20091015 arb minutes

Architecture Board

October 1, 2009

Attendance

Name	Present	With	Affiliation	E-mail address
Aneja, Paul	Yes	Guest
Bond, Andy	?	ArB
Curry, Jane	Yes	ArB	Health Information Strategies	janecurry@healthinfostrategies.com
Grieve, Grahame	?	ArB	Kestral Computing	grahame@kestral.com.au
Hufnagle, Steve	?	Guest
Julian, Tony	Yes	ArB	Mayo Clinic	ajulian@mayo.edu
Koisch, John	?	ArB	NCI	koisch_john@bah.com
Loyd, Patrick	?	ARB	Gordon point Informatics LTD.	patrick.loyd@gpinformatics.com
Lynch, Cecil	Yes	ArB	ontoreason LLC	clynch@ontoreason.com
Mead, Charlie	Yes	ArB	Booz Allen Hamilton	charlie.mead@booz.com
Nelson, Dale	?	Arb	II4SM	dale@zed-logic.com
Ocasio, Wendell	?	ArB	Agilex Technologies	wendell.ocasio@agilex.com
Parker, Ron	Yes	ArB	CA Infoway	rparker@eastlink.ca
Quinn, John	?	ArB	Health Level Seven, Inc.	jquinn@HL7.org
Robertson, Scott	?	Guest	Kaiser Permanente
Shakir, Abdul-Malik	?	ArB	Shakir Consulting	ShakirConsulting@cs.com
Smith, Karen	Yes	Guest	Technical Editor	karen@smithspot.com
Thompson, Cliff	Yes	Guest	OntoSolutions LLC	cliff@ontosolutions.com

• Call to order
• Approval of Agenda
• Approval of minutes of the October 8, 2009 telcon.
  • Cecil: i have been conversing with Karen by e-mail.

Ron Parker: Is there any confusion or direction Karen needs?

Ron Parker: Is the technical writing achieving what we want to?

• How do we continue the review of Karen's questions?

Ron Parker: are people able to engage with the material?

Paul Aneja: Sent feedback to Tony, who forwarded to Karen?

Ron Parker: What is our expection with tracker in Gforge?

Jane Curry: I dont think our material is mature enough to use Tracker.

Ron Parker: I concur. Has anyone sending marked-up documents?

Ron Parker: Tony needs to remind Karen to acknowledge receipt.

Charlie Mead: Communicated with Karen via e-mail.

Jane Curry: The most important thing is to get the DITA topic map agreed to. This will support the SAEAF book. Iterating over the current structure is well and good, and has helped Karen realize what the topics are about. We need to know our future target. Before we refine, we need to know the DITA map.

Ron Parker: Agree strongly.

Ron Parker: Next call structure so that Karen can present the DITA map.

Charlie Mead: What tool is Karen using for DITA? Oxygen.

Jane Curry: I will look it up. She will be using the HTML help format to produce the map of the DITA topic map. It provides an outline and visual at the same time. She is not using sophisticated software, it costs more.

Charlie Mead: The value proposition in multiple views is from using the better tools. HL7 is using this as a pilot. Input is the same from all tools: but for output you get what you pay for.

Jane Curry: She can generate PDF and XHTML from the tool she uses. It could be generated into Eclipse help. Would allow us to put it into the eclipse framework with our other tools - becomes in-context help for our other tools. What we have now is good enough for now - may not be ideal publishing infrastructure, but not the objective of this project.

Ron Parker: Charlie get hold of John and Charlie, what is the expected output for January?

Charlie Mead: Sent John and e-mail.

Jane Curry: Could you CC me?

Charlie Mead: Yes.

Jane Curry: TY

Charlie Mead: Are there SAEAF issues you are concerned?

Ron Parker: IN general, I would like to ask on a regular basis on these calls, where are the Alpha Projects?

Charlie Mead: My perspective: As you start to operationalize this you have to deal with governance - which takes time. HL7 has a slice of it in the project scope, a big chunk in the ballot, and little in between. We will have to have governance in the life cycle - particularly in the first 12-18 months, like when the RIM first came out. We will need to do the same thing with primatives.

Jane Curry: We need quality criteria - this is what your DAM has to look like.

Charlie Mead: In January of last year, it was asked "Why cant the ArB Govern?" We needed to get the documentation together. NCI is expecting teams to submit artifacts to a staffed approval board.

Ron Parker: How are other people feeling? SAEAF has great value, what we need is a governance framework? Good subject for a subsequent call.

Cecil Lynch: RE: Alpha projects - CDAR3 Keith Boone is aligning artifacts with SAEAF. Still a lot of resistance to using DAM's. I am trying to help them. Waiting for AMS to give final view of the DAM guide to BRIDGE. I have info from Galen and Mead about VA's view. I have draft available a week after I get all of this together.

Ron Parker: Helpful. I understand why Keith will have issues from a CDA perspective.

