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

20111027 arb minutes

From HL7Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

ArB Agenda/Minutes

Agenda

Four  (4)  weeks until DSTU final content due - November 27, 2011

Notification of Intent to Ballot has been submitted --Tony Julian 20:03, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
  1. Call to order
  2. Approval of Agenda
  3. approval of Minutes
  4. Request from Saif Architecture Program
    1. Does ARB want to co-sponsore the Risk Assessment and Governance for SAIF AP PSS?
  5. Glossary
  6. OASIS
  7. RFH
  8. Other business and planning for next meeting
  9. Adjournment

Meeting Information

HL7 ArB Work Group Meeting Minutes

Location: Telcon

Date: 20111027
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 Accenture
X Mead, Charlie National Cancer Institute
X Milosevic, Zoran NEHTA
. Ocasio, Wendell Agilex Technologies
X Parker, Ron CA Infoway
. Quinn, John Health Level Seven, Inc.
. Guests
X Luthra, Anil NCI
Quorum Requirements Met: Yes

Minutes

  1. Agenda Approved
    1. Motion to approve the minutes of the October 20, 2011 meeting (Steve/Jane)
    2. Vote 7-0-0
  2. HL7SAIFAPRiskAssessmentProjectScopeStatement.doc
    1. Motion Approve co-sponsoring the project scope statement.(Jane/Tony)
    2. Jane introduced the Project scope statement
    3. Ron: Charlie - do you have any strong feelings on the topic?
    4. Ron: Jane, would you be the liason?
    5. Jane: Yes.
    6. Charlie: Caution - the ArB needs to watch what is happening. The notion of risk analysis is important for the success of SAIF in any organization. We should avoid running it.
    7. Ron: Our role is to help the team qualify the risks.
    8. Jane: I am assuming that the research I am doing to find risk-profiles. I am using as a design focus for risk as coherence. Architecture program is supposed to help us define coherent standards - risk is incoherence. ArB is just advisors.
    9. Ron: We will need time in agendas to review and provide comments.
    10. Jane: I expect to have templates by the 17th of November.
    11. Ron: Do we need time at the next WGM?
    12. Jane: Austin is expecting input by Wednesday Q4 meeting.
    13. Ron: Do we need any face time?
    14. Jane: I dont think so - there may be TSC items - work group health, or other metrics.
    15. Ron: Does not sound like a challenge.
    16. Vote 7-0-0
  3. Glossary:
    1. Anil has sent list to Tony.
    2. Jane: Are we still putting comments on the discussion page?
    3. Ron: The challenge is to determine what is adequate, or need revision, or is incomplete. Then we can walk through the outliers on the call. I want the group to feel we have treated the topic. Problems should be declared on the dicussion plan.
    4. Jane: Not like someone will have a master.
    5. Ron: We need to have a deadline, and assess what remains to be closed.
    6. Charlie: We need document by the 17th of November, will not meet on the 24th.
    7. Ron: If people have submitted dialog, or content, put it in the discussion tab. Each needs to look at the discussion tab, and find the problems.
    8. Tony: We need to have the document by the 17th, the glossary is an oh-by-the-way.
    9. Ron: We are using this glossary as a sanity check. Gossary does not hve to be complete by the 17th, but we need to make sure we have not missed anything in the document.
    10. Cecil: I am aligning the glossary with the concept maps.
    11. Ron: Have we treated the concepts appropriately in the document.
    12. Cecil: I have not been going through the document unless the on-line content is missing.
    13. Ron: Is this the right way? It seems to be pedantic. Is there a more efficient way.
    14. Cecil: One of the critisims was that the concept map elements were not dealt with in the document - may not be a valid assumption. IF concept map is discussed in the document.
    15. Ron: Highest order approach to ensure coherency.
    16. Jane: we will have to deal with multiple definitions.
    17. Ron: It is harder to define than just to talk about the topic. Can we be sure we are reasonable. If it is in a concept map, it better be discussed in some way in the document. Cecil are you focusing on the IF?
    18. Cecil: I have done ontology maps.
    19. Ron: We have not checked for inclusion.
    20. Tony: That is what I have been doing as I add the concept map terms to the glossary.
