20100701 arb minutes

From HL7Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Template:Arb minutes Architecture Board

July 1, 2010 Late Call

Attendance

Name PresentAffiliationE-mail address
Bond,Andy Yes NEHTAandy.bond@nehta.gov.au
Curry, Jane Yes Health Information Strategiesjanecurry@healthinfostrategies.com
Grieve, Grahame No Kestral Computinggrahame@kestral.com.au
Julian, Tony Yes Mayo Clinicajulian@mayo.edu
Koisch, John Yes Guidewire Architecture jkoisch@guidewirearchitecture.com
Loyd, Patrick No Gordon point Informatics LTD. patrick.loyd@gpinformatics.com
Lynch, Cecil Yes ontoreason LLCclynch@ontoreason.com
Mead, Charlie Yes National Cancer Institutemeadch@mail.nih.gov
Nelson, Dale No II4SMdale@zed-logic.com
Ocasio, Wendell No Agilex Technologieswendell.ocasio@agilex.com
Parker, Ron No CA Infowayrparker@eastlink.ca
Quinn, John No Health Level Seven, Inc.jquinn@HL7.org
Shakir, Abdul-Malik No Shakir ConsultingAshikir@COH.org
Guests
Haddorff, Richard No Mayo Clinichaddorff.richard@mayo.edu
Hufnagel, Steve Yes U.S. Department of Defense, Military Health System Stephen.Hufnagel.ctr@tma.osd.mil
Koehn, Marc No Gordon point Informatics LTDmarc.koehn@gpinformatics.com
Laakso, Lynn No Health Level Seven Internationallynn@hl7.org
McGaughey, Skip No
Peres, Greg No CA Infowaygperes@infoway-inforoute.ca
Robertson, Scott Yes Kaiser Permanente</td?scott.robertson@kp.org
Rospide, Eddy No Albany Medical Center rospide@mail.amc.edu
Smith, Karen Yes HL7 Technical editorkaren@smithspot.com
Thompson, Cliff Yes OntoSolutions LLCcliff@ontosolutions.com
Wrightson, Ann No HL7 UKann.wrightson@wales.nhs.uk

Call to Order

Meeting was called to order at 6:02pm U. S. EDT with Charlie Mead as chair and Tony Julian as scribe. Quorum was attained.

Approval of Agenda

The agenda was approved by affirmation.

  • Call to order
  • Approval of Agenda
  • Review of Minutes June 24, 2010 Minutes
  • Peer Review
    • Comment disposition
    • Next steps
  • Other business and planning for next meeting
  • Adjournment

Approval of Minutes

MMS to approve June 24, 2010 Minutes Charlie/Jane (4-0-1)

Peer Review

Charlie Mead: I went to I&C and asked them to take over eccf, providing any support they needed. They discussed, and agreed in principle. They are scheduling a call to discuss what their position is on the ECCF, and how they might formally take over, including writing the next version based on the comments. Plan is that we will have to give them a lot of hand holding, they are willing. That would address the comments. In case of contradiction/confilict, Arb will intervene. They will take over by October WGM.

Jane Curry: Changes to ECCF are minor compared to BF.

Charlie Mead: In addition NCI is working on IG for the ECCF, and they are interested - second version will be available by end of july, operational by 2nd week in september. The NCI document will guide them. The hope is to have I&C take over by October meeting.

Jane Curry: It is beginning to look like we need to have two IGs- one HL7 specific, one for use outside of HL7.

Charlie Mead: NCI is confronting the notion that ECCF IG is on several levels, build their own down to implementation as is. We should provide guidelines on how to do that. Could be harmonization of DOD and NCI work. DOD is not bound to RIM, NCI is. I&C will take over the ECCF IG for HL7, not the ECCF.

Jane Curry: In terms of the BF what approach do we use? A lot of the comments were BF.

Charlie Mead: More substantive and wide-ranging about the BF. When Ron and I talked in Rio, the basic strategy was to turn to John Koisch in availability. Some issues are BF, some are BF implementation, some are philosphical about messages vs services.

John Koisch: I sent e-mail to Charlie: I went through all of the comments and gave dispositions for most of them. Lots of Lloyds comments were strategic. Lloyd cannot see the BF realized in the MIF. He does not see how BF will be in that. I proposed that we can wait and see what comes out of NCI - but will not satisfy Lloyd. Ultimately we need to have sessions with Lloyd to create the BF in MIF. This speaks to a bunc of things - there is a set of meta-model discussions at MnM. There are those who dont see the MIF as a meta-model at all. How do you want to deal with Lloyds concerns?

Charlie Mead: A core question - is it the case that a native meta-model which would make the BF more concrete - that could be captured in BF artifacts. John, you said that you, patrick, and Grahame were working on a BF meta-model. Is this relative to Lloyds comments?

John Koisch: The problem is the intersection between the MIF and the meta-model. Charlie Mead: Are you, patrick, and Grahame were working on a BF meta-model?

John Koisch: It has been ongoing.

Charlie Mead: is anyone beside NCI working on the bf-meta-model? NCI will have done by the end of summer, possibly end of September. If there is no formal work at HL7, all we can do is let NCI publish, then thrash/update it. DOD - Steve Hufnagel is interested in the IF, but not ready to work on BF yet. To have the discussion about the MIF is that without a meta-model, we cannot have the discussion.

