This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here
<meta name="googlebot" content="noindex">

2010-03-08 EA IP Alpha projects Minutes

From HL7Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

TSC EA IP Advisory Group

Monday, March 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

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



Meeting Admin

In attendance Name E-mail Address Invited Members
x Jorgenson, Don Saeaf-alpha
x Koehn, Marc Saeaf-alpha, EA IP Advisory
x Laakso, Lynn Saeaf-alpha, EA IP Advisory
regrets Ocasio, Wendell Saeaf-alpha
regrets Parker, Ron Saeaf-alpha
x Samake, Modibo EA IP Advisory
x Sirkovich, Igor EA IP Advisory
x Thompson, Clifford Saeaf-alpha
regrets Tripp, Edward Saeaf-alpha, EA IP Advisory
regrets Van Hentenryck, Karen Saeaf-alpha


  1. Agenda Review
    • Flipchart issues from WGM:

      Discussed 2010-02-08
      1. RIM alignment/positioning
      2. ITS: what is a platform? Need to clarify.
      3. Placement of concepts/artifacts such as RIM & MIF into the framework
      4. Role of a transforming tool
      5. Targeting audiences: architects vs standards writers
      6. Stating a preferred paradigm

        Start again here
      7. Preserve legacy value & explain/show where it exemplified SAIF principles
        • HL7 already uses a number of good practices. Can we highlight areas where this is true already? Perhaps ask Charles Parisot, who raised the issue at the WGM, to identify some. Don suggested that he was mapping back to the IHE. Action Item: Marc will reach out to him.
      8. Conformance: need multiple levels/points, but need to communicate clearly to applicable audiences
        • Setting expectations appropriately, what we mean by setting levels of conformance. Don notes there is concern over what is acceptable for a conformance specification at the conceptual level. When is a conceptual-level conformance statement appropriate? PASS access defined ocnformance points at conceptual level as a basis for the work derived from it, to create DSTU path. There was strong consensus within the group, and little comment coming back in the ballot; silence may not mean consensus however.
      9. Be aware of stakeholder needs at various levels
        • Service model specifications and contracts, who owns those? PASS is coordinating with CBCC but also has some overlap with Security work group. If they reference a class or class attribute, decide if a core information model (owned by someone else) or something else. Does this speak to the stakeholders of the different specifications? How do we speak to a clinician who does not read the architect-speak? Cliff indicates the ArB is aware of this and working on documentation in regards to implementation; suggests asking more information of Charlie Mead, John Koisch, or Cecil Lynch. Cliff is working on ontology and finding roles, actors, addressing various aspects is challenging. Cliff asks Don to send him some information on the PASS project.
      10. Resourcing?
        • Need to hear back from alpha projects other than PASS to chime in on the ten items and help drive discussion over the next meeting or two. Cliff suggests documentation outside the conference call that bring information for discussion. It was thought that a call with a verbal update was intended to be easier on their own resource constraints than having to write up status updates. Marc will check with the ArB to see how they want to proceed. Don votes for phone calls. We'll do a little more aggressive reach out to the projects and cancel the next call if no response is forthcoming.

Adjourned 3:32 PM EST