This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here

20100916 arb minutes

From HL7Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

ArB Minutes

Meeting Information

HL7 ArB Work Group Meeting Minutes

Location: Telcon

Date: 20100916 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
X Koisch, John Guidewire Architecture
x Loyd, Patrick Gordon point Informatics LTD.
. Lynch, Cecil ontoreason LLC
. Mead, Charlie National Cancer Institute
. Nelson, Dale II4SM
. Ocasio, Wendell Agilex Technologies
X Parker, Ron CA Infoway
. Quinn, John Health Level Seven, Inc.
. Shakir, Abdul-Malik Shakir Consulting
. Guests
. Hufnagel, Steve U.S. Department of Defense, Military Health System
. Koehn, Marc Gordon point Informatics LTD
. Laakso, Lynn Health Level Seven International
. Robertson, Scott Kaiser Permanente
X Smith, Karen HL7 DITA editor
X Thompson, Cliff OntoSolutions LLC
Quorum Requirements Met: Yes

Agenda

Cliff/Karen call Ron's Tutorial Cambridge agenda

Minutes

Call to order at 11:10 eastern

  • Cambridge agenda

TSC CALL: what does it mean to approve a universal project. There was an issue asked should all the standards, including IG's in the normative edition. Concensus to include in a package somewhere, but does it belong in the normative edition? Should affiliate publications be included? There may be an expectation that HL7 Int. knows about the external publications.

There is no U.S. Realm. We could come to a conclusion as an ArB whether we need a U.S. Realm, and what it means.

It may not be an ArB decision, but it should be an ArB decision on specifications that are universal, vs. realm specific.

Add to WGM for cambridge - maybe on Sunday.(wiki is not available at this time).


Ron met with Cliff/Karen on treatment of comments on the INTRO. Charlie is re-framing ECCF. Cliff/Karen/Ron have determined method to apply INTRO comments. Highest left of ECCF - Conceptual - is now Computationaly independent - requirements for business capabilities.

Need formal definition of platform. As we look at the blueprint project, we will take TOGAF an map back to SAIF. If you are developing background specifications beyond the organization is there a use for SAIF? Yes, this does not appear in TOGAF - which is for a total architecture design.

While there are groups that think of the CIM as pure business requirements, there is a place for a spec above the PIM, below the CIM. Some elements of the conceptual part that are not business, some are. The presumption that we have a computable model is not correct. There are intermediate states between CIM/PIM/PISM. Working across boundaries means you have to get your authorities sorted out. New modeling for interoperability specs is at PIM and above.

Regarding BF, a lot of the comments are about how BF fits in the meta-model. Are those meetings in cambridge? This is person-to-person work, engaging with people to work through the meta-model, and bring back to the community. There are things in the BF narrative that are outside of the meta-model.

Coorelation between BF/ECCF - presumption that ECCF is the SAIF. Different people need to view it differently. Possibly 80% dont need to see the BF. Same goes for the MIF, and other artifacts. Specifying is not the same as reading the spec. BF is important to architects, and inter-enterprise interoperability. The BF looks like a contract framework - may be independent from business while being informed by business. We need to understand where alignment needs to occur, and where no-one cares. Important to know what you may have to change - dealing with boundaries, not just system, but also governance. Needs to be described, not at solution level, but to describe constraints.

  • Ron's Tutorial

Ron: Struggling to get tutorial done working with Steve H. and Andy Bond.

Dont know where the IG stuff is - bound up in contract issues. SOA feels they are not in the loop.

Project services work will make the SAIF practical for the community.


If we enter dialog with PS, we will advance that. What about dialog with MnM? We dont have a sufficient understanding of all the products(and platforms). People come in with unstated assumption - which are not surfaced until late in the approval process.

The MIF has a solution in mind- have already done the ECCF, but now written down much of it. 3yrs ago MCI was using the GRID, an engineering spec that validated things done, but ECCF is more open.

John Koisch: Platform - the last set of patterns you apply before it becomes useful. V2 is a platform, as is V3.

Various levels of abstraction become someone else's platform.


Adjourned at 12:00pm U.S. Eastern