Charlie Mead: Our biggest area of unknown is artifacts that have to do with interoperability paradigms that are not concerned with services.

Jane Curry: Calvin is working in an environment with long-standing behaviour of document management. Exchanging clinical documents has the background, but has never been made explicit. In V2 medical records (Chapter 9) there was detail on the context of shipping records. CDA is silent about that because it is an assumption. The CDA structure is being used in context othere than medical records management. As soon as you leave the organization, you expose limitations of privacy, security. They need to state their assumptions.

Paul Aneja: We should provide more guidance on when it makes sense to use messages, documents, services. There has been some attempt, but we could go a little further providing scenarios.

Cecil Lynch: We are agnostic in SAEAF - it is outside the scope.

Paul Aneja: We are agnostic, but when it come to other people considering what to use, this is one of the key questions.

Charlie Mead: An orthogonal way to approach: The decisions now are arbitrary, that show up when it is on the wire. SAEAF should guide people in a direction that a particular static content has given context. Human readibility should be documents, portability services.

Cecil Lynch: They have to have a conceptual view - they start a project with a spreadsheet, with no understanding of the business.

Jane Curry: They are backing into this. They are not doing it explicitly, but implicitly.

Cecil Lynch: Fundamentally, CDA, the general view of the group is CDA is a simple way to start. They have no notion of getting it right. Every time I approach them with facts, the response is "we are giving people a simple way", they think using an object from V3 is too hard. The CAEHR project, it is based on CDA - there are some problems using CDA as a basis for that from a data-type.

Charlie Mead: You could not have a more willing and ready audience.

Ron Parker: Pauls comment. Documents have workflow implications. Greg Perez is a TOGAF9 certified guy. We will be playing with this, and returning to the team. For us this is inherent, in the business archtecture.

Charlie Mead: Ron, will that affect the SAEAF book?

Ron Parker: Depends on the formalizms for the artifacts. We may explore different expression. Core to my project - I am not producing messages - high level. Downstream the content will be used by interface producers. We are trying to express a solid contract. the BF is important. My team is to presume that it will be consumed in HL7 Context. That is where we are headed.

Paul Aneja: Services could have messages and documents. There are not mutually exclusive - in a services paradigm you can have messages.

Charlie Mead: You are overloading messages. The packets are messages, but they are not HL7 messages structurally. One of the impacts will be a grappeling of if HL7 accepts the BF what is the implication of the V3 message structure. [Skype interleaves here]

Ron Parker: Agree.Karen has a couple of questions.

Jane Curry: The presentations should provide the mapping topics.

Ron Parker: We have no new topics.

Jane Curry: The atlanta decks had mixed topics, Johns atlanta decks when off on a different approach. We need a dita map - so we can see where the overlaps are. The elaboration should detail the dependancies between frameworks.

Ron Parker: We will let you (JC) engage with John.

Jane Curry: I would feel more comforatble writing into an agreed upon topic map.

Ron Parker: we are at a wrap.

Jane Curry: Where did the minutes of the atlanta meeting get to.

Paul Aneja: where is it?

Tony Julian: I will e-mail links. Atlanta WGM Tuesday Q4 Atlanta WGM September 24 Q4 Atlanta WGM September 24 Q3 AkA: CDA Bake Off

Karen Smith says: Hi this is Karen

Anthony Julian says: Hi Karen.

Karen Smith says: When I took my laptop upstairs, I didn't have a wireless connection. Now I'm online. The video relay service isn't working at this time.

Jane Curry says: We agreed that your highest priority in the short term is the Dita topic map

Karen Smith says: did they say anything more about the review process last week?

Karen Smith says: I have an important issue to discuss.

Anthony Julian says: I will see if I can get a word in! :|

Karen Smith says: Are the ArB members planning to create new powerpoint presentations from the new SAEAF DITA book, or will they continue to use and refine the existing presentations?

Karen Smith says: lol

Charlie Mead says: i'd say refining existing ones...there was supposed to be a parallel graphics upgrade effort as part of the technical editing work since -- as you can see -- the slides were made by graphics amateurs, i.e. johnK, jane, and me...so <<any>> help we can get -- not to mention standarization across decks -- would be <<very>> much appreciated...

Karen Smith says: that makes much more sense to refine existing powerpoint presentations, as the same info is written differently in the Word docs as in the PPT presentations.

Ron G Parker says: Hi Karen..

Karen Smith says: I am planning to use the verbiage from the Word docs in the SAEAF DITA document, and add in any additional material from the powerpoints that is different.

Jane Curry says: I certainly see the opportunity in the future when a graphic is it's own sub-topic - people could grab them from the SAEAF Book and add their own stuff - but at least there would be a authorative source

Karen Smith says: By the way, do you have the updated Word docs for Decks 2, 3, and 4 ready yet?

