20100311 arb minutes

From HL7Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Template:Arb minutes Architecture review Board Meeting Agenda

 March 11, 2010

Back to Agenda-minutes


Name PresentAffiliationE-mail address
Bond,Andy Yes NEHTAandy.bond@nehta.gov.au
Curry, Jane Yes Health Information Strategiesjanecurry@healthinfostrategies.com
Grieve, Grahame ? Kestral Computinggrahame@kestral.com.au
Julian, Tony Yes Mayo Clinicajulian@mayo.edu
Koisch, John Yes Guidewire Architecture jkoisch@guidewirearchitecture.com
Loyd, Patrick ? Gordon point Informatics LTD. patrick.loyd@gpinformatics.com
Lynch, Cecil Yes ontoreason LLCclynch@ontoreason.com
Mead, Charlie ? National Cancer Institutemeadch@mail.nih.gov
Nelson, Dale ? II4SMdale@zed-logic.com
Ocasio, Wendell ? Agilex Technologieswendell.ocasio@agilex.com
Parker, Ron Yes CA Infowayrparker@eastlink.ca
Quinn, John ? Health Level Seven, Inc.jquinn@HL7.org
Shakir, Abdul-Malik ? Shakir ConsultingShakirConsulting@cs.com
Hamm, Russ Yes Apelon, Incrhamm@apelon.com
Robertson, Scott Yes Kaiser Permanentescott.robertson@kp.org
Smith, Karen Yes HL7 Technical editorkaren@smithspot.com
Thompson, Cliff Yes OntoSolutions LLCcliff@ontosolutions.com


  • Call to Order
  • Review of Agenda
  • Approval of Minutes

March 4, 2010 Minutes

  • Expectations for SAIF word documents(Karen Smith)
  • Review of Wiki organization ( Jane)
    • What do we need to do to make it meet our communication plan?
  • Task force Statement (30 Minutes)
  • Decision Making Practices(Tony Julian)


  • Other business and planning for next meeting
  • Adjournment

Call to Order

The meeting was called to order at 6:00pm U.S. Eastern by Ron Parker with Tony Julian as scribe. Quorum was attained.

Review of Agenda

Agenda amended to include Security project scope statement.

Approval of Minutes


Expectations for SAIF word documents(Karen Smith)

After the DITA tool is evaluated, we will license, and remove the non-DITA files.

Ron Parker: Business assumptions of HL7.org.

Jane Curry: Karen will do knowledge and skill transfer to HL7HQ, so that Don Lloyd can continue the editing. There will need to be licenses for authors for maintenance enhancement. Part of the exploration.

Ron Parker: Can download from PDF, but editing will be done in the DITA space.

Jane Curry: We cant maintain both.

Ron Parker: I will talk to Charlie - I think he agrees.

Review of Wiki organization ( Jane)

  • What do we need to do to make it meet our communication plan?

Jane Curry: If you go back to ArB main page, there is a bunch of stale-dates stuff. We have communication channels we are not maintaining.

Ron Parker: Key issue is accessibility and readability.

Jane Curry: We updated it to point to the current point. When you look at the main page, there are a bunch of old old stuff, and stuff we never finished.

Ron Parker: All things SAIF should be accessible under one line item. Might want to take a look at some of the other elements, and make recommendations back to the group, about content missing at this level. Ron and Tony will collaborate.

Jane Curry: We have not done the communication plan.

Ron Parker: Challenges - I circulated a note about the peer review. Since the last meeting i have had budget problems. Whatever content we have for review will be pushed tomorrow. We have too many documents available. I created a peer-review sub-folder, holding the materials. Documents are at [| SAIF document for peer review]

Ron Parker: We will put the announcement out tomorrow.

Karen Smith: The ECCF word document in PDF will be available for Peer review.

Ron Parker: Document names are not meaningful. We need to be more impilcit in the naming convention.

Karen Smith: So, I can rename it Behavioral Framework for peer review 20100311.pdf

Karen Smith: The first one is SAEIF_DITA, and includes ECCF and Introduction.

Jane Curry: Charley needs to know it includes both.

Ron Parker: We need one document for SAIF intro, SAIF ECCF, BF, not a merged document.

Jane Curry: The DITA map for INTRO, and a separate one for ECCF. The point is that the way that this was done had to go through a step that put it out in RTF to put line numbers.

Ron Parker: Which we do not want for peer review.

Jane Curry: Four documents: Intro, ECCF, BF, Governance.

Karen Smith: What do we want?

Jane Curry: Generate a different document for each section. Governance will be PDF with line numbering. The one in DITA is ECCF.

Karen Smith: Remember I made a change to the word document, added the line numbers, could get that document separated to the ECCF. It will be easier to get that done. It is not ready on the computer.

Jane Curry: BF is not from DITA - just in word.

Karen Smith: I finished it for approval, but not for DITA.

Jane Curry: Only document for peer review from DITA source is ECCF.

Karen Smith: I get it now - we will be providing the new information.

Security Ontology Project Scope Statement

Cecil Lynch presented the new document. We spent an hour plus going through it. I presented the issues.

