20110127 arb telcon

ArB Teleconference January 27, 2011

Meeting Information

HL7 ArB Work Group Meeting Minutes Location: Telcon		Date: 20110127 Time: 4:00pm U.S. Eastern)
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
.	Hufnagel, Steve	U.S. Department of Defense, Military Health System
X	Julian, Tony	Mayo Clinic
.	Koisch, John	Guidewire Architecture
.	Loyd, Patrick	Gordon point Informatics LTD.
.	Lynch, Cecil	ontoreason LLC
.	Mead, Charlie	National Cancer Institute
.	Ocasio, Wendell	Agilex Technologies
X	Parker, Ron	CA Infoway
.	Quinn, John	Health Level Seven, Inc.
.	Shakir, Abdul-Malik	Shakir Consulting
.	Guests
X	Haddorff, Rick	Mayo Clinic
X	Laskso, Lynn	HL7 Staff
X	Milosevic, Zoran	NEHTA
Quorum Requirements Met: Yes

Agenda

1. Call to order
2. Roll Call
3. Approval of Agenda
4. Approval of Minutes
5. Project Services Discussion
6. Adjournment

Minutes

1. agenda approve by affirmation.

Project Services: I would like to touch base with ArB on a few issues from Project Services:

1. Hand off SAIF IG project and Project Scope Statement 2. Gforge tracker 1681 regarding a cookbook process to drive adoption 3. Program management within HL7 Precepts - governable artifact

• Define the category of the concept

Name each Precept , then for each precept:

1. Define Objectives
   1. Standards
   2. Policies,
   3. Guidelines,
   4. Dependencies
2. People
   1. Making decisions in accordance to and within the constraints sripulated by Precepts
3. Processes
   1. Coordinate decision-making activities
   2. Provide the means and opportunities to control decisions, enforce policies, and take corrective action.
4. Metrics
   1. Measure Compliance with Precepts
   2. Provide visibility into the progress and effectiveness of the governance system

SAIFIG Ron Parker: Sensitivity concerning the IG - the issue is that ths SAIFIG is not perceived that the SAIF and SOUND in not the ONLY IG. The challenge is who is going to run what?

Jane Curry: When the TSC met the ArB members as liasons are critical into the groups, and they should be tracked.

Ron Parker: My thoughts: From a program perspective the goal is that based around the OO composite orders project we will test and co-evolve an implementation guide. Includes framing of deliverables. There will be other projects, with interdependencies to be managed. MnM will have a role in mapping/extending MDF/HDF, in concert with the PS effort. ASrB role is a support mechanism, not own the process, but make ourselves accessible to the groups.

Ron Parker: It is not clear who is driving.

1. this is not an Arb project
2. we do expect other WG's to participate
3. we do expect a ballot out of OO

Ron Parker: Discussed the precepts that will govern an IG. Each precept is something which is governed, whether artifact, process, or other. What are the dependencies? Who are the people?

Jane Curry: Everyone agrees that this structure is the basis for Governance.

Ron Parker: The process for moving through balloting. We need methodology for forming and building artifacts, others deterine the shape of the artifact. This is a good outline, we may not do it all, but tht principle is that each thing that needs to be governed in the IG, we answer these questions. The problem is that someone manages the participation. It could be we get PS to drive. We need to find the group that has the most at stake, who can describe it from end-to-end. There are other working groups who are responsible for meeting the needs of the group. Any insight, natural home for this? Is PS the appropriate home, and what do we need to do to set up the governance.

Jane Curry: PS needs to understand the dependencies. IF ArB serves as advisory for determining points of risk, and serve as arbitor when more than one thinks they own a piece of it. I think of it that OO owns the use case. That is domian expertise. The rest need to contribute methods and artifacts to produce the specifications.

Ron Parker: Rick, you would be responsible for integration.

Rick Haddorff: Plan was to start with DOD work, and turn into HL7 work. Is this part of the OO project?

Ron Parker: It is not a simple as taking someones and HL7-izing it. You would want to consume the DOD and NCI IG's, and parse through them. The result is how do we support OO in producing this?

Jane Curry: I volunteered to be liason to PS. I will attend PS to address.

Rich Haddorff: We meet every thursday 9-10 eastern.

Jane Curry: I will attend next weeks meeting. I have to go.

Ron Parker: Ballot is backbone, OO is the process, MnM and others will provide support. What are the interdependencies?

Rick Haddorff: The first thing will be to get OO into the scope, since this will be supporting them.

Ron Parker: We want to avoid OO having to figure out what a DAM is - what do they need to produce?

Andy Bond: Should InC be involved as well?

Ron Parker: yes, although there are problems around that.

Zoran: What about SOA?

Ron Parker: Yes, OO wants to frame a service contract. SOA would have to provide guidance, working with MnM. Education: We have been doing implementation tutorials with external projects, we need to change to experience within HL7. Probably not at May meeting, rather at September meeting. I will suggest to MaryAnn that we pause the tutorial for May.

Ron Parker: I think you can only take responsible for delivering an IG, which PS assembles with input from other groups, who will have to frame the look of the content. There is a backward compatiblity issue with current processes. We have to describe the transition - what is same, new, and gone. Then we can look at the timelines. It become complex.I can see the TSC convening a call with the dependant parties, cconsolidating, and assigning responsibilies.

Rich Haddorff: Patrick Loyd is the OO contact?

Ron Parker: That is a good start - it is more than a ballot item. PS has the best handle on what is going on.

Ron Parker: Cecil is looking for comments on the IF.

Zoran: I need a few more days before I send response.

Ron Parker: We will take this on as primary topic for next weeks call. I have a feeling that the IF will evolve as we go through the OO project.

Zoran: Not clear whether it was meant to reflect HL7 or more generic, with HL7 a special case.

Ron Parker: The framework is appropriate for a consumer, e.g. NCI, but is not tuned to the internal production. It may be that we need a generic framework,

ACTION: review the IF.

Ron Parker: I will discuss with Austin, Charlie, and John tomorrow.

Tony Julian: We need to begin agenda for Orlando. We already have the rooms.

Ron Parker: Wednesay Q4 is not sufficient.

Lynn: How much time do you need?

Ron Parker: Probably two quarters. What need to occur is as the Project scope gets framed, we need to have representatives from MnM, SOA, IC, OO in the room.

Lynn: Went through the same thing for another group. Maybe thursday afternoon.

Tony Julian: We need a better agenda.

Ron Parker: We need to bring a scope to TSC halfway between now and May WGM, so that the meeting in May would be to represent the progress - in material work. - coordinated activity. We could hammer out governance.

ACTION: Ron will talk with Austin and John Quinn on this.

Adjournment at 4:55pm U.S. Eastern

Tony Julian 17:10, 31 January 2011 (UTC)