2010-02-08 EA IP Alpha projects Minutes

TSC EA IP Advisory Group

Monday, February 8, 2010 03:00 PM (US Eastern Time, GMT -5)
To participate, dial 770-657-9270 and enter pass code 124466#
The online meeting link is https://www2.gotomeeting.com/join/475285443

back to EA IP
back to EA IP Meeting Agenda and Minutes

Agenda

Apologies

• Calvin Beebe
• Woody Beeler

Meeting Admin

Anticipated:

In attendance	Name	E-mail Address	Invited Members
x	Curry, Jane	janecurry@healthinfostrategies.com	Saeaf-alpha
x	Hamm, Russ	rhamm@apelon.com	Saeaf-alpha
x	Koehn, Marc	marc.koehn@gpinformatics.com	Saeaf-alpha, EA IP Advisory
x	Mike Kingery	mkingery@hl7.org	Saeaf-alpha
x	Laakso, Lynn	lynn@HL7.org	Saeaf-alpha, EA IP Advisory
x	Nelson, Dale	aleday.elsonnay@gmail.com, dale.nelson@ii4sm.com	Saeaf-alpha
x	Parker, Ron	rparker@infoway-inforoute.ca	Saeaf-alpha
x	Sirkovich, Igor	sirkovich@gmail.com	EA IP Advisory
x	Thompson, Clifford	cliff@ontosolutions.com	Saeaf-alpha
x	Van Dyke, Pat	vandykp@odscompanies.com	Saeaf-alpha

Agenda

1. Agenda Review- Marc noted that the flipchart issues live between the alpha projects and the TSC initiative to align some of our key foundation committees with the effort. Ron noted that project updates are not the best use of this time. Jane suggested project updates be maintained on the wiki. Send out a link with the notes today to the Alpha Project Progress section of the EA IP wiki. Jane notes that then participants who cannot attend the conference calls can still provide updates and see other statuses. (Wiki address is [1])
   • Flipchart issues from WGM:
     1. RIM alignment/positioning
        • Woody is leading the work with his groups. Jane asked if Cecil was involved with the subproject since he’s working with that section. Marc recommended Jane ping Cecil.
     2. ITS: what is a platform? Need to clarify.
        • Ann W. surfaced a question during the Phoenix Wed Q4 discussion, on what constitutes a "Platform" in moving from PIMs to PSMs. Ron commented on PIM and PSM are around physical implementation. Talking about platform in the XML space is independent. Platform independent is independent of computing environment. Platform holds difference between logical and physical. Need to reconcile language from RM-ODM. XML schemas can be applied in many contexts. If computing environment is agnostic then it is PIM. At WGM, a subsequent meeting was held to bring some clarity. Dale was not aware, and welcomed the news. Dale addressed XML ITS as intersection where platform is XML and tooling issues arose dependent on which technology platform it was deployed. Is it enough to define where the game ends and the implementable technology begins? Technology viewpoint binding is still an issue. Looking to have MnM create a hot topic wiki page for this discussion. Marc asks will the ArB provide more clarification, or will ITS propose definition? How do we know that we are done… Jane thinks it has to be in the SAIF book but informed by an alpha project. Dale says there will be further discussion on the ITS call tomorrow. Marc suggested that Dale ping Ann W. to see if she can participate.
     3. Placement of concepts/artifacts such as RIM& MIF into the framework. RIM is definitely an information model, Cecil working on the Information Model through the SAIF work. Ron notes that the ArB was hoping that the projects will inform the ArB on where the current artifacts should go. Marc noted that PASS folks ran into a similar program, at first wondering where the RIM fit and later recognizing that the issue was more the use of a single reference model when data might have to travel from a health care context - where the RIM is "easily" applicable - to a non health-care context where other models might apply. Action Item Marc to follow up with PASS folks to see if this issue is ready to be surfaced to the ArB.
     4. Role of a transforming tool – ITS tooling to transform one representation of ITS to another. Ron notes its’ not consistently understood how the transformation moves form the upper left hand corner down the stack in an automated fashion. The tooling will be fundamental, eventually but more work is needed. Tools that declare conformance to a particular version of a standard are relevant, notes Jane. Versioning as well as tool currency/conformance issue for other technology standards in addition to HL7. Ron notes we’re talking about a set of repositories that teams work on and others use to transform other things. Someday this will be required but we’re a long way off. Marc notes: The role is clear; the execution is the hard part. Can the ArB note the few transforms that are the highest priority? Ron says there needs to be overlays as well as transforms. Jane notes there is input needed from foundation WGs like MnM.
     5. Targeting audiences: architects vs standards writers.
        • Need to allow architects to identify where to place components. Need to acknowledge specifications developers and implementers as a separate audience.
     6. Stating a preferred paradigm – barring Jobst’s input this issue is a non-starter; with no supporters it is regarded as not feasible nor is the role of a standards organization like HL7. Ron notes that the peer review of the SAIF material it will resurface and be addressed there, and he has addressed this with Jobst. Remaining items deferred to next call.
     7. Preserve legacy value & explain/show where it exemplified SAEAF principles
     8. Conformance: need multiple levels/points, but need to communicate clearly to applicable audiences
     9. Be aware of stakeholder needs at various levels
     10. Resourcing?
   • Discussions
     • Knowledge harvesting and Information Sharing -next steps
     • What should be the plan for Rio Weds Q4?

Adjourned 4 pm.