20100708 arb minutes

ArB Minutes

Meeting Information

HL7 ArB Work Group Meeting Minutes Location: Telcon		Date: 20100708 Time: 11:00am U.S. EDT
Facilitator	Ron Parker	Note taker(s)	Tony Julian
Attendee	Name	Affiliation
.	Bond,Andy	NEHTA
X	Curry, Jane	Health Information Strategies
.	Grieve, Grahame	Kestral Computing
X	Julian, Tony	Mayo Clinic
.	Koisch, John	Guidewire Architecture
.	Loyd, Patrick	Gordon point Informatics LTD.
.	Lynch, Cecil	ontoreason LLC
X	Mead, Charlie	National Cancer Institute
.	Nelson, Dale	II4SM
X	Ocasio, Wendell	Agilex Technologies
X	Parker, Ron	CA Infoway
.	Quinn, John	Health Level Seven, Inc.
.	Shakir, Abdul-Malik	Shakir Consulting
.	Guests
.	Haddorff, Richard	Mayo Clinic
X	Hufnagel, Steve	U.S. Department of Defense, Military Health System
.	Koehn, Marc	Gordon point Informatics LTD
X	Laakso, Lynn	Health Level Seven International
.	McGaughey, Skip	.
.	Peres, Greg	CA Infoway
.	Robertson, Scott	Kaiser Permanente
.	Rospide, Eddy	Albany Medical Center
X	Smith, Karen	HL7 Technical editor
X	Thompson, Cliff	OntoSolutions LLC
.	Wrightson, Ann	HL7 UK
Quorum Requirements Met: (yes/No)

Agenda

Agenda Topics

1. Call to order
2. Approval of Agenda
3. Approval of Minutes July 1, 2010 Minutes
4. Update from Charlie on Intro.
5. Update from Charlie Mead on ECCF discussions with I&C.
6. Update from Jane on GF.
7. Update from Cecil on IF.
8. Planning for next Working Group Meeting
9. collaborate with SOA on managing expectations for CTS2
10. OHT pilot value proposition survey
11. Other business and planning for next meeting

Supporting Documents
OHT_Architecture_Project_Value_Proposition_Survey (be sure to read the discussion page).

Minutes

Minutes/Conclusions Reached:

1. Approval of Minutes July 1, 2010 Minutes

Motion to approve the July 1, 2010 Minutes Jane Curry/Steve Hufnagel. Approved.

1. Update from Charlie on Intro.

• Charlie Mead - got the intro and comment sheet, and will commit to go through it this week. I am doing a first-cut GF for NCI that I will share with Jane - it is SOA oriented.

• Ron Parker: I will look at what gets done.

1. Update from Charlie Mead on ECCF discussions with I&C.

• Charlie Mead: Met with I&C. Agreed to develop ECCF IG informed by NCI and DOD IG's. Will meet again on August 10, 2010. At NCI we have an immature version, but the substantive version will be out July 31, 2010. Steve, I want to send them your IG as well as the NCI IG.

1. Update from Jane on GF.

• Jane Curry: I have updated the concept model that I reviewed with Ron to organize the definitions. I will be working on it close to full time next week.

• Ron Parker: Karen has produced updated strategy for review, for next call.

• Jane Curry: Any attempt by ArB to respond to OHT value proposition? If we cannot do it offline asynchronsously, can we do it online.

• Ron Parker: It is not appropriate for us to not comment. Next Call.

• Karen Smith: What is the topic for the next call?

• Ron Parker: Dita project strategy.

1. Update from Cecil on IF.

• Cecil will release tomorrow, July 9, 2010.

1. Other business and planning for next WGM

1. 1. Two tutorials
      1. Introduction to the HL7 Services-Aware Interoperability Framework (SAIF)===

Tuesday, October 5 / 9:00 am – 12:30 pm

Over the past two years, the HL7 Services-Aware Interoperability Framework (SAIF) has moved from a directive from the CTO to the Architecture Board (ArB) to develop an Enterprise Architecture for HL7 to a set of four frameworks – Information, Behavioral, Governance, and Conformance and Compliance – which collectively define SAIF and serve as a critical component of the overall HL7 Enterprise Architecture through its focus on guiding the content and representation of the various artifacts that explicitly express the various aspects of the specification that effect semantic interoperability. This tutorial will cover the history and motivation for the development of SAIF, trace its overarching influences including OMG’s Model-Driven Architecture and the Reference Model for Open Distributed Processing (RM-ODP), and provide participants with introduction to the content of, and inter-relationships between, the four frameworks which collectively define SAIF.

This tutorial will benefit:

• All HL7 participants interested in specification development using messages, documents, or services

Upon completion of this tutorial, participants will understand:

• Why HL7 has untaken the effort of defining SAIF, i.e. the HL7 SAIF Value Proposition
• The relationship of services and Services-Oriented Architectures (SOAs) to SAIF
• The relationship of SAIF to legacy HL7 specifications and activities, particularly messages and documents (CDA)
• The basic structure and function of SAIF including the content of the Information, Behavioral, Governance, and Enterprise Conformance and Compliance frameworks
• The difference between SAIF and HL7’s Implementation Guide of SAIF
• SAIF-based relationships between the HL7 ArB, Technical Steering Committee, and other HL7 Work Groups
• Implications of SAIF to HL7 with respect to external groups such as CDISC, OMG, etc.

Prerequisites:

• Awareness of the difficulties and complexities of achieving semantic interoperability using HL7 (or other equivalent) specifications in an increasingly complex international deployment environment

Faculty: Charlie Mead, ArB Chair; Ron Parker, ArB Vice-Chair

1. Implementing SAIF: Experience-to-date

Tuesday, October 5/ 1:45 pm – 5:00 pm

Several Work Groups within HL7 as well as several external organizations with active HL7 participation have, over the past months, began implementations of various aspects of SAIF. This tutorial will present the real-world experiences of these efforts including errors of omission and commission in the basic SAIF content, feedback from HL7 Peer Reviews, lessons learned RE artifact content definitions and representation, tooling and infrastructure requirements, etc.

This tutorial will benefit:

• CoChairs of all HL7 Work Groups
• Members of HL7 Work Groups involved in artifact development for specific HL7 specifications desiring to understand what SAIF brings to the activity and at what price that contribution is made
• Anyone interested (or interested in being involved in) the adoption of SAIF in their enterprise to enable the development of interoperable software component a more tractable process

Upon completion of this tutorial, students will understand:

• The difference between SAIF and an Implementation Guide of SAIF (i.e. of its various components)
• The realities, challenges, lessons learned, and benefits realized from implementing SAIF both within and outside of HL7

Prerequisites:

• Knowledge equivalent to the Introduction to SAIF tutorial

Faculty: Charlie Mead, ArB Chair; Ron Parker, ArB Vice-Chair

Charlie Mead: I am listed as presenter for both: Would someone else take the afternoon, and take the half registration? John Koisch, Graheme Grieve, and Lloyd McKenzie are working on a meta-model of the BF.

1. OHT pilot value proposition survey

OHT_Architecture_Project_Value_Proposition_Survey (be sure to read the discussion page). Jane Curry walked us through the questions on the survey. Can HL7 answer the questions and is it useful? Ron Parker: The responses should go through TSC before finalizing. Jane Curry:

• There needs to be a question on what is the Organization's policy around both contributing and consuming Open Source products.
• There needs to be a clear direction of what the process is for gathering requirements for OHT projects. And the governance of OHT Architecture needs to be bound to the success of that requirements gathering process. It would be easier for an OHT member organization to respond to the survey if they did have and Enterprise Architecture approach internally - otherwise multiple, but inconsistent answers would result.

Steve Hufnagel: There is no one voice for DOD. Steve Hufnagel: The questions seem to float between aspects of OHT. The last question I interpret to be whether an Entrprise is using a particular architecture approach. Ron Parker: Is eclipse the only platform? Jane Curry: No, should not be bound to a particular platform. Question is cohesion around OHT. Ron parker: To deliver value to OHT, or consume it - the assertion of coherence in use, and the framework to consume the tools could be problematic.

1. Adjourned <hh:mm am/pm> <timezone>.

Meeting Outcomes

Actions (Include Owner, Action Item, and due date) Tony to E-mail List to find volunteers for the Sedond Tutorial .

Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items *Call to order approval of Agenda Approval of Minutes July 8, 2010 Minutes Update from Charlie on Intro. Update from Jane on GF. Update from Cecil on IF Dita project strategy - Karen Smith OHT pilot value proposition survey - Jane Curry Other business and planning for next meeting Adjournment .