This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here

20121129 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 Previous Minutes
  5. Report from Architecture Project
  6. FHIR
    1. Management
    2. Governance Board
  7. Clinical Interoperability Consortium
  8. BAM
  9. Item2
  10. Other business and planning
  11. Agenda for Phoenix WGM
  12. Adjournment

Meeting Information

HL7 ArB Work Group Meeting Minutes

Location: Telcon

Date: 20121129
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
X Lynch, Cecil Accenture
X Mead, Charlie National Cancer Institute
X Milosevic, Zoran Deontik Pty Ltd
X Parker, Ron CA Infoway
. Quinn, John Health Level Seven, Inc.
. Guests
X Kreisler, Austin HL7 TSC Chair
X Luthra, Anil NCI
X Pech, Brian Kaiser Permanente
. Legend
X Present
. Absent
R Regrets
Quorum Requirements Met: Yes

Minutes

Tony Julian, Brian Pech, Anil Luthra, Bo Dagnall, Austin Kreisler, Zoran, Andy, Steve, Charlie, Ron, Jane, Cecil !!!! Modify Zoran company to Deontik Pty Ltd

  1. Agenda and Previous Minutes
  2. MOTION: Approve Minute(Steve/Tony)
  3. VOTE: 8-0-0
    1. Architecture Program
  4. Austin: Implementation side of the BAM. Will hold kickoff at Phoenix, after determining where the ArB and TSC are.
  5. Charlie: Include work on the SAIF IG?
  6. Austin: Considered separate project under MnM, keeping separate. Each product line/family will have to develop its own IG based on SAIF.
  7. FHIR
    1. FHIR Management Board
      1. Ron: WOrking to support next ballot and WGM. Discussing having sessions to decide next steps, and outcome of connect-a-thon. Lloyd has requested a number of slots in Phoenix to use for this purpose.
    2. FHIR Governance Board
      1. Ron: Focus of connect-a-thon is around proving that there is a way to use FHIR with XDS. FHIR proponents have crafted a set of IHE-like resources. Will try to discover how to manage relationships with consumers(e.g. IHE) as they make declaratives around their use of resources.
      2. Will try to develop branding of product.
      3. Charlie: Is this not the same as the SOA value proposition?
      4. Ron: Virtues of choosing FHIR vs CDA, V2, or V3.
  8. Clinical Interoperability Consortium(CIC)
    1. Charlie:Implementing DAMs. Discussed dynamic symantics and process. Wanted to know how DAM's interact with FHIR. Grahame said not relative, but actually apply at the informational level.
    2. Austin: Resource groups should be working on that.
    3. Charlie: Management should be able to publish a list of who is working on what.
    4. Austin: Management group should be coordinating.
    5. Charlie: CIC brings up that they are not interested in REST, RDF, etc, rather making their semantics into EHR-FP and FHIR.
    6. Ron: Essence of this conversation is what are the entry points for a customer to understand the context where they may use them.
    7. Austin: FHIR is supposed to be examining other models than V3 to look at the usability.
    8. Charlie: Walked CIC through traceability from conceptual through logical - tracing DAM into logical level to implementable - on the wire. Only hook CIC has now is EHR-FP. FHIR offers an opportunity to contribute.
    9. Cecil: I thought the FHIR resources separated them from the RMIM constraints. Once you strip the RMIM you loose the traceability of the RMIM to the DAMs.
    10. Ron: TSC wants to see semantics in the DAM in a resource. The name of the resources someone clinically will want to know how they developed the name. With no traceability to a DAM will cause a collision in the mind of the subject matter experts.
    11. Cecil: Going through the resources and attributes there was a difference of opinion between clinicians and the developers.
    12. Charlie: Resource definitions will require semantics from a DAM - Not like V3, but the semantics of a DAM may be in multiple resources.
    13. Cecil: Will be attribute map, which people wont find.
    14. Ron: Have a session with FHIR. Need to map SAIF notions to the resources development.
    15. Ron: This is important. A thing named Patient or Discharge, we will need to explain decomposition and recomposition and traceability. Clinical will not understand this.
  9. BAM
    1. Ron: Jane and I circulated our version.We think it is good, but not entirely complete. Need to get into tooling.
    2. Bo: Abdul-Malik and I are in discussions, and will meet either 12/16 or 12/20 face-to-face, to take the spreadsheet to create the models. We cant do it in isolation, we will need access to various people who contributed to spreadsheet. May need to determine a baseline before we start.
    3. Ron: Need enough time to take a pass through, to determine the magnitude of the delta. In advance you can schedule in people during the meeting to get clarity.
    4. Bo: Are there sections that are incomplete? If not, how do we set up a call? ArB or Out-of-Cycle.
    5. Ron: During thursday calls is best.
    6. Bo: Steve, Cecil and I are assigned the logical.
    7. Ron: Lorraine has another. If you can get your section done, and I can collect from Lorraine and company, I can get it to you by Tuesday.
    8. Charlie: TSC wants depth on the Lab project to see if they have used the dynamic model.
    9. Jane: I suspect they will be ready. Lorraine and Patrick felt confident that they have addressed concerns from a ballot.
    10. Charlie: Not sure how long we will spend to see if they used the dynamic model, and that it works. Should be smooth discusion, which must be reported to the TSC. TSC wants to use lab as a poster child of usage of the dynamic model if it is done correctly.
    11. Ron:We will put a note to the listserv to make the content available.
    12. Jane: Need gotomeeting or skype, and I can be available on 12/16.
    13. Bo: We identifed several state charts, and only assigned the first half of the steps. We will be modeling only those.
    14. Ron: On call we need to determine if that is a problem. That should be your assumption, unless we can get the rest implemented. Austin: what are the things that are mission critical?
    15. Austin: The first two stages, id and stand up product lines are the highest priority. Balloting is well understood, and does not have to be re-engineered at the onset.
    16. Ron: Look over the model Jane pushed out. The community needs to iterate before the model is generated.
    17. Jane: We have three stages, not two.
    18. Ron: Added a stage that was assumed, and needed to be instantiated.
  10. Agenda for Phoenix
    1. Add Saturday meeting
  11. Adjournment (Jane/Cecil) Tony Julian 21:50, 29 November 2012 (UTC)