20100304 arb minutes
Template:Arb minutes Architecture review Board Meeting Agenda
March 4, 2010
|Curry, Jane||?||Health Information Strategiesfirstname.lastname@example.org|
|Grieve, Grahame||?||Kestral Computingemail@example.com|
|Julian, Tony||Yes||Mayo Clinicfirstname.lastname@example.org|
|Koisch, John||Yes||Guidewire Architectureemail@example.com|
|Loyd, Patrick||Yes||Gordon point Informatics LTD.||firstname.lastname@example.org|
|Lynch, Cecil||Yes||ontoreason LLCemail@example.com|
|Mead, Charlie||?||National Cancer Institutefirstname.lastname@example.org|
|Ocasio, Wendell||?||Agilex Technologiesemail@example.com|
|Parker, Ron||Yes||CA Infowayfirstname.lastname@example.org|
|Quinn, John||?||Health Level Seven, Inc.||jquinn@HL7.org|
|Shakir, Abdul-Malik||?||Shakir Consulting||ShakirConsulting@cs.com|
|Smith, Karen||Yes||HL7 Technical email@example.com|
|Stevens, Helen||Yes||Gordon Point Informatics Ltd.||firstname.lastname@example.org|
- Roll Call
- Call to Order
- Review of Agenda
- Approval of Minutes
- Review of Wiki organization
- What do we need to do to make it meet our communication plan?
- Review the Peer Review spreadsheet
- Finalize the list of required reviewers
- Task force Statement
- Decision Making Practices
- Other business and planning for next meeting
Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 11:05 U.S. Easter with Ron Parker as Chair and Tony Julian as scribe. Quorum was achieved.
Review of agenda
The agenda was accepted.
Approval of Minutes
MMS to approve the minutes of February 25, 2010 Minutes (John/Tony) (3-0-1)
Ron Parker: concering the Security Ontology report to TSC: Cecil will be working with group, we are supportive, and will help to shape it to make it achievable.
Helen Stevens: It was sent back to Steering Divison.
Ron parker: We wanted to convey we were supportive, just need more input.
Review the Peer Review spreadsheet
To finalize the list of required reviewers FTSD should be asked to review all of the documents: INTRO, ECCF, BF, GF.
In addition, structure and semantic design, and strucdoc should review the BF. Domain experts should review BF & GF.
Karen Smith: Think the BF Paperwork should be sent for the peer review. WOuld like to set up a schedule to improve this as far as the safety document papers, becuase I need to have all comments by April 9, so I would have time to type it up to finish.
Ron Parker: Is there an expectation that we would be cycling the comments back before the spring partnership meeting? We will not cycle the comments back until after that.
Karen Smith: When do you think that might happen?
Ron Parker: Middle of april gives us time to review before spring meeting. Work Groups need two weeks to review.
Helen Stevens: You need the document out for four weeks for the review. You might want to book a quarter with the expected work groups in anticipation of the dialog. You must submit agenda two weeks in advance.
Ron Parker: ECCF has already been pulled by conformance. If we can get it out next week, that gives us march, and have comments due by first week of April.
Ron Parker: Dont believe Karen will have to toucht the materials until after the spring WGM.
Karen Smith: I still have plans on working on things, I need to make adjustments to the SAIF book to add the BF.
Ron Parker: We are presuming you will ba able to participate on the calls in April.
Helen Stevens: I agree with identifying the key stakeholders, but it must be overtly available to all stakeholders.
Ron Parker: I will work with Lynn to publicise.
John Koisch: When you do a review there is a minimum number of voters, but this is not that - what do we do if we dont get participation? What is plan B if we dont get feedback, or at what point are we done?
Ron Parker: We are providing opportunity. We will announcement, wait a week, advertise again. Then we will notify the TSC of our concerns with lack of participation. If we dont get the coverage, we will consider ouselves done at the spring partnership. We understand there will be comments on appropriateness and utility.
