This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here

20120322 arb minutes

From HL7Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Agenda

  1. Call to order
  2. Roll Call
  3. Agenda Approval
  4. Minute Approval March 8, 2012 Minutes
  5. Minute Approval March 15, 2012 Minutes
  6. Report from TSC RE SAIF-CD publishing schedule
  7. a SAIF Reference Case Study
  8. Report from Patrick?
  9. CIC group question
  10. What is a DAM.
  11. co-sponsor motion
  12. Glossary
  13. Other Business and Planning
  14. Adournment

Meeting Information

HL7 ArB Work Group Meeting Minutes

Location: Telcon

Date: 20120322
Time: 4:00pm U.S. Eastern
Facilitator Charlie Mead/ Parker, Ron Note taker(s) Julian, Tony
Attendee Name Affiliation
X Bond,Andy NEHTA
. Constable, Lorraine Constable Consulting Inc.
X Curry, Jane Health Information Strategies
X Dagnall, Bo HP Enterprise Services
. Grieve, Grahame Health Intersections Pty Ltd
X Hufnagel, Steve U.S. Department of Defense, Military Health System
X Julian, Tony Mayo Clinic
. Loyd, Patrick ICode Solutions
. Lynch, Cecil Accenture
X Mead, Charlie National Cancer Institute
X Milosevic, Zoran NEHTA
X Ocasio, Wendell Agilex Technologies
X Parker, Ron CA Infoway
. Quinn, John Health Level Seven, Inc.
. Guests
X Luthra, Anil NCI
. Legend
. Present
. Absent
Quorum Requirements Met: Yes

Minutes

  1. Agenda Approval
    1. The agenda was approved as modified by affirmation.
  2. Minute Approval March 8, 2012 Minutes (Charlie/Steve)
    1. Motion to approve the March 8, 2012 Minutes (Charlie/Steve)
    2. Vote(7-0-0)
  3. Minute Approval March 15, 2012 Minutes (Charlie/Steve)
    1. Motion to approve the March 15, 2012 Minutes (Charlie/Steve)
    2. Vote(6-0-1)
  4. Report from TSC RE SAIF-CD publishing schedule
    1. Charlie Mead: The Deadline for Normative edition is April 15. We are working around May 1 for SAIF-CD.
    2. HL7 will publish the SAIF-CD on the HL7 web site.
    3. We could publish in the NE, it is currently NOT on the list, but could be. ArB needs to decide. ##With our current deadline, it will be published.
    4. Cecil said he could have his re-writes done by April 15. Bo and Charlie are finishing the intro.
      1. Motion To publish as DSTU, and not request addition to the Normative Edition.(Tony/Charlie)
      2. Vote (7-0-0)
  5. A SAIF Reference Case Study
    1. Ron: There were only 5 in san-antonio.
    2. Ron:TSC is deciding on whether to provide tutorials to Co-Chairs free of charge.
    3. Ron:We need case study(s) to provide context to the tutorial attendees.
      1. Use case should be generic enough to apply to all
      2. Organizations in different roles
      3. Charlie: Does that not start with each having their own SAIF-IG?
      4. Ron: Needs to describe the IG, how to compare the context(s), and the roles of each. Meta-level story.
      5. Charlie:Valuable - fills in blanks for multiple organizations. When NCI adopted SAIF they created their IG so that the decisions made would not be in the code - at a level other than run-time.
      6. Ron: I absolutely need to put past Patrick, vendor, and customer. I cant see adding more than ten slides with the study. Need collaborateion from Steve and Charlie.
      7. Jane: The mobile health scenario would be helpful - targeting a new audience -whose current understanding of HL7 is different - Talk about interoperability in different terms.
    4. Ron will ping Steve and Charlie - Bo would like to contribute.
  6. Report from Patrick?
  7. DAM issue Informative or DSTU?
    1. Ron: Can we do it in a call?
    2. Charlie: We can do it in a three hour call.
    3. Jane: Extend our current Call?
    4. Charlie: Could Zoran and Andy do 6-9am?
    5. Andy: Yes
    6. Charlie: AMS gave us his tutorial on Domain Modeling and DAMs. It is 3 hours. It can be boiled down to a few key points
      1. Definition
      2. Static Semantics
      3. Dynamic Semantics
    7. If we started with that, and enhanced it, being explicit about what is
      1. Required
      2. Optional
      3. Inappropriate
    8. Jane: What is the relationship between the DAM and other standards.
    9. Charlie: TSC was concerned about Conceptual/Logical, since it depends on the binding. Based on the definition, the TSC could determine what is informative/normative.
  8. Risk management co-sponsor
    1. Motion ArB formally co-sponsor the architecture program project for risk assessment and Governance issue.(Jane/Charlie)
      1. Wendell: What do we need to do if the motion passed?
      2. Jane: The group will work out and present to the TSC the results, but we would like the ArB to ba available for consultation before taking to TSC.
      3. Charlie: Formal strategy?
      4. Jane: Strategy currently in use.
      5. Charlie: I will send the NCI Risk Assessment profile methodology.
      6. Jane: It is filling in the RISK profile: Nature, Probability, Impact, Mitigation.
      7. Charlie: That is good.
      8. Jane: Looking at the processes in place.
    2. Ron: ArB will have opportunity to shape as they work throught the strategy.
    3. Charlie: Is their methodology robust? Is it expressed in the Governance profile at the appropriate level?
    4. Jane: I used examples of governance processes in place, and we will use an inventory of what there is.
    5. Charlie:In the 3 hour overview of the 3 day governance class will get, is the 3 day curriculum - a lot at the specifics level may not be relative. The 3hour tutorial will help shape the requirements for HL7.
    6. Jane: It does not map well to HL7 space.
    7. Charlie: I have told Thomas that SOA is not the world and will help with the mapping.
    8. Jane: Reverse engineering excercise.
    9. Vote(8-0-0)
  9. SAIF-CD
    1. Charlie: We should say we will send to the membership of the ArB the revised version, so we will have a week to work on, to get to the TSC by May 1.
  10. Glossary
  11. Other Business and Planning
    1. Prep for April 12 Call on next weeks agenda.
  12. Adournment

Adjourned at 5:05 U.S. Eastern