Jane Curry: There are points of clarification that are not a result of insufficient specificity. Charlie Mead: Agreed. Meaningful next version will have to address the points, as well as the meta-model aspect. There are things we will have to push on harder.

Jane Curry: It will need that additional excercise through implementation to vet the model. maybe what we do is a integration at the higher level of the concepts between ECCF and BF, as the GF and IF come forward, there is an opportunity to get some core concepts.

Charlie Mead: In terms of the IF, Cecil is running behind, but he will have a draft by next week. It will be doing it under contract for NCI, so it may be jaundiced in favor of NCI, but will be relevant. We need to have peer-reviewable core parts.

Cecil Lynch: I am not making NCI specific, only information specific.

Charlie Mead: NCI relevant.

Cecli Lynch: Dealing with heading off ONG on NAIM. The concepts of what we can do with RIM versus NAIM?

Jane Curry: 11179 is the standard, not doing something different?

Cecil Lynch: It is what the ONC is proposing as the standard. HL7 models are meta-datamodels, and should not be constrained to 11179, nor mandated that 11179 be the conformance standard for medical records. HL7 RIM is top down, 11179 is middle-in.

Jane Curry: I have considered 11179 as a data dictionary approach.

Cecil Lynch: NCI is thrashing to find that the RIM model is better than 11179, wich is years too late. Does my discussion of 1179 meet your approval?

Charlie Mead: It is correct.

Next Steps

Tony Julian: What are the next steps. Karen has deadlines for publishing.

Karen Smith: Yes.

Charlie Mead: I think that we have a path - we need to distinguish between HL7 IG and ECCF. I would be able to do the edits on the ECCF to work with the HL7 I&C group, do determine core, and get it into shape by october meeting.

Charlie Mead: Ron was addressing the Intro - Charlie will ask Ron, and they collectively will deal with it.

Jane Curry: Is the cross-framework analysis likely to be to the point of helping?

Cecil Lynch: What is cross-framekwork?

Jane Curry: Intent to do harmonization between SAIF and TOGAF.

Cecil Lynch: IF will provide a core for it -the equivalent cross-domain bridge.

Steve Hufnagel: We were deciding if TOGAF fits within the architecture. There were some e-mails about TOGAF services.

Cecil Lynch: It is still agnostic to how you implement that. We will deal with services even in the informatio framework.

Jane Curry: Is the timing something to take into consideration?

Steve Hufnagel: Harmonization framework implemention draft done by October.

Cecil Lynch: We should have the IF ready before then.

Steve Hufnagel: Harmonization framework is to align the typical set of artifacts.

Jane Curry: it will be advantageous to many people, even if not formal. There are not that many who are doing it.

Tony Julian: I just left a meeting answering the question should we be doing and EF?

Steve Hufnagel: ECCF is a good way to organize what you are doing. Harmonization Framework defines a typical set of artifacts, how they fit in the ECCF, and look at the artifacts you are not producing.

Charlie Mead: I&C will take over IG for ECCF, Arb will go through the comments and produce response, so we have next version: Some comments will be in the I&C IG.

Steve Hufnagel: Should I&C own the Harmonization framework ?

Charlie Mead: No, Arb should do so. Cecil do you agree?

Ceclil Lynch: Yes.

Jane Curry: Would it be fair to state that the next version of the ECCF can be derived form the current version, as well as changes to be able to do an IG?

Charlie Mead: They will take the current ECCF, and collection of comments. I will help them understand the differences, so that they can create an ECCF IG out of the I&C folks. Charlie McKay and John Quinn are happy about I&C taking on the HL7 ECCF IG. I have not met with them post-Rio yet.

Jane Curry: Is that likely to be a reasonable pattern with other work Groups?

Charlie Mead: Dont know if it is as clean as the ECCF.

Tony Julian: Did not that come out from work on the dynamic model?

John Koisch: Yes, from InM, MnM, OO, SOA.

Jane Curry: Some potential to use the same engagement pattern?

John Koisch: All of those groups are engaged - the problem is that the most comments/strongest comments are from Lloyd. He has a specific and valid view of looking at the BF. I proposed working out a mif-ized version of the BF. Some of his comments were on content that come from discussions with Lloyd - it may be layout. If his comments have weight, as they should, they need to be addressed by him, not a matter of engaging a number of other people.

Steve Hufnagel: How do we handle Lloyds comments?

John Koisch: The problem is that the MIF is the solution framework for Hl7. His problem with VOCAB as well. You have to resolve his concerns, or mark them not-persuasive, working at a higher level.

Steve Hufnagel:John, you are going to work with him to resolve that.

John Koisch: You would have to mif-ize the BF before MnM would take it over.

Karen Smith: After all of the people send you their comments, and you gather them on one spreadsheet.

Jane Curry: Will be noting GF that addresses BF issues. Hope to have next version for informal peer review by Middle of July.

Other business and Planning for next meeting.

  • Call to order
  • Approval of Agenda
  • Approval of Minutes July 1, 2010 Minutes
  • Update from Charlie on Intro.
  • Update from Charlie Mead on ECCF discussions with I&C.
  • Update from Jane on GF.
  • Update from Cecil on IF.
  • Other business and planning for next meeting
  • Adjournment

Adjournment

MMS to adjourn Cliff/Steve at 7:04pm U.S. Eastern