This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here
2012-10-11 Tooling Call
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Contents
Tooling Meeting Template
Meeting Information
| HL7 Tooling Meeting Agenda/Minutes Location: Phone: +1 770-657-9270; |
Date: 2012-10-11 Time: 10:00 am EDT |
| Facilitator: Jane Curry | Note taker(s): Lynn Laakso |
| Attendee | Name, Affiliation |
| . | . |
| x | Woody Beeler, Beeler Consulting |
| x | Wilfred Bonney, HL7 HQ |
| x | Joshua Carmody, HL7 HQ Tooling Administrator |
| x | Dennis Cheung, eHealth Ontario |
| x | Jane Curry, Co-Chair |
| x | Lynn Laakso, HL7 HQ Tooling Support |
| x | John Quinn, CTO |
| x | Abdul-Malik Shakir, Shakir Consulting |
| x | Andy Stechishin, Co-chair |
| Michael van der Zel, co-chair | |
| Quorum Requirements Met (co-chair plus 3 counting staff): (yes) | |
Agenda
Agenda Topics
- Roll Call & Agenda Review
- Review EHRS FM Design deliverable for approval - see package
- Approval of previous minutes from 2012-10-04 Tooling Call
- Review action items -
- Review PI# 904 HL7/OHT Health Ingenuity Exchange Alpha Program Participation
- evaluation of the new API - Andy
- best practices for using HingX, approval lifecycle of resources, authorities for release - Jane
- Other/New Business
Supporting Documents
- See links
Minutes
Minutes/Conclusions Reached:
- Roll Call & Agenda Review
- For next week's agenda - review content for Tooling Challenge Webinar
- Add Review EHRS FM Design deliverable for approval - see package
- Skip action items
- Approved by general consent
- Approval of previous minutes from 2012-10-04 Tooling Call Woody moves and Andy seconds. Unanimously approved.
- Review EHRS FM Design deliverable for approval - see package
- Woody asks about compatibility with MIF. Design work is based on the May work. The caveat is unfortunate - risk to HL7 work if members change employers while working on HL7 'stuff'. Woody moves approval, Josh seconds. Lynn and Andy abstain. Approved 5/0/2
- John and AMS join
- Review PI# 904 HL7/OHT Health Ingenuity Exchange Alpha Program Participation
- Date targets were not met - participation signed in September. Alpha period ends December 3rd so we need to have our recommendations and feedback by then. Need to consider the degree to which our requirements will be included in the baseline for how soon we get feedback to HingX. Woody's concern is with automation of import of artifacts, and how to review by non-HL7 people while limiting access to content. Jane states that she's worked with Mike to establish that the source can be linked to our website in the members-only section. User guide is available on the web site and they have context help.
- evaluation of the new API - Andy notes that it is REST-like with JSON based interface. He will send the API information to Woody.
- best practices for using HingX, approval lifecycle of resources, authorities for release - Jane
- Jane reviews the document - need a picture like slide 15 relating Tooling and Publishing WG for our resources, and a life cycle of a resource.
- AMS asks if user groups are formed to restrict access - Andy thinks they establish community of interest and/or responsibility. Resources in HingX would be description of content and not the content itself. Jane notes the degree of access is controlled by user group. AMS clarifies that for each artifact you can identify which teams have which level of access. Jane notes that the hierarchy nesting is not automatic; you have to explicitly join all user groups in the hierarchy.
- Need to identify which resources,
- what their life cycle is, and
- what access is required at stages in the life cycle.
- Access roles include Curators versus consumers vs contributors. Jane has identified a need for best practices for curators.
- Tooling WG needs to evaluate if and which tools we define as resources
- Woody notes the Health IT Ontology is just labels and no definitions.
- John asks about developers' willingness to add definition. Jane notes ontology and relationships between values would be useful. We would need to make that a request and show them specific examples.
- Jane summarizes we need to identify
- What resources to register,
- what metadata to describe them and
- where do we need better value sets and which value sets to use.
- Woody feels it's too ambitious. Identifying things is easy at the high level but describing them will take more time than we have.
- Jane used to have descriptions of attributes and the tools used to produce these specifications. She could attempt to describe our resources but it's not a hierarchical database and used descriptive text. She would do that as a test but do we need to do that for Tools. What is our sweet spot asks Woody? What three things should we do, in what priority. He thinks MIF should isolate metadata for the Normative Edition. Project Scope statements in a processible format including the data for intended audiences could collect metadata. Or from a request to publish? May want to extract data into structure to be managed and pin to the standard itself.
- AMS asks if other SDOs are participating. Jane notes others have expressed interest but not full alpha participants. We may not approach this as ready-aim-fire approach but Fire-ready-aim notes AMS. That's how Wikipedia started for example. Just pick one little thing and focus on it, such as specifications related to Meaningful Use, and then learn from that and do it better next time.
- Jane notes that the Resource Information definition page doesn't work well for HL7 use. Further discussion on their use of the term ontology and what is lacking from the definition of an ontology. Would have to create an HL7-acceptable ontology not modifiable outside of the HL7 community curators. The tool currently doesn't enforce ontology. Further exploration of relationships between resources also discussed.
- Adjourned 11:28 am EDT.
Meeting Outcomes
Actions
|
Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items
|
© 2012 Health Level Seven® International. All rights reserved.