John Koisch: At what point are we done?
Ron Parker: We will do due diligencs. We will make the documents transparent. We will provide the opportunity - if they don't show up, we will continue to publish.
Ron Parker: According to PIC we should not accept marked-up documents, just line-numbers and comments.
Tony Julian: Make sure that is in the announcement.
Ron Parker: The expectations will be specific.
Task force Statement
Ron Parker: How do you want to work with this? Ron projected the V2/V3/CDA Issues Resolution Task Force document. Task force Document
Comment: The diversity of offerings is a weakness for HL7 in the market.
Patrick Loyd: The diversity of offerings is not a weakness in Canada. There will be permutations as we go forward. My OO hat understands the problems in V2 that V3 solves. From a Canadian perspective, diversity has not been marketed as a strength.
Ron Parker: When we look at the sematic mappings we need to look at this as a future state, if there is a significant value proposition, then some will skip V3 and move to that pattern.
John Koisch: V2 scales to devleopers, V3 does not. You can do a V2 message in a couple of days, V3 requires implicit infrastructure layout. Over time V3 will become more viable as we remove the elements that scale it for developers. We are just not there yet.
Ron Parker: When V3 began the assumption was that you retire v2, and do v3. V3 is practical wor more complex work dyamic.
Cecil Lynch: One of my clients had v2 in place - when you get into services across an enterprise, V3 has aspects that are important. The RIM works, you can build a consistent data model, and pass services. There is a lack of up-front tooling - it is not easy for business analysts. We need tools to capture v3 sematics from the business side. We dont gather the V3 requirements appropriately.
Patrick Loyd: We dont have an organizational approach to V3 - V3 functionality is not always brought fourth from V2. You cant order a diet, or an Admit using V3 normative specs.
John Koisch: You can build beautiful backends from the RIM, people have not goten clarity of the RIM as an object model. People are beginning to see where the RIM belongs. It is an effective means to capture semantics, but the methodology is missing.
Dale Nelson: The uptake on V3 is lacking because people do not have tooling. I am not sure that V2 had specific tooling to accomplish the purpose. People were willing to do the work for V2, but are not willing to invest in the requirements of V3.
Cecil Lynch: Four years ago we built an ontology for CDC using frames. We mapped all of the V2 message attributes to V3. This idea of having the mappings between the two was necessary. There is value to putting it into the object model. It is helpful and necessary in order to get the migration.
Ron Parker: We have not done well with V3 is explain what we want to achieve. What is the big so-what? The premise is modeling the semantics well elimintes the pre-negotiated agreements. SAIF allows us to formalize the interactions. It presumes that the organizations interfacing care about that. If you dont want to do analytics on the content, then it does not resonate well. I am looking at a lifetime record.
John Koisch: Life sciences push back hard on a model.
Ron Parker: I had an aha moment dealing with research: The idea of recirculating data for knowledge is wrong - we lock down the context in the research instrument. They have been taught that they have to design research instruments to gain the quality. All of HL7 in V2 and V3
Tony Julian: U.S. Meaningful use is a kick in the groin to this. It forces V2.3.1, V2.5.1, or CDA. And while CDA is V3, there is not financial gain to use V3 Messaging.
Cecil Lynch: We like the model, the artifacts, and can stick any information into the backend model. What is the value of moving V3 messages across the service layer? Everything in the backend is V3, but they will not push messages using V3 Messaging.
Ron Parker: ArB's responsibility is within the SAIF to produce the framework. On next call , we discuss an action plan, or next steps on how to treat the subject material. I propose that we look at the minutes, and give 30minutes on the next call. Do we need to take this offline? Should a couple take if off line, and come back with a comment.
Decision Making Practices
http://www.hl7.org/Library/Committees/arb/ARBDEcisionmakingpracticesv3.0.doc Defer to next week.
Other business and planning for next meeting
meeting was adjourned at 12:00pm U.S. EDT Tony Julian