This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here

20121115 arb minutes

From HL7Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

ARB - Meeting (Date in Title)

Agenda

  1. Call to order
  2. Roll Call
  3. Approval of Agenda
  4. Approval of Minutes
  5. Report from Architecture Project
  6. FHIR Management
  7. FHIR Governance
  8. BAM
  9. Other business and planning
  10. Adjournment

Meeting Information

HL7 ArB Work Group Meeting Minutes

Location: Telcon

Date: 20121115
Time: 4:00pm U.S. Eastern
Facilitator Parker, Ron Note taker(s) Julian, Tony
Attendee Name Affiliation
. Bond,Andy NEHTA
R Constable, Lorraine Constable Consulting Inc.
X Curry, Jane Health Information Strategies
. 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
X Lynch, Cecil Accenture
X Mead, Charlie National Cancer Institute
X Milosevic, Zoran Deontik Pty Ltd
. Parker, Ron CA Infoway
. Quinn, John Health Level Seven, Inc.
. Guests
. Shakir, Abdul Malik City of Hope National Medical Center
. Kriesler, Austin HL7 TSC
. Legend
X Present
. Absent
R Regrets
Quorum Requirements Met: Yes

Minutes

  1. Call to order
  2. Roll Call
  3. Approval of Agenda
  4. Approval of Minutes November 1, 2012 Minutes
    1. MOTION: TO approve (Steve/Zoran)
    2. VOTE: 5-0-0
  5. Report from Architecture Project
    1. Will do kickoff when BAM matures
  6. FHIR Management
    1. Met on Monday with Hugh as chair, Lloyd as cochair
  7. FHIR Governance
    1. Good trial - need to evolve the DAM and test against.
    2. Austin: Need tight coupling between FHIR and BAM
    3. Methodology, Governance and Management(MGM) is vested in co-chairs in the past.
  8. [BAM
    1. BO and Abdul Malik have not connected further.
    2. Ron: Good news - getting progress - focus on progress Jane and I have made.
    3. Charlie: Adoption planning is about scope definition.
    4. Ron walked group through document.
    5. Ron:Gerald and Grahame had the concept that it is pointed at the first-line consumer - give them the facility to developinteroperable interfaces. Have to run through determining the customer needs.Can be applied to service, messages, and documents.
    6. Ron: TSC would assert the assertions of the output through a Task Force. Document includes methodology for Proposal assessment, fit for purpose, capacity of organization, use cass, vitality and interest of the proposed customer base.
    7. Ron: TSC would recommend to HL7 Board, and identify a Product line internal champion - may not be the proponent - needs grasp of organization, and utility of proposal.
    8. Austin: Will not be consistent person - may be proponent, but not necessarily.
    9. Jane: Mobile health did not have a clue at first - knowledgement transfer process.
    10. Ron: Adoption is both front end, and back end. Champion facilitates the product. Post the inventory stage, the champion role changes, may still be marketing and implementation - then the organization owns the product line.
    11. Austin:Champion could transition into another role.
    12. Ron: Have not further decomposed the Governamce. Output management determines the first-line customers, their requirements, and the second-line customers.
    13. Austin: How does membership/non-membership apply?
    14. Jane: Orthogonal
    15. Ron: Customer of our process are our members - they produce the product.
    16. Austin: Also consumers - we will address their requirements first.
    17. Jane: This is characteristics, that is priority.
    18. Ron: Priority will be placed by the governance team/board. The governance board will have to determine the minimum for coherence for balloting - choose initial set of resources.
    19. Abdul Malik: FHIR who would be first line - second?
    20. Jane: First line are interface analysts who are programming to server their(Second line) customers.
    21. Ron: I tested. Dynamic behavior? FHIR team, NO - just resources, which is not inappropriate for their first line customers, who will solve dynamic behavior. There will be a point when that is insufficient. Their is a value for HL7 to fit the first-line customer into a business pattern.
    22. Cecil: No behavioral semantics, point to the correct product for behavioral semantics.
    23. Jane: That is customer segmentation - organized by business needs.
    24. Ron: Two interesting questions:
      1. What does this mean from a SAIF perspective? Ability to express a dynamic model, e.g. conformity assessment. For FHIR, conformity may be to form.
      2. When we discuss the challenges in HL7, e.g. CDA, aside from the ONC/CCD, dynamic modeling would be useful. Specially in international boundaries - useful specification that can be adapted to orchestration/dynamic behavior. We have to effectively decouple the expression of the standard from the dynamic behavior.
        1. Austin: I dont disagree - have to get the modelers from thinking in those terms. Cant separate behavior from static model.
    25. Ron: Need assessment of wherter product line requires both static and dynamic semantics. Separation came by members trying to solve problems, with finite use cases for a moment in time. We started to model RIM/V3, systematically separate static/dynamic.
    26. Austin: Turned back to how we did it in 2.x.
    27. Ron: Important distinction. 2.x serves people who have that challenge. I am looking at it from a big implementation. FHIR is in between.
    28. Austin: V3 development is focused on that.
    29. Ron: How does the philosophy of static/dynamic fit in our BAM?
    30. Austin: Not needed in all products? Is it important in functional model?
    31. Jane: Yes, after the first-order problems were solved. You solve the easy problems starting in places, but need to solve the harder problems to have coherence.
    32. Austin: Dealing with an iterative process.
    33. Abdul Malik: Every interoperability product will require dynamic and static semantics. May be able to borrow the missing part from elsewhere.
    34. Austin: CDA may abstract dynamic aspects.
    35. Ron: The BAM must have a place where we make that call. We did not know we needed to make that call up front. Relevant questions to ask early on.
    36. Austin: Variety of answers depending on the product line family.
    37. Abdul Malik: Relationship to other products.
    38. Ron: In restful paradigm it is up to the sector of use to define the patterns. Jane and I will continue.
  9. Other Business and Planning
    1. Ron: Cancel next week (November 22, 2012) , since it is Thanksgiving in the U.S. Four calls to do any further cycling of the DAM.
    2. Reconvene on November 29, 2012, and meet on December 6 , 13, and January 3.
  10. Adjournment at 5:00pm Eastern