch: It sounds like our august meeting will focus around
- Core material
- EA roll-out.
John Koisch: It sounds like we need to have people to be able to come in, with an internal adjudication process for issues. ??For each section that we do, if we can take a controlled review, like a ballot review, with negative majors, minors, etc, and spend our time solving the negatives.
Cecil Lynch: What is the agenda item for the EA roll-out? What would be accomplished.
John Koisch: Next three weeks meeting with EA roll-out, in terms of implementation guide for the SAEAF should surface holes. Marc Koehn will want to discuss what we need to do, then a slew of items like what does a conformance statement look like. We need common ground.
Cecil Lynch: Yes, If we are having that process, then that is where our majors/minors will come from. That should drive the corrective actions. If we had access to it before the meeting, it would be good. Then we could close the gaps. EA roll-out should drive that activity.
John Koisch: My thinking as to the majority of out time: we need engagement to get good feedback. We do not have a structure to bring the comments centrally. What do we do? Formal process? Divide and concur? or wait for EA Roll-out in the next two-three weeks.
Cecil Lynch: I feel like our hands are tied until then.
Jane Curry: we will find out through the roll-out projects. I do not know how much pre-work we can do, except to complete the outstanding work.
Ron Parker: I see project-management like behavior coming up, it should not be John Koisch's problem.
Jane Curry: Did we loose him?
John Koisch: Me? I am still here. Ron is right. Everybody is busy, and as we reach out to the other groups the workload is expanding.
Ron Parker: Escalate to Mr. Quinn.
John Koisch: They will ask, where do you need the help? The EA roll-out should structure the problem. If we have a specific roll on a number of projects, we should bring that to ground. The plan was to detail how the NCI is doing it. Very few see the enormity.
Abdul-Malik Shakir: I have to hang up.
Jane Curry: I will have to close the meeting.
John Koisch: I will put together a draft agenda and send it out.. AMS can I reach you tomorrow>?
Abdul-Malik Shakir: Not until Tuesday.
John Koisch: Can I send an email, and get response. I sent one to Ron.
Ron Parker: Find a way to have someone else to facilitate the meetings where you bring content, to facilitate the discussion.
John Koisch: I agree.
Ron Parker: There are time John needs to flip hats. He is trying to explain his life, not ram it through.
John Koisch: I 1000% would support.
John Koisch: Agenda e-mail as well as logistics will be sent out.
Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 4:00pm U.S. Eastern Tony 20:26, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
