This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here

20100819 arb minutes

From HL7Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Template:Arb minutes Architecture Board August 19, 2010 Early Call


Time: 11:00am U.S. Eastern

Please consult for your local times

1. Please join my meeting. Or go to At the top of the page click on the join meeting button

Then enter Meeting ID: 624-910-186

2. Join the conference call: Dial 770-657-9270 Passcode 854126#


  • Call to order
  • Approval of Agenda
  • approval of Minutes July 15, 2010 meeting.
  • Presenter for practical for September
  • peer review
  • other prep for Cambridge dialogs with organization for ownership of realizing of the ECCF.
    • Firm up issues for SOA
    • Firm up issues for MnM
  • bf - John Koisch
  • Other business and planning for next meeting
  • Adjournment

Tony Julian


arb 20100819 Scott Robertson, John Koisch, Steve Hufnagel, Ron Parker, Jane Curry, Cliff Thompson, Tony Julian, Karen Smith, Patrick Loyd Meeting called to order at 11:00am Review of minutes of the July 15, 2010 meeting. Motion to approve minutes Tony/Jane

  • Governance Framework

Jane Curry: Excercising the GF. Gave presentation to John Quinn for board retreat. To be presented to TSC at the TSC meeting - exploits the feedback loop principle. Been elaborating. Will take lessons learned and put in GF paper, which has the elaboration on the Concept map I sent to list, and Karen in June. Ron Parker: Was the draft the GF? Jane Curry: No, the elaboration. Karen Smith: Jane, could you send me a copy of the governance framework in a word doc that way i can look it over and look at the TOC. Jane Curry: For the portion that is mature. Karen will be helping me setup to author in DITA. The version for the ArB will be word. Karen Smith: Great.

  • Presenter for practical for September
    • No response - Ron now owns this.

Ron Parker: I will outline foundation for presentation.

ACTION ITEM: Outline foundation for presentation

Steve Hufnagel: I will help. Jane Curry: Include experience. Ron Parker: I will do so - core part of commitment. Challenge to id who will be prepared. Jane Curry: I will help on some of the stuff as I have excercised with HL7. Ron Parker: I will report next week.

  • peer review

Ron Parker: I have been offline for 4 weeks. Where are we with peer review.

  1. need consolidated list
  2. list of items

John Koisch: Included comments on BF. Cliff Thompson: sent communication to Charlie. Karen Smith: Told cliff that I could work on improving the intro. Ron Parker: work on disposition of comments - not going into intro editing this minute. Resolved next call.

  • other prep for Cambridge dialogs with organization for ownership of realizing of the ECCF.

John Koisch: Lloyd had three area of comments:

  • the way the content was presented - Was looking for specificity in intro. Lloyd commented that most people should not see the BF.
  • Core strategic difficulties - fundamentals, which can be addressed
  • How are we going to make this work.

I sent an e-mail: We can acknowledge these, and tell Lloyd not persuasive, but what needs to happen we need to look at MIF dynamic model, and what adopting the BF would mean to the MIF. Lloyds comments were spot-on re V3, but the best thing to do to deal with Lloyds core comments would be to meet with Lloyd and others, to get the srvice notioninto the discussion. Ron Parker: To identify a path forward for V3 is core. We need a high-level commitment to this. John Koisch:Is that still the direction? Ron Parker: The concensus direction is contextualizing v3 into SOA. John Koisch: Laying out the ECCF/GF in V3. If that is what we are trying to get at, that is the way to go. If we abandon, Lloyds comments should be taken as lets knock this conformance off. Ron Parker: Sense that there is a change in force? Jane Curry: The opposite is true: There is an expectation that we will become more aligned with industry norm, HL7 will be able to demonstrate computable semantics to be able to have automated version between different syntax - more robust than we currently have. The current HL7 dynamic model is insufficient. Patrick Loyd: The lab order ballot failed because we could not describe the order model in the current HL7 BF. We are vetting the framework in the alpha project in OO - we have no resources to help the team. Grahame and John and I met, but not recently. Based on past work assignments, I could not touch for 6 months. We need to however we decide to talk to Lloyd, we cant keep what we have. We are laying out the MIF rules and requirements. We need to define new requirements. John Koisch: I agree with Patrick and Jane. People are looking at how these things fit in V3. There is work in ITS, RIMBAA, underway in laying the groundwork. We need to reaffirm the direction we are going. We ask for comments, but the process for comments, but there is parallel stuff going on. Ron Parker: A lot of undercurrents got surfaced. It may be hard to incorporate BF into our current state - what is the organizations capability to address, and how do we communicate. The dialog we just had is key in unfolding of the product strategy as it is. Need strategic direction to continue. The challange is, asserted to John Quinn, we need executive assertion of the direction. This will give us solution for BF. This must be a TSC/CTO conversation with concrete action item. Patrick Loyd: Agree - from day-to-day operation, I have dug back into paper, meeting bi-weekly. CTO/TSC is where the organization must assert that the current method will not work. John Koisch: That work must move forward, as must other pieces. I hear