  • What is the HL7 artifact?
    • The ontology would represent an implementation technology representation - in class objects. We will think about an OWL representation.
    • Our concerns over the timeline - it was a huge scope, and an unrealistic timeline, which was not clear that they had.
      • Removed the binding to clinical ontologies, and changed to binding to Open Biomedical Ontology. There are no OBO's being used. If one wanted to do that, Bernd volunteered his PHD students, but that would be a research path.
      • Number 5:Instead of binding to ontologies they will map to clinical terminologies.(SNOMED). Removed clinical decision support. They will not translate from OBO. They will structure in HL7 artifacts, and can apply conformance.

John Koisch: Security and Privacy working Group? I do not get number 4, why in scope for security and privacy?

Cecil Lynch: Changed to Ontology driven Privacy decision support.

Jane Curry: Want to sync with policy engines.

John Koisch: Just want to set scope.

Ron Parker: Exteremely useful to me.

Cecil Lynch: We can help them get into SAIF. I had an objection to clinical decision support, outside of high-level privacy decision support. I want a vote.

Jane Curry: Friendly Amendment: It still has "Align with HL7 SAIF when sufficient".

Ron Parker: There is a perception that there is no utility with working with us. Is this a misspeak, or an underlying philosophy.

Cecil Lynch: Has to do with their lack of understanding on where to start.

Jane Curry: Do they understand the requirements phase?

Cecil Lynch: We do not have documents on how to do this.

Ron Parker: Requirements is easy. The subsequent is hard. It would require a dialog for us to understand, since there are not neat places to put this. I agree - we don't have today. They will inform our evolution of the material.

John Koisch: The ontology will pull apart the interoperability and security spaces. Cecil you wanted the HL7 Artifact is. We need a definition of what an HL7 artifact is.

Ron Parker: They have to embrace that they are providing foundational elements of SAIF.

Jane Curry: It strikes me that with the info framework in phase 2, we have the opportunity to leverage their work.

Cecil Lynch: My feeling is that until we can settle on the info framework it is difficult to see how to align this going through ECCF.

John Koisch: In Success Criteria: I would like to see a security and privacy will inform and influence a set of true services that deal with security - then HL7 would gain the service. Some may be application, some explicit between systems. I would like to include something like that in the success criteria.

Ron Parker: Are we inflating the scope, or is this a logical progression.

Cecil Lynch: You do not have any success criteria for mapping to clinical ontology - you have to build the ontology first. They are trying to draft ontologies, not finished - it will be informative. Not a big a piece as it looks.

Ron Parker: John is providing a logical pathway - points the way forward. We see the work as vital, and can see additional future work in this space from and architectural standpoint.

Jane Curry: That is what they are thinking about.

John Koisch: We scoped for governance - this crosses over.

Ron Parker: All of us have an appreciation. Any other comments are in the revised wording. Additionally we would like to assert the importance without inflating the scope.

John Koisch: FA _ Arb continues to engage as it moves forward.

Jane Curry: We are moving both forward at the same time.

John Koisch: Cecil - is this going to be a problem. I do not want them to not do this because we are jumping in.

Cecil Lynch: They have no experts on ontologies. Bernd has provided guidance down the OBO pathway, Did not know that you cannot reason against OBO, and no applications using OBO. SNOMED requires EL form of decision logic, not supported through OBO relationships. Learning process. They were happy to get the info, did not take as negative.

Cecil Lynch: Show them how they can immediately engage with SAIF.

Jane Curry: How do you know which SNOMED ct is in and which is out? The fact they are talking about policy, they need to be able to state the policies in terms of things the permit/prohibit viewing. Does the model have roles and use cases? They are jumping into an artifact without context.

Ron Parker: The ArB appreciates the opportunity to comment and contribute to the discussion on the project scope statement. We endorse the importance of this work, and we are comfortable with the revised scope statement. Moreover, we believe it is foundational to the evolution of SAIF.

John Koisch: the project direction should include a series of service specifications (may be sketched out) that would be motivated by the ontology that would provide an architectural direction for HL7 and its constituents. These services would, for example, deal with policy enforcement or information integrity in support of security and privacy, and would thus embed behavior with the information components that the ontology work will produce

Cecil Lynch: they are looking at reuse of that project in this one. We will have opportunity to comment on the other scope statement, which has not been discussed.

Jane Curry: They need to make the relationships explicit.

Cecil Lynch: They are using the same framework for implementing of services.

Ron G Parker: I think we need to reframe that statement a bit to indicate that we anticipate that they will document the requirements for the Draft Privacy Ontology using the SAIF principles, and that those requirements consider that the onotology needs to consider it will lead to additional project work... (everything John just said). This is foundational to further projects.

MMS: Motion to approve with the changes added..(Jane/John).(5-0-0)

Other business and planning for next meeting

  • Call to order
  • Approval of Agenda
  • approval of Minutes

March 4, 2010 Minutes March 11, 2010 Minutes

  • Task force Statement (30 Minutes)
  • Decision Making Practices(Tony Julian)


  • Other business and planning for next meeting
  • Adjournment


Meeting was adjourned at 7:04pm Eastern

Tony Julian 00:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC)