This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here
<meta name="googlebot" content="noindex">

20110331 arb minutes

From HL7Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

ArB Agenda/Minutes


Time: 4:00pm 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: Meeting ID: 535-702-651

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


  1. Call to order
  2. Approval of Agenda
  3. approval of Minutes
  4. HDATA dialog
  5. SAIF program progress.
  6. Glossary vs Index
  7. Implementation guide(s - aka where do we go from here?
  8. Other business and planning for next meeting
  9. Adjournment

Meeting Information

HL7 ArB Work Group Meeting Minutes

Location: Telcon

Date: 20110331
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
X 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.
X 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
X Beuchelt, Gerald MITRE
. Haddorff, Rick Mayo Clinic
X Knapp, Paul Continovation Services Inc
. Laskso, Lynn HL7 Staff
. Milosevic, Zoran NEHTA
X Pech, Brian Kaiser Permanente
X Stuart, Sandy Kaiser Permanente
Quorum Requirements Met: Yes


  1. Call to order Call to order at 4:07
  2. Aggenda approved by affirmation
  3. Minutes of the March 24, 2011 conference call approved (Beuchelt/Hufnage) unanimous.
  4. HDATA dialog
    1. Jane presented a picture representing the relationships between WG's.
    2. The right side is how we look at it
    3. The left side is how it SHOULD be done
    4. Cecil Lynch: You need a business analyst to sit between the technical architects and the Domain experts. This falls out in the Inplementation Guide. There are inward and outward facing views for each of the roles.
    5. Ron Parker: This is an excellent model that is valuable for elaboration from the canonical SAIF to the Implementation Guide.
    6. Jane Curry: I thought that HDATA has two elements - transformation from generalized design into specific one, where business names are substituted for generic structure names - a manual and intensive mental excercise.
    7. Gerald Beuchelt: right - the hdata names are different than the model names. There could be direct correspondence to HL7 templates to create an HDATA content profile.
    8. Paul Knapp: Listening to the discussion you are agreeing in words, but not in fact. I dont see any ITS in HDATA. You are not taking the semantic model and templating structure, and rendering in some other ITS that is HDATA specific. HDATA is a packaging of an already rendered good.
    9. Paul Knapp: A CDA is a good that gets packaged.
    10. Jane Curry: It does not get packaged until it is mapped.
    11. Paul Knapp: After it is packaged.
    12. Gerald Beuchelt: Reliant on the mapping. May be a collection of goods with relationships, then would have structure.
    13. Paul Knapp: If I get a box to hold goods, the structure of the box does not speak to the assembly of the structures in the box.
    14. Gerald Beuchelt: HDATA includes a description of how to package the items in the box.
    15. Paul Knapp: Currently the semantic model is ran through ITS to create Good. HDATA does not render the data into a good. A good anology is a ZIP file. Zip does not interface with the methodology of the content provider.
    16. Gerald Beuchelt: The content profiles define how the zip file is organized.
    17. Andy Bond: It is a manifest.
    18. Paul Knapp:It is a rich manifest. I am trying to get HDATA positioned in the process - it is a step AFTER the ITS has been applied. It belongs below the ITS box.
    19. Jane: It is an HL7 recognized packaging mechanism.
    20. Gerald Beuchelt: Package and service. We have talked to John Koisch on how it maps to RLUS.
    21. Ron Parker: Helps shape thinking on how ITS are utilized.
    22. Cecil Lynch: I can see applying the hdata zip to the ITS, but I cant see how to take the elements created in HDATAZ, and unpackage unto a compliant HL7construct.
    23. Paul Knapp: You can take a CDA and put it in a zip, and extract it. Same with HDATA.
    24. Cecil Lynch: I cant see that from the schema's.
    25. Gerald Beuchelt: Dont get hung up on the schema's. We are starting to understand that we ar susing HL7 v3 artifacts, or message set, and transporting in its entirety.
    26. Cecil Lynch: I cant see that from the HDATA wiki.
    27. Gerald Beuchelt: After having gone throught the ITS process, it is important to understand that we are not limiting ourselves to the simple schemas. HDATA is valuable for CDA and Messages.
    28. Jane Curry: In the terms of the simplified schema's, they were created by some of these guys in the diagram.
    29. Gerald Beuchelt: Simplified schemas would have to be created by the domains.
    30. Jane Curry: We have a different artifact - the ballot examples created in MIF2 - the packaging service is a different capability than our ITS. It strikes me that the domain analysts are creating an artifact that is a constraint against the HL7 ITS, throwing away the stuff they dont care about. It would be a custom ITS.
    31. Paul Knapp: It could be a constraint on the templates. The Packaging spec contains anything.
    32. Jane Curry: Where is the simplified artifact created - by who?
    33. Paul Knapp: It is a notion, but we dont have an approved method - it would be an ITS which generates simpler models, whatever simpler means.
    34. Jane Curry: If you have a metadata you dont have to ship it.
    35. Paul Knapp: The templating architecture can remove models not required for the instance. There are a variety of ways to simplify.
    36. Jane Curry: There were several concepts that seemed to be included.
    37. Paul Knapp: A summary could be meta-data, story, and picture. You could choose to send it all, or send the meta-data as text, the story in word, the picture in jpeg. Your extraction methodology to create the packaging could be used to unzip the contents.
    38. Ron Parker: WHere should the specifications live?
    39. Gerald Beuchelt: Would be led by SOA with participation by ITS.
    40. Cecil Lynch: Should include MnM.
    41. Jane Curry: Someone from HDATA should sit in on the MnM call defining artifacts - should look at the wiki - there are artifacts that are implied that should be articulated specifically. If they are notions, not formal, we need to get them named.
    42. Ron Parker: ArB recommend to TSC that SOA 'own' HDATA, with help from ITS, and recognition of MnM's role. This is a good excercise how we can use HDATA as one of the examples of where things are placed.
    43. Jane Curry: The Enterprise viewpoint has some interface roles of people who participate in multiple communities - we need definitions and skill sets.
    44. Ron Parker: I dont want to overburden the recommendation to TSC, but say that it will be in the implementation guide. I need written recommendation to TSC.
    45. Jane Curry: The Implementation Guide work is being coordinated by Project services as a responsibility of MnM.
    46. Ron Parker: Your diagram and our dialog needs to be shared.
    47. Cecil Lynch: My concern is to take HDATA in an HL7 viewpoint is to have something to do with HL7. SOA could fall under OMG or HL7, ITS could fall under HL7 or W3C - only MnM is specificially HL7
  5. Glossary vs Index
    1. Stephen: Glossary has duplication with info in the document - could be footnotes, and index the document, could compress to two or three pages.
    2. Ron Parker: A stand-alone glossary would be usefull.
    3. Jane Curry: In DITA, it would be easy to do.
    4. Ron Parker: I like that.
    5. Jane Curry: Since we did not use dita, we will need to do so.
    6. Ron Parker: Stephen how would we do it?
    7. Stephen: Any one of us could put in a comment to do so.
    8. Jane Curry: My intention in producing the implementation guide is in DITA.
  6. SAIF program progress.
    1. Defered to next week
  7. Implementation guide(s - aka where do we go from here?
    1. Defered until next week.
  8. Other business and planning for next meeting
    1. Implementation guide(s - aka where do we go from here?
    2. SAIF program progress.
  9. Adjournment 5:00pm U.S. Eastern

Tony Julian 21:01, 31 March 2011 (UTC)