  • we need to go to TSC - moving in the right direction
  • Lloyds peer review comments majority should be marked not-persuasive.
  • Resource issue: I have talked to Lloyd, Grahame, John D, there is willingness to meet and get this going. Everyone has a day job, and cant focus on this. Skype comments are not getting it done. I have been trying to coopt some RIMBA folks to get this done.

Patrick Lloyd: Resource constraints - I will get back to work on the paper. We need to discuss. Jane Curry: Can this be done with SDO alignment work with OMG? I think it will be asked. John Koisch: My opinion - With OMG/HL7/TSC are top-down - Lloyds comments are bottom up. OMG response to MIF is that it is not a valid meta-model - you need to get on board with UML. This is the problem with top-down. There is bottom-up work. Patrick's middle-out approach is correct. There msut be a bottom-up approach - what is the impact on MIF, what does it look like, but to do that, everyone is in the top-down world, but we need to do it to see how it works. Jane Curry: Need to have presentation of the analysis in the top-down excercises. There is a credibility issue. Ron Parker: Loyds middle-out work needs to be done. Jane Curry: The bottleneck can be broken by middle-sideways approach. John Koisch: People get sidetracked by converstions that seem to be central, but are not. Ther is concrete work on presenting RIM in V3 models. You are not arguing UML vs MIF. The discussions can stay in the ivory tower, but you can show how you are crafting WSDK's and RMIM's to solve the problem. Then the arguement changes. Ron Parker: My experience is that middle-out identifies gaps, bottom verifies, top-down generates commitment and focus. How can we synopsize the essence of our learnings, with a proposal to TSC? Talk to TSC about factoring in the product strategy. Jane Curry: I am on v2/v3 task force - moving into the idea of having sufficient robust representation of the semantics we are dicussing to take input from one style to produce output in another style, using an algorhythmic approach. Allow people to add robust clarification of constraints, using v2, v3,UML to produce semantically equivalent in a different representation. The BF needs to be part of the picture. It would be appropriate part of strategy forward - not just product strategy, but future - migration strategy. People require taking existing specificiation content into new. You cannot create tool unless meta-model is satisfied. Not the way we have been doing. Ron Parker: Ambitious for next TSC call, probably the one aftere. Jane Curry: Detailed conversation in Cambridge. Deal with Saturday TSC meeting, not on one-hour call. Ron Parker: John, there is a sense of urgency - there are things to do before Saturday in Cambridge, but not in one week. Is the an incremental approach we can announce. John Koisch: There are a dozen efforts - but we need to assert the direction is correct, but we need to reform. TSC is not on the front lines. Ron Parker: Lets propose that the substantive conversation with TSC/CTO looking for closure on core components in Cambridge. Preamble conversations need to be held, and need to get them to approve the approach, not dive into the problem space. Neds directive to organization.

Need strategy for cambridge by next week.

John Koisch: we need elements of success, not necessarily requirement first. Ron Parker: I am struggling with the threads. Jane Curry: Understand the threads, and comment back to TSC - too many strategic things going on at the same time. We need to align. Ron Parker: Here are our insights from the peer review, and direction forward, get their participation. I did not see

    • Firm up issues for SOA
    • Firm up issues for MnM
  • Charlie is updating the IF


Need strategy for cambridge by next week.
Distillation of Johns comments
Ron will have outline of practical presentation.
TSC agenda item on our learnings.

Meeting was adjourned at 12:00pm.