This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here

20100909 arb minutes

From HL7Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

ArB Minutes

Meeting Information

HL7 ArB Work Group Meeting Minutes

Location: Telcon

Date: 20100909 Time: 6:00PM U.S. EDT
Facilitator

Ron Parker

Note taker(s)

Tony Julian

Attendee Name Affiliation
X 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.
X Lynch, Cecil ontoreason LLC
. 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
X Hufnagel, Steve U.S. Department of Defense, Military Health System
. Koehn, Marc Gordon point Informatics LTD
. Laakso, Lynn Health Level Seven International
X Robertson, Scott Kaiser Permanente
. Smith, Karen HL7 DITA editor
X Thompson, Cliff OntoSolutions LLC
Quorum Requirements Met: Yes

Agenda

Agenda Topics

  • Call to order
  • Agenda review and approval
  • Review of minutes
  • Cambridge, MA WGM agenda
    • From John K as in koncrete Koisch:
    • I'd like to add a session (quarter? portion of a quarter?) to discussing the Project Services group and their efforts to incorporate SAIF
  • Item from Karen Smith
    • A few weeks ago, Cliff updated the peer review comment spreadsheet for the Intro. (However, I found a few more comments that also apply to the Intro in the two ECCF spreadsheets that Charlie sent me last week.) Do you approve of the comment spreadsheet for the Intro? Would it be OK if Cliff and I begin updating the Intro tomorrow (after the ArB meeting)? Let's set aside a few minutes to discuss this at the ArB meeting today.
  • Distillation of Johns comments
  • Ron will have outline of practical presentation.
  • TSC agenda item on our learnings.
  • Other business and planning for next meeting
  • Adjournment

Minutes

Minutes/Conclusions Reached:

  • Agenda review and approval

Agenda approved by affirmation

  • we need to respond to SOA during the WG.

Ron Parker: Do you think the SOA deck is available.

Jane Curry: Project Services: They mapped to HDF, and showed that it was not much of a stretch. It would be useful if we had a more vigorus response. We need to do it with them, positions Implementation gudiance work. They have a vested interest in aligning their excercise with ours. They worked with Steve Hufnagel, and may be seeing new product emerging, which we need to acknowledge.

Ron Parker: Lets slot for tuesday.


Jane Curry: If we put planning for the IG as part, would that be considered?

  • Review of minutes

20100902_arb_minutes approved by affirmation

  • Cambridge, MA WGM agenda
    • From John K as in koncrete Koisch:
    • I'd like to add a session (quarter? portion of a quarter?) to discussing the Project Services group and their efforts to incorporate SAIF *Item from Karen Smith
    • A few weeks ago, Cliff updated the peer review comment spreadsheet for the Intro. (However, I found a few more comments that also apply to the Intro in the two ECCF spreadsheets that Charlie sent me last week.) Do you approve of the comment spreadsheet for the Intro? Would it be OK if Cliff and I begin updating the Intro tomorrow (after the ArB meeting)? Let's set aside a few minutes to discuss this at the ArB meeting today.

Ron Parker: Do we need to formalize response?

Tony Julian: Mead Walker and Ann Wrightson have asked for response.

Ron Parker: We need to devote September 23 to consolidation of responses, as well as consolidation of materials. On Sept 16 I need to hae the practical application deck done, for review. Ron Parker: If we see MIF as a meta-model, and work with that as a basis, can we get some traction with that, and reflect that into the organization. We need a repository for requirements.

Jane Curry: We dont have governance unless there is a feedback loop. Repository is on the highest priority for the tooling WG, dependency on appetite at a broader (OHT) level to make progress at that level. There is a recognition that the ability to manage artifacts jointly, and the success of interoperability in general. We need agreement that that premise holds true, to leverage greater participation. The v2/v3 task force getting a greater agreement on representation of semantics. There is a dependency between the BF and the IF - need to track the derivation of artifacts. A repository for requirements is needed - to make ECCF real, you need traceability. There is a convergence of interest in this.

Cecil Lynch: We have a funded project, called the ECCF registry at the NCI, and are working on requirements - detailed to the individual services, based on OWL, linking layers and value sets used in service specifications. More than thinking about, real project.

Jane Curry: This is the stuff we need to have - talking about SAIF practicality - to scale SAIF.

