20120816 arb minutes
Jump to navigation Jump to search
ARB - Meeting (Date in Title)
- Call to order
- Roll Call
- Approval of Agenda
- Approval of Minutes
- Report from BAM tiger team
- Report from Architecture Project
- Review of Schedule
- Other business and planning
|HL7 ArB Work Group Meeting Minutes
Time: 4:00pm U.S. Eastern
|Facilitator||Charlie Mead||Note taker(s)||Julian, Tony|
|X||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|
|X||Loyd, Patrick||ICode Solutions|
|X||Mead, Charlie||National Cancer Institute|
|X||Ocasio, Wendell||Agilex Technologies|
|R||Parker, Ron||CA Infoway|
|.||Quinn, John||Health Level Seven, Inc.|
|X||Kreisler, Austin||HL7 TSC Chair|
|Quorum Requirements Met: Yes|
- Agenda and Minute approval
- MOTION to approve minutes and agenda(Jane/Tony)
Report from BAM tiger team
- Charlie: Wendells comments are relevant. The ARB is supposed to bring to the project formal approaches to business modeling. This is not heavyweight from day one. The project is defined to be the 2B model, not document the current. We are supposed to produce something by the week before Baltimore is a high-level concept-map instantiation of the basic constructs, if focused around product lines, separating Management from Governance from Methodology. This will be a topic at the TSC meeting on Sunday night. TSC meets all day Saturday, and with the ArB on Sunday night.
- Charlie: We will present the lightweight model, and they will align the ArB with the people who are needed to fill out the details. Wendell: does that addres your concerns.
- Wendell: It makes a lot of sense.
- Charlie: There is more information in the document than what is needed. The notion is to choose just enough methodology and model to make sense. TSC needs to see the machinery applied to HL7.
- Wendell: The document should not talk about the meta-model.
- Charlie: The DAM will not have it, except maybe as an appendix.
- Austin: I am going to be monitoring you guys to help you stay on that course.
- Charlie: There was confusion in the document between the risks of the project, and risks for HL7.
- Jane: My homework was to review the inputs and outputs and find what is relevant. What I did not do, was the implementation strategy, which should include the risks.
- Charlie: The implementation falls under the architecture project?
- Austin: In conjunction with the ARB.
- Cecil: A plan for the implementation is different from the implementation. You must define the things needed in the model.
- Austin: Thats why you can not do this in isolation.
- Jane: Does not change the outputs.
- Bo: I wanted to comment on Wendells comments. I dont agree with the meta-model fully in the appendix. There is a handoff from the ARB to the project. We expect the implementation to reflect the associations in the meta-model.
- Charlie: The majority in HL7 will not have to understand the Meta-model.
- Wendell: What is the architecture group?
- Charlie: The ARB will define the architecture, the architecture group will operationalize it.
- Bo: The BAM itself will have a Table of contents linked to the meta-model, and will use the syntax in the meta-model.
- Wendell: The final users will find it too complicated.
- Bo: The diagrams in the operationalization should match the meta-model.
- Jane: The inputs/outputs map to the meta-model. The relationships are inherent. The tool may assist in verifying appropriate relationships. I trimmed down to a subset.
- BA Methods with Cecils comments
- Jane: I identifed Imputs, rationale, process, rationale, outputs, rationale, assumptions. I indicated inputs. Cecils comment are in red.
- NOTE Scribe wil not try to re-type the document here.
- Jane walked the group through the document.
- Bo: The meta-model gives us a tool to describe the who/what/why, and constructs. Your list is a description of these in isolation. Missing is the composite view, which taked account of why/who/what in a single model applied to a particular problem.
- Jane: Yes, applies it to the business scenarios. I just added the essentials. Is anything I stated here NOT essential? What is essential, and missing. Cecil has identifed core components including the implementation plan.
- Charlie: What can we do between now and September 3. We need to do a rough cut instantiation based on what we know. It will let people see how this machinery can produce something. Austin has made first cut at a swim-lane diagram - who lives in which lane, and what are the product lines.
- Austin: Last monday we talked about doing a review of the work on the 27th. THe TSC will not meet on the 3rd(U.S. Holiday), so the first opportunity to review will be on Saturday in Baltimore.
- Charlie: The TSC will review on Saturday, and discuss with ArB on Sunday?
- Austin: Yes.
- Charlie: We need to go more shallow. We have the machinery. We ned to give them an example of what we can do, and what content we need.
- Austin: Are their specific inputs the ArB needs? Who do we task to provide the customer definition.
- Jane: Who can validate it.
- Austin: I have been framing with the architecture will not define the specific product lines, but rather the framework for such definition. Some of the product lines are no-brainers, but others will be political.
- Jane: We need to define criteria - run it from the end backward -who is using what for what reason. From that point of view, look at the HL7 community.
- Austin: Some will look at it from the developers standpoint, and look at it differently
- Jane: Use that for refinement. To isolate CDA means it has no relevance to anything else - is a dangerous problem.
- Austin: Or CDA-R3 that does not work with other V3 content. Pure customer will lead to one set of divisions, Product will lead to another set of divisions. ArB should not say CDA is part of the V3 product line.
- Cecil: ArB can say that, and allow others their say. Our task is to bring about an architectural paradigm that brings about consistency.
- Austin: If product lines are divided on end-customer needs it may evolve that way.
- Cecil: CDA-R2 customers also use V2, and may or may not use V3. They may or may not recognize the environment in which their enterprise lives.
- Jane: We should use that to take in the Maturity matrix from Austrailia to enform the customer section. Requires a lot of non-technical to be done. I think business scenario can be used to articulate things that have an impact on the architecture, to a requirements document for our end-users. We need to take a stab at what we mean by that. I would like to do a rough draft.
- Charlie:Give three weeks to produce something, with an eye to looking up the stack. We need to show the TSC how this could start to come together. Cecils comment are important. One of the starting discussions for the ArB was that we do something about the inconsistency, and add governance to specification development (not just ballots). We cannot dictate, but we should spell out the reasons things need to happen.
- Charlie:Who has some bandwidth. We need to take Austins swimlane and flesh it out.
- Bo: Zorans mapping between SAIF and Archimate need to be done. We need a few more days to make it a cohesive document.
- Charlie: Can that happen by next week?
- Bo: A good goal: One week to finalize the document, 2 weeks to meet the goal.
- Austin: Sounds good.
- Jane: Clarification: These additions you put in red: are they inputs or outputs?
- Cecil: Thought I put them in the proper columns. I think they are sub-processes.
- Jane: They identify additional outputs. The business scenarios need to include risks.
- Cecil: The outputs require the additional items up front to be ablt to execute.
- Meeting Adjourned at 5:05pm Eastern
--Tony Julian 21:07, 16 August 2012 (UTC)