20110901 arb minutes

ArB Agenda/Minutes

Agenda

1. Call to order
2. Approval of Agenda
3. approval of Minutes
4. OASIS Reference Architecture for Service oriented Architecture
5. San Diego Agenda
6. Other business and planning for next meeting
7. Adjournment

Meeting Information

HL7 ArB Work Group Meeting Minutes Location: Telcon		Date: 20110901 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.
X	Lynch, Cecil	Accenture
X	Mead, Charlie	National Cancer Institute
.	Ocasio, Wendell	Agilex Technologies
X	Parker, Ron	CA Infoway
.	Quinn, John	Health Level Seven, Inc.
X	Milosevic, Zoran	NEHTA
.	Guests
X	Luthra, Anil	NCI
.	Laskso, Lynn	HL7 Staff
Quorum Requirements Met: Yes

MINUTES

1. Call to order at 4:00pm U.S. Eastern
2. MOTION to approve August 25, 2011 Minutes (Charlie/Jane). (6-0-1)
3. SAIF CD
   1. Charlie: will take input through the 7th, and then pull it together 8-12. Grahame said we had not addressed his comments on the IF. My guess is that it is demanding too much up-front specification. SAIF gives you a language for requirements, not the requirements. By the end of the WGM, we have until 20th november to make cosmetic changes, and the Compliance/conformace statements for the SAIF IG.
   2. Jane: Can Zoran ratify the picture I sent aligning the GF to the BF. IF it is correct, I can review the rest of the document accurately.
   3. Zoran: I suggested to Charlie that the picture of relationship between viewpoints and components, that we add to concept map.
   4. Jane: I can add to EA pictures.
   5. Charlie: We are taking out the EA maps, and use ONLY concept maps. Zoran refers to a diagram you and he agreed to, but you want to see it?
   6. Jane: I remember doing it, I dont remember what the picture was.
   7. Charlie: I will present a slide for each concept map. I will send you by wednesday the candidate slide show.
4. Charlie: Grahame sent a one-sentence e-mail that the IF does not address my ballot comments, and the Resources For Health (RFH) is not SAIF compliant. I replied that he address the IF comments to Cecil. My guess is that he is confusing SAIF-CD with SAIF-IG, but I dont know for sure.
5. Zoran: Cecil and I are working on a high-level meta-model.
6. OASIS Reference Architecture for Service oriented Architecture
   1. Charlie: I have not contacted the contact from Oasis: I got a copy of the HL7/OASIS MOU. I did correspond with Thomas Erl, and he is interested in a dialog. I am hoping that we will have a fruitful discussion.
   2. Zoran: I spoke to Ken a year ago when I first saw the previous version of the reference architecture - and found a similiarity to RM-ODP. I sent him an e-mail, that I did not see reference to ODP - he asked for comments. The reference architecture aligns with ODP, the GF and BF.
   3. Charlie: When you communicate with Ken can you CC me, and I will CC you.
   4. Zoran: I will
   5. Ron: What are the benefits/risks?
   6. Charlie: Speaking for the NCI community, theyassociate SAIF with HL7, which is V3, so they dismiss it. If SAIF got integrated/harmonized with OASIS, it would gain a level of legitimacy. And a direct statement "this is NOT just HL7".
   7. Jane: We have been working on a dynamic, loosely coupled problem space, and know what can/cannot be said/specified to do different levels of interoperability. They wont have to do it all over, - it is not an easy game to play.
   8. Ron: When you look at SAIF, it does not have much to do with HL7, so it may be a problem for the HL7 community. We have been trying to relate the service value proposition to HL7. OASIS is no lightweight - they published their reference model in 2006 - if we can point to it, and position SAIF as an explicit expression of the interface part of soa - service contracts, health enterprise wide establishment of health services. ODP give us distributed processing. We are more specific - we dont talk about the business function side of SOA, or how to model it. If we portray SAIF as consistent, that someone who buys into SOA, and wants to achieve WI, it would be excellent. IF an HL7 IG shows how to do this with HL7 artifacts, better still.
   9. Charlie: I agree with 90% - the biggest limitation in just merging the two, and why it wont/cant happen, is that they are focused to services alone. They are focused on SOA - we have a legacy of messages and documents, and dont formally do services. Everything else you said is correct - there is commonality. It will take more than one conversation. I liked their reference architecture - they discuss crossing boundaries - they dont say asynchronous disconnected systems, but they have the concepts. We are walking a common road.
   10. Ron: They would like comment on the artifact itself. We want to, having seen the artifact, talk about alignment.
   11. Charlie: Jane was right - if we can reference them it is good, if we can co-reference it is even better. You alude to the thing we bump against - the two-architecture problem. SOA cant walk away from it, but we can. And OASIS is in the middle of the two-architecture problem. It looks to me like the comment period closes next week.
   12. Ron: I am interested in a subsequent conversation. Will people see this as contrary? This does NOT subsume our work, since they are just services. But we better be aligned for industry best practice.
   13. Charlie: It would be great to be aligned. We can use the HL7 MOU to work toward this.
   14. Ron: The two-architecture problem they are solving fundamentally.
   15. Charlie: Everyone will come to SanDiego having read the document.
   16. Ron: Worthwile to do, what do others think? Jane: did you look at social?
   17. Jane: Although we have not used the term ecosystem in SAIF, that is what we have. I am working on an article on the evolution of Canadian ecosystem, and the roles to make it a full system. THe social ecosystem is a significant opportunities to harness automation support in the problem space. We have no automation for governance management.
   18. Ron: Any other commentary -we can address in SanDiego. We need to have the communication, and establish a timeline.
   19. Charlie: Can discuss deliverables etc. in SanDiego.
   20. Zoran: There is 60 days response period.
   21. Charlie: It was released 1st week of July, so comment close in Sept. They have been working on it for six years - we are at the right time frame to have a dialog with them.
   22. Zoran: I did tell him about SAIF, so he will have that background if he remembers it.
   23. Ron: I am concerned about the visibility. This would be a good topic with the SOA group within HL7, see what their opinon is.
   24. Charlie: Interesting to see if they are competitive, or collaborative.
   25. Zoran: We suggested the HL7 group look at the reference architecture.
   26. Charlie: Where they positive?
   27. Zoran: Yes -I will send you the detail when I find it.
7. Discussed the SanDiego Agenda.
   1. Ron reviewed the agenda
   2. Jane: I am on the hook for MnM to produce the enterprise artifact. I need the risk-assessment to finish.
8. Adjournment at 5:00pm U.S. Eastern

Tony Julian 21:55, 1 September 2011 (UTC) http://wiki.hl7.org/index.php?title=Arb_meeting_schedule#Teleconferences