Ron Parker: What are out entry points in the organizations in realizing the SAIF framework. The top-down reference - EHR -FM should be there - we should assert traceability from EHR-FM down the stack. At Infoway we should be able to support. Is the theme of our engagement with the organization around focusing on the IF - is this our ordinate theme, or are there other things? We could talk about how to do these things - Steve Hufnagle's work - work showing the MIF linkage. We need to have a stragegy on how to draw the threads together, and a timeline - a singular focus in Cambridge which will yeild results.

Jane Curry: We have been saying that all of this need tools to make it real - sufficiently capable of supporting spec. development as well as implementation. I can tell you that given the degree of resourcing challenge HL7 has, we wont be able to get tools unless we have a concurence on what that needs to look like. The meta-model alignment activity Challenged with the BF, like the orders project Patrick Lloyd is working with, will seed getting koncrete. - make it happen without relying on volunteers.

Ron Parker: Is there review we need to do woth the IF?

Cecil Lynch: It went to ARB for review, as well a Lloyd, and got 13pages of comments. I have done little since getting it back to add in the comments - I will have done by cambridge. There is a lot of revision in a lot of ways. We also have an IG for the IF, it might be a good idea to review the NCI IF IG.

Ron Parker: That is a quarter on sunday.

Steve Hufnagel: Will there be a read-ahead?

Cecil Lynch: Yes, I hope to get something out at least a week before.

    • TSC AGenda Item on our Learnings:

Ron Parker: We will need to have an advance on that - the F-F on saturday would be the place to present that. We need to test that we are getting the traction we need. John wants to know if Alpha is done?

Jane Curry: I dont think so.

Ron Parker: Premise of alpha was to take SAIF into context of work being done.

Jane Curry: There is a fair amount of momentum in cross-work group alignment is starting to be real. For example there is a willingness to consider the implications of aligning the product model with the clinical statement model, and using that for moving forward. People have accepted the idea that regardless of how we express the semantics (documents, messages, services) we should move the semantics in the same direction. We need to give people credit.

Ron Parker: We should be able to get that at Cambridge. We should have division of labor laid out, that people can wrap their heads around. It sounds like the ECCF and IF has things that should be able to land.

Cecil Lynch: NCI has moved the organization to the ECCF process successfully. All artifacts are registered according to there CIM/PIM/PISM entry points. We have adoption by developers/analists.

Ron Parker: We need to talk about the outward communication from HL7 to the customer base regarding the SAIF application and implementation. We dont have a message - although progress is being made. ArB should be helping to frame the communication in a real (not-hype) way, and comments from the community.

Andy Bond: We need to have discussion around treating ECCF as SAIF. One of the issues is that we need to have a consistent story on how the frameworks co-exist. We fall back on ECCF as a metaphor for SAIF. There are fundamental issues such as managing requirements - such as determing semantic equivalents. We have put more effort into gathering requirements than we have anything else (using EA). There is some confusion how one treats ECCF, IF, GF, BF as a collection - is ECCF becoming the framework. We need to see how the frameworks relate, where they intersect, and have the same concepts. Even if not complete, knowing what is required for this piece, and the relationship to the others. Make sure that viewpoints proviee separation fo concern. Our SAIF frameworks overlap the viewpoints.

Ron Parker: This is a meaty subject - mapping of model driven architecture to the ODP veiwpoint. We need to see ECCF as the proof of implementation of SAIF.

Andy Bond: I am happy for the e-mail to be forwarded to everyone. How do we get it into a single view? We need to realize the relationship between the pieces.

Jane Curry: That is the issue with coherence - broadening scope, or when time goes by it falls apart, coherence is measurable. People seem to have forgotton the appropriate messages that have been generated by design. Can we provide coherence across viewpoints in design.

Ron Parker: I think Charlie would consider this worthy. Please forward to the group. Find out if Project services can host us?


  1. Adjourned 7:00 pm USEDT.

Meeting Outcomes

Actions (Include Owner, Action Item, and due date)
  • . |Tony will connect with Project Services about Cambridge Agenda Tuesday Q4, or Thursday Q3.

Ron will publish the practical application deck.

Andy will distribute the email about coherence
Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items
*Call to order
  • Agenda review and approval
  • Review of minutes
  • Update on the SOA ontology work (Cecil Lynch) Tony to find deck)
  • Sept 16 Ron Needs to have the practical application deck done, for review. *TSC agenda item on our learnings.
  • Other business and planning for next meeting
  • Adjournment
  • .