20091112 arb minutes

Architecture Board

November 12, 2009

Attendance

Name	Present	With	Affiliation	E-mail address
Aneja, Paul	?	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	?	ArB	ontoreason LLC	clynch@ontoreason.com
Mead, Charlie	?	ArB	Booz Allen Hamilton	charlie.mead@booz.com
Nelson, Dale	Yes	Arb	II4SM	dale@zed-logic.com
Ocasio, Wendell	?	ArB	Agilex Technologies	wendell.ocasio@agilex.com
Parker, Ron	Yes	ArB	CA Infoway	rparker@eastlink.ca
Platt, Joe	?	Guest	Ekagra Software Technologies	jplatt@ekagrasoft.com
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	?	Guest	OntoSolutions LLC	cliff@ontosolutions.com
VanArsdall, Eddie	?	Guest

Agenda

Call to order Approval of Agenda Approval of Agenda Review of Karens work on the DITA strategy Review of Charlie's note on ECCF Alpha project updates Review of communications plan Communications plan

Call to order

The meeting was called to order at 10:00 AM U. S. Eastern. Quorum was attained.

Approval of Agenda

MMS to approve agenda Jane/Tony (3-0-1)

Approval of Minutes

MMS to approve minutes of the October 29, 2009 telcon Jane/Tony (3-0-1)

Review of Karens work on the DITA strategy

Tony Julian:Karen - We are discussing logistics at this time

Karen Smith: I see

Karen Smith: the interpreter doesn't have a link to the website

Tony Julian:Karen - You have control

Karen Smith: I have brought up the SAEAF DITA project strategy. Do you also want to see the DITA outlines?

Ron G Parker: Yes we would like to see the outlines as well.

JANE: We were to review, and give comments by Monday:

Ron: I did not.

Tony: I did not

Karen Smith: now you see the BF outline. I will need to incorporate all the outlines into the master DITA outline.

Karen Smith: yes, right

Jane: We are behind - there is a hard stop on the week before. We are supposed to have an actual draft. We are supposed to review it. I told John Quinn we are behind, and will have a DRAFT by the date, but it will not be a final review. Karen has completed, and is taking another look at the editing of ECCF and BF.

Jane: She has not started transposing the outlines to the DITA structure.

Karen Smith: Last week and this week, I edited the BF and ECCF Word documents. yes, I'm behind in the editing and trying to finish it so that I can get back to working on the DITA project.

Jane: She will run out of editing work, and will need to take the edits to the DITA outline. If she has to go back an forth, it will slow things.

Karen Smith: I plan to send the ECCF word doc to Jane, cliff, and John today for a quck review before sending it on to Charlie. Yes, once i put the stuff into the DITA document, I will do any further edits in the DITA document rather than in the Word docs. Would that pose a problem to anyone?

Ron: What I would like to talk about, John K has provided feedback: Hopefully what Karen is producing is close to what we need. Our week-before-Christmas deadline was so that we would have ready for January WGM. We need to get to TSC.

Karen Smith: yes

Jane: Our communication plan needs to ask for external review. Theo other thing we were supposed to be doing is using this material to support the ALPHA. The Board is considering the $200,000 for tooling, any technical editing next year will have to come from that budget.

Jane: We need to be conservative in changes, due to budget restrictions.

Karen Smith: yes, for phase 1, as we are running low on time.

Karen Smith: The big job was adding and tweaking graphics for the eccf word document, as well as the icwg and compatibility comments

Ron: It would be reasonable for out constituents to expect us to explain how doing this in DITA is helpful to them. We need to provide exposure to ALPHA, and get feedback observation or perspective, on the utility of the outline, and the way DITA allows us to expose.

Karen Smith: good idea

Ron: Facilitators action item: Need to expose the material as soon as Karen provides.

Karen Smith: by doing it in dita, you will see the entire saeaf documentation set rather than pieces in varios word docs and powerpoints. You can see it online on the web or in a pdf for example

Jane: Before it gets into DITA the materials need to be reviewd: get out of ALPHA which artifacts are in which portion of the spec. stack. We talk of topics being the primary organization of the ECCF - are they equivalent to ballot 'topics'? ArB will have to rule.

Karen Smith: I'm concerned. How long would I need to wait before I can get the contents into DITA format?

Karen Smith: It's no small task

Karen Smith: are you talking about asking the alpha groups to review the material, as well as the arb members?

Jane: Which artifacts fall into wich viewpoint? All specs feed the ballot package - we should describe the ballot package in ECCF terms. Until we do, the ballot package is the definition.

Jane: As soon as she has completed her run-through, she should start on the DITA outline.

Karen Smith: I will get the papers into DITA, to give people time to review.

Karen Smith: if the alpha team tests the saeaf dita document, they can provide feedback for phase 2 next year.

Ron: We dont worry about it in DITA, the ALPHA project teams will test. I dont want to show up at WGM without ALPH insight.

Karen Smith: ok

Ron: On Janes comment, refactoring the ballot package in ECCF terms is critical.

Karen Smith: Let meknow how that would affect the eccf documentation (the ballot package)

Jane: Validate that the current publishing is aligned with ECCF. That brings us to outstanding work items. Style guide for DAM. Are we going to have style guides for other artifacts, -phase 2.

Ron: I would like a the next WGM to have a meeting to talk about ECCF and its alignment with the ballot package in publishing.

Jane: Yes. It strikes me that there is one slide which is the complete spec - which pieces of ballot fall into which ?

Karen Smith: that is slide 44 in the april eccf ppt

Jane: ECCF is the core of everything. BF and GOvernance are refinements.

Ron: I will check with TSC

Jane: Lookignat GOM for articulation of workflow. Approval is specified in GOM. GOM does not talk about alignment, only appeal process. Does not articulate who reviews wihch constraints.

Jane: SD's were supposed to deal with cross/work group issues, then raise problems to TSC. Closest we have come is reviewing projects, but criteria in not in the GOM.

Jane: The level of specificity needs to be explicit. Acknowledged that quality criteria are gates of steps through workflow.

Karen Smith: does the gom provide guidelines for reviews?

Ron G Parker: No.. provides guidelines for ballots

Ron: Review of Charlies notes were handled withECCF updates

Karen Smith: I incorporated those updates in the ECCF Word doc

Karen Smith: but NOT the stuff about levels of maturity as that seems to be undecided

Updates from the alpha projects

Ron: Next gereratio of blueprint, using SAEAF for product expression. We will be looking at DITA for structuring work product. I will have them take a look at DITA. I have the same probem moving throught the stack. Have drawn no conclusions.

Ron: We are lookign at TOGAF methodology, provide analysis of overlap, and how it might inform the stack.

Dale: No progress in ITS area. We are struggling to make quorum - and we discuss ballot materials. Despite a strong showing, we have not had the enthusium pour over into our phone calls - we are at a standstill.

Ron: Would it be helpful: Is there something about ITS spec that will surface?

Dale: Issue is small group of active people, and have a full plate of already known ballotable projects already in progress. We targeted the inauguration of the SAEAF work was "new its", and have not had the bandwidth.

Karen Smith: Ron, do you want control of the GTM session back again? Still showing my screen.

Ron G Parker: Yes please

Ron G Parker: Thanks Karen...

Karen Smith: ok

Ron G Parker: Are you good to proceed now?

Karen Smith: ok done

Ron G Parker: Thanks

Dale: Need facilitated session between now and next WGM

Tony Julian: Ron is attending TSC in Charlies absence.

Meeting was adjourned at 11:05 U.S. Eastern

Tony 16:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)