    21. Jane: We need to do wiki pages for the proposed conformance statements for the various chapters, so people have an opportunity to look at others stuff as we do our own. THis will help with coherence.
    22. Charlie: Verification of CMAP content in the document is easy - the authors can find them from the table, to see if it is in the chapter.
    23. Ron: Who will do the BF?
    24. Charlie: Wendell. I will send the CMAP inventory to Jane, Cecil, and Wendell, as a reality check, asking them to make sure they appear in the chapter.
    25. Ron: Does not address coherence.
    26. Charlie: We need to have one person who can find the coherence.
    27. Steve: Seems to be a project for a Masters Student.
    28. Cecil: I might be able to find one.
    29. Charlie: Bo went through and sent comments. A lot were that things were not in the right order. He spent hours on them, but not all of them could be responded to. You should give the Grad student the comments.
    30. Cecil: I am not teaching this quarter, I will tackle some of my collegues, and see what I can get set up.
    31. Ron: Please at least send an e-mail if you cannot attend.
    32. Jane: What about proposed conformance statements on a wiki page?
    33. Ron: What do people think about that? Stuff we ahve done?
    34. Jane: We are supposed to be saying what a conformance statement/compliance statement looks like - at the end of every chapter?
    35. Ron: It is needed for the CD, but more as we sequay into the IG.
    36. Jane: I need it for the iG.
    37. Ron:Proper design.
    38. Jane: I am finding things that are not clear that I can make a yes/no compliance statement about.
    39. Ron: Can you put it up?, then send a note to everyone to look at it. The authors should be concerned.
    40. Jane: I thought they should do the first cut of the conformance statement.
    41. Ron: I agree - having that would be powerful.
    42. Charlie: The conformance needs to be part of the DSTU.
    43. Ron: Jane is saying lets put them on WIKI pages, not for our purposes, then we roll it back into the document.
    44. Jane: Yes - i have been doing it on a scratch pad.
    • OASIS:
    1. Charlie: No updates. I told Ken that I was waiting to hear from the Board to get the SAIF-CD public. I am responsible for cross-referencing the RAF to SAIF-CD. Zoran has submitted formal comments.
    2. Zoran: There is nothing to it. I am waiting for him to reply - I submitted an official response - how we can incorporate ODP.
    3. Cecil: I have new content for the IF. I will send out to Zoran
  4. RFH
    1. Ron: I mentioned we need to discuss the RFH. Charlie will you be on the TSC Call?
    2. Charlie: Yes
    3. Ron: There are people who dont understand what it is.
    4. Jane: There is a project scope statement.
    5. Ron: Do we need to do anything beyond.
    6. Jane: It is now FHIR Fast Health Interoperability Resources
    7. Ron: This could be big - we should have some insight into it.
    8. Charlie: The person in charge is on the ARB. But he can no longer contribute.
    9. Ron: What might John Quinns expectation be of the ARB.
    10. Jane: At the moment it is being treated as an experiment.
    11. Ron: It is gaining more momentum that makes it more than an experiment.
    12. Jane: It is pointing out that quick is not simple. There have been cross-dialogs about generating coherent documents.
    13. Ron: My Boss wants to know what ArB's position is in general. There are things going on that are not contextualized by SAIF. We need to balance with the degree of intent of the organization.
    14. Jane: There are assumptions that go back to why is V3 so hard. All we need is these little things that look like V2 fields.
    15. Charlie: We need a balance between bottom-up and top-down. Bottom-up gives us islands, top-down gives us nothing. Grahame was hoping the W3C effort would help find the problems. If they are only XML, they will appear semantically disconnected. We will end up with a 2011 version of version 2.
    16. Jane: We dont have clarity on the risks.
    17. Ron: This is where we invoke governance from the SAIF. Charlie - do we want to have an e-mail thread with John Q?
    18. Jane: I dont know whether they will be balloting, or building and make available.
    19. Ron: I will put on the agenda for next week
  5. Adjourned at 5:04pm U.S. Eastern.

Tony Julian 21:12, 27 October 2011 (UTC) http://wiki.hl7.org/index.php?title=Arb_meeting_schedule#Teleconferences

Retrieved from "https://wiki.hl7.org/w/index.php?title=20111027_arb_minutes&oldid=55625"