Karen Smith says: I will experiment with making the graphic its own topic or a simple jpg file. Then people could reuse the same jpg graphic over and over

Jane Curry says: I think in terms of GF, BF & ECCF, which are Decks 2, 3 & 4

Karen Smith says: I'm not sure which way would be best for the graphics so I will need to experiment

Cecil Lynch says: Karen, the quetin came up as to what tool you are using. so we can undersatnd the output capability. What is it?

Karen Smith says: I'm using Serna XML free editor and the DITA OT, which makes creating output more challenging than using a professional editor such as Arbortext or Structured Framemaker.

Charlie Mead says: so, you need an updated word doc for ECCF?

Karen Smith says: I'm thinking about downloading the trial version of the Serna enterprise XML editor when I am ready to do the actual dita conversion as it will speed up the process

Charlie Mead says: john Koisch is supposed to produce the BF document...jane the GF doc

Karen Smith says: yes, I need an updated word doc for ECCF, BF, and governance to include in the saeaf dita document

Ron G Parker says: Hi Karen... would you be able to produce a DITA Topic Map for our call next week?

Anthony Julian says: Karen: What is the October 19 deadline you have referred?

Karen Smith says: Not sure as it depends on when I am able to get the Word docs for decks 2, 3, 4

Karen Smith says: The Oct 19 deadline is for completing the second round edits and producing a draft ddita outline (not the ditamap file itself) on paper.

Karen Smith says: I think that I will need more time -- until next Thursday to have the draft outline ready. I'm almost finished incorporating the review comments in the Intro. I don't have any more new editing work to do until the new Word docs area ready

Karen Smith says: I'll work on the graphics AFTER I complete the draft outline (good thing to do while awaiting feedback from the ArB)

Charlie Mead says: karen...can you send me the ECCF deck so i can make sure the doc is aligned

Karen Smith says: yes I will send you what I have from the April ECCF deck

Karen Smith says: Haven't changed anything in it except to insert comments

Ron G Parker says: Karen, Jane feels that we have enough information in the decks and other material to at least know what the spectrum of topics are, and to be able to take a stab at the DITA topic map.

Charlie Mead says: i dont understand...i did the April ECCF deck and wrote the Intro and ECCF docs (in April)....material that i combined for the Sept Atlanta morning tutorial...what is it you need from me?

Karen Smith says: that makes sense. I will use the info from the slides in decks 2, 3, 4 to start creating the topic outline. That way the Word docs don't need to be ready that soon

Charlie Mead says: the April ECCF deck and doc were aligned by definition...

Karen Smith says: I have the April ECCF deck, the Atlanta tutorial, and the ECCF deep dive slides. What I don't have is your revised ECCF Word doc. I only have the original Deck 4 Word doc.

Ron G Parker says: Exactly... before finalizing content, we need to test that the Topic Map is framed well. Also, it makes it easier for people to contribute when we see how this may hang together.

Karen Smith says: yes, you guys can look over the ditamap outline and make any changes that you think are necessary

Charlie Mead says: so, i don't think we need to talk...however, if you can send me a graphically up-to-date ECCF doc, i can make sure it's OK....

Charlie Mead says: yes, that sounds fine...thanks karen...

Charlie Mead says: the atlanta presentation has material from the Intro deck and doc as well...do you have Intro as a separate topic still?

Karen Smith says: I have enough to keep me busy for a week, so that will give Jane and John more time to work on their Word docs before I take an editorial look at them.

Karen Smith says: yes, I still have the intro deck as a separate topic

Karen Smith says: is it still needed? It's quite long

Karen Smith says: In contrast the intro material in the atlanta deck is much shorter (better for the audience)

Ron G Parker says: So can we take a stab at that for next Thursday?

Karen Smith says: yes

Charlie Mead says: karen -- i think you and i need to talk...do you have a few minutes? i don't know what you need from me...sorry...

Ron G Parker says: Lovely.

Charlie Mead says: are you on skype?

Karen Smith says: My understanding, Charlie is that you were revising the ECCF Word doc.

Karen Smith says: yes I am on skype

Karen Smith says: Is my understanding correct, or is the April ECCF Word doc still the latest and greatest version?

Karen Smith says: No concerns with the slides as I have all of them

Charlie Mead says: ah, i understand now...sorry...so, you want me to make sure that the ECCF doc is accurate...it mostly is, but i will read through it...it needs lots of graphics (the slide numbers are noted in the doc)...can you paste in the graphics so i can make sure i am looking at the right stuff...the main thing that's missing is the "localization" veneer in the Specification Stack graphics and the illustration of the concept of Compatibility

Karen Smith says: and you have those graphics in the ATlanta presentation. Ok, I'll go ahead and paste in the missing graphics and send you the file so that you can add the supporting text. Does that sound okay?

• Adjournment

The meeting was adjourned at 10:00 am U. S. CDT. Tony 15:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC)