20121206 arb minutes

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. Lab Project and the Dynamic Model
8. BAM
9. Other business and planning
   1. Agenda for Phoenix WGM
10. Adjournment

Meeting Information

HL7 ArB Work Group Meeting Minutes Location: Telcon		Date: 20121206 Time: 4:00pm U.S. Eastern
Facilitator	Parker, Ron	Note taker(s)	Julian, Tony
Attendee	Name	Affiliation
X	Bond,Andy	NEHTA
X	Constable, Lorraine	Constable Consulting Inc.
R	Curry, Jane	Health Information Strategies
X	Dagnall, Bo	HP Enterprise Services
.	Grieve, Grahame	Health Intersections Pty Ltd
.	Hufnagel, Steve	U.S. Department of Defense, Military Health System
X	Julian, Tony	Mayo Clinic
X	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	Pech, Brian	Kaiser Permanente
X	Shakir, Abdul Malik	City of Hope National Medical Center
.	Legend
X	Present
.	Absent
R	Regrets
Quorum Requirements Met: Yes

Minutes

1. Call to order
   1. Call to order at 4:07pm Eastern
2. Approval of Agenda
3. Approval of Previous Minutes
   1. Motion to approve (Tony/Zoran)
   2. Vote 6-0-1
4. FHIR
   1. Management
      1. Ron:Continuing to track
      2. Lorraine: Pushed to QA on the ballot. Worked through MnM involvement.
      3. Ron: Good dialog on quality assessment, talked about escalation. DO they escalate content, or the nature of content? Management may have to , depending. COntent or development goes to MnM. Prioritization will go to the governance board.
   2. Governance Board
      1. Ron:Working well - Been exposing people to Governance 101 deck delevered to TSC, getting a good response. Partnership meeting in Canada, discussing FHIR, governance and management.
5. Lab Project and the Dynamic Model
   1. Patrick: What do we want to show? Go to the ballot, or wiki.lab order specification. describes the parts to be implemented, and the associations/assumptions/scoping decisions.
      1. Patrick walked through the content.
      2. Cecil: Need specimen repository actor. Does not show relationship between ordering and providing system.
      3. Patrick: That is a couple of levels down.
      4. Ron: Nature of the process - how much of this can we use to shape content for the BAM?
      5. Lorraine: Have not pushed it down to the logical.
      6. Patrick: Each step should add value.
      7. Lorraine: As we worked through the DAbdul-Malik Shakir - the work put in getting the DAM right made the RMIM work go faster.
      8. Patrick: Discussed laboratories at the conceptual level - lab, ancillary, etc. Fully describe the requirements, in the right language, in the right wording made RMIM creation go much faster. EA models provided in the ballot have not made it to the wiki yet. They are weaker than we wanted.
      9. Lorraine: We need to flesh out logical, and the instance/actor roles into service provided.
      10. Cecil: I would go back up to actors and add messaging interface, or transport interface. You have no actor to tie it to. We are not dealing with the way we want to do business in the future.
      11. Patrick: Binding to the transmission protocol at the conceptual level?
      12. Cecil: not binding to the protocol, binding to the actor. Then at the implementable level you can bind in the actual protocol.
      13. Patrick: The methodologies dont expose the things we need for services. If what were are developing here wont work for messages, we need to know now.
      14. Lorraine: Related to debate of central repository, or central broker.
      15. Ron: You are excercising SAIF, as well as the IG. There are downstream implications. Propose to the ArB that as part of the ballot we should consider facilitated discussions to the right viewpoint, either in advance, or in response to, the ballot. Not concerned about the content or behavior, but whether a contract can be built. Also from a conformity assessment, pass each viewpoint through the process. Maybe during OO in Phoenix ArB should sit in.
      16. Lorraine: Wednesday Q3/Q4.
      17. Ron: Queried Austin on his perspective.
      18. Austin: The key is ArB should not get wrapped around the specifics of the domain, just the expression.
6. BAM
   1. Cecil: Bo and I did meet. Went through the remainder of our task, and have finished. Ready to feed into BAM processing for Abdul-Malik Shakir and BO. Will join Abdul-Malik Shakir and Bo at City of Hope on 12/16.
   2. Lorraine: Abdul-Malik Shakir and I looked at the logical. I am not available for at least another week.
   3. Ron: We agreed on the call last week that we would not focus on the publishing aspect. Abdul-Malik Shakir/Cecil, would like to have one call before we go to Phoenix - need for BO/Abdul-Malik Shakir/Cecil to tell us what the homework is to make the Saturday in Phoenix productive.
   4. Cecil: Consider - when tracking down responsible parties, we have no names for the group that does harmonization.
   5. Abdul-Malik Shakir: Bo and I will have a pre-meeting tomorrow. We will have observations from the 12/16 meeting on the wiki, and work on it 1/3/2013.
   6. Ron: The more I am reading on SOA governance, the more I think it is correct. That is a viewpoint I would like Charlie to bring to the BAM, and in regards to FHIR.
   7. Charlie: FHIR is the green field.
   8. Ron: Any guidance from Austin?
   9. Austin:Heating up right now is the CDA product line/family. We need to look at what it takes to stand one up using the framework - hope there is enough in the BAM. Many of the 'CDA' issues are V3 issues. Pressure is mounting.
   10. Ron: As people get exposed to an architecural and management perspective, peoples expectations are heating up.
   11. Austin: Reorganization of HL7 around driving value for members since the IP will be free.
7. Other business and planning
   1. Agenda for Phoenix WGM
      1. Ron: Need to add 2 more quarters around BAM on Sunday.
   2. Next meeting December 13, 2012.
   3. Will meet January 3, 2013 to discuss the BAM.
8. Adjournment