This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here

20130207 arb minutes

From HL7Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

ARB - Meeting (Date in Title)

logistics

Teleconferences are held on Tuesday at 4:00pm U.S. Eastern Schedules may be found at HL7.org Conference Call Center


Please join my meeting from your computer, tablet or smartphone.

  1. Join the meeting:
  2. If you cant use voip then capture the PIN from the screen for the above action, then
  • Weekly conference call.
  • For 24/7 customer service please call (844) 844-1322.

Agenda

  1. Call to order
  2. Roll Call
  3. Approval of Agenda
  4. Approval of Minutes of the Phoenix F-F
  5. Report from Architecture Project
  6. Report from FHIR Management
  7. Report from FHIR Governance
  8. BAM Latest BAM
  9. BAM data entry tool
  10. Other business and planning
  11. Adjournment

Meeting Information

HL7 ArB Work Group Meeting Minutes

Location: Telcon

Date: 20130207
Time: 5:00pm U.S. Eastern
Facilitator Charlie Mead/ Parker, Ron Note taker(s) Julian, Tony/????
Attendee Name Affiliation
. Bond,Andy NEHTA
. Constable, Lorraine Constable Consulting Inc.
. Curry, Jane Health Information Strategies
. Dagnall, Bo HP Enterprise Services
. Grieve, Grahame Health Intersections Pty Ltd
. Hufnagel, Steve U.S. Department of Defense, Military Health System
. Julian, Tony Mayo Clinic
. Loyd, Patrick ICode Solutions
. Lynch, Cecil Accenture
. Mead, Charlie National Cancer Institute
. Milosevic, Zoran Deontik Pty Ltd
. Parker, Ron CA Infoway
. Quinn, John Health Level Seven, Inc.
. Guests
. Kreisler, Austin HL7 TSC Chair
. Luthra, Anil NCI
. Pech, Brian Kaiser Permanente
.
. Legend
X Present
. Absent
R Regrets
Quorum Requirements Met: Yes

MInutes

 DRAFT  
 Tony: Refer to phoenix, and order "COmpletion" from that.

Lorraine, BO, Tony, Andy, Brian Pech,Zoran, Steve, Ron , AMS, Cecil

Minutes

  1. Approval of Agenda and minutes Minutes of the Phoenix F-F(lorraine/Cecil)
    1. Motion to approve(Lorraine,Cecil)
    2. Vote6-0-0)
  2. Figure out how we are going to deploy EA within ArB and manage repository versioning.
  3. Completion of BAM artifacts
    1. Review Frieda’s process model and update process lifecycle diagram. Charlie and Bo
    2. Create proper activity diagrams and state transition diagrams. Charlie and Bo
    3. Update meta-model profiles, spreadsheets, and models so far to reflect i and ii.
      1. Ron: worked on with Jane. Facilitators working with SD members must be able to update.
      2. Ron: Austin has charged the TSC to produce a list of SD members, ans will expect start next week.
    4. Embed definitions for the data capture tool items in the reference section of the spreadsheet
      1. DONE per Ron.
    5. Further segment the lists of roles / behaviours etc… by life-cycle stage
    6. Harmonize the lists of things in the reference section to the work done by AMS in the product catalog and Ron has done for FHIR
      1. Ron: Will be a cyclical process.
      2. AMS: Will work on defintions from the artifacts.
    7. From ii harvest the reusable process patterns such as publications, balloting, project scope planning
      1. Ron: Downstream task.
      2. Bo: Some could be grouped: 1 & 7, 4&5&6. 1-9 & 13 will be grouped for assignment.
      3. Bo: Will provide grouping after the call.
    8. Steps 1 and 2 need to be redone in new data collection tool
    9. Take the outputs of iv and put it into the model
      1. Done by Ron and Jane.
    10. Pass 1 – just for artifacts, behaviours, participants, roles, and parties
    11. TSC to assign responsibilities to fill out data collection tool for remaining lifecycle stages for ballotable products
    12. ArB models the work resulting from TSC assignments
    13. Map flattened UML to proper UML
      1. Downstream activity.
    14. Using TSC Risk Assessment identify organizational and typical product Governance Points and corresponding precepts, metrics, and processes (who?)
      1. Ron: Gut feeling we will be expected to do sooner rather than later, but cannot until SD completes BAM.
    15. Need to add to the model and the spreadsheets constructs for the why (means and ends) values in the value statements and the criteria which is the conformance content and realization of the value statements
    16. Pass 2 by repeating steps x through xii Pass 2
    17. Model Vitality process
    18. Conformity assessment processes to guide current or imminent new product development
    19. Start creating exemplary instances from the BAM
    20. Model processes for context neutral components (data types, cmets, harmonization processes)
    21. Create a high-level product hierarchy / taxonomy
      1. Product Lines
      2. Product families
      3. Product family sub-components
    22. Transition and Facilitation
    23. Things arising from SAIF Architecture Program Meeting
    24. Things arising from Product Line Kickoff Meeting
    25. Completion of SAIF CD
    26. Complete Glossary
  1. Report from Architecture Project
    1. Lorraine:
    2. Austin is not present.
  2. Report from FHIR Management
    1. MEt once
  3. Report from FHIR Governance
    1. Met twice - statused issues around IP. Not just for FHIR, includes agreements with IHE and DICOM. Chuck Jaffe will be working on the agreements.
    2. Discussion around use cases for next connectathon - ONC drivers, leverage the EHR-FM profiles to create business concepts.
  4. BAM Latest BAM
  5. BAM data entry tool
    1. Ron: Jane and I Created columns for the entry tool. Added drop-downs.
    2. Ron: More than one behavior/participation for a category row.
    3. How do we want to deal with an anchor activity, and what degree of depth?
    4. Bo: Found repeatable activities - will model as separate diagrams to be referenced.
    5. Ron: There is some repeatability for lower level.
    6. Jane: If same process repeats, can be referenced. There are process patterns with different subject and participation, but still have same steps. E.G. Nomination comittee sorts out recommendations, and comes back to TSC for approval. Establishing Governance board and methodology group use the same pattern.
    7. Ron: Challenge is that participations change.
    8. In the BAM we describe the model, and the pattern - just need to make the pattern right. Need to explore the differences between Governance, Management, and Methodology. Who is an interest problem.
    9. Bo: We have several dimension:
      1. Reusable process patterns with same roles.
      2. Pattern where roles and artifact types change.
      3. Pattern only deviates at the instance level.
    10. Ron: Trying to model a 3d world in a 2d space. Should proceed recognizing the discrete representations.
    11. Bo: Not sure how to solve.
    12. Ron: Is this solved if we do activity diagrams directly, instead of capture in a spreadsheet?
    13. Jane: What is more manageable for people? It is iterative - first pass is functional: from an activity diagram level it becomes finer grained. The switch from Governer to Manager role within the same group is a problem. Visual persons can see one way. We can license the software, but need to educate on how to do it right.
    14. Ron: Not a happy discussion - exposing the complexity of a simple process. If we can discover a convention, it will be better.
    15. Jane: Easier at the lower level, than try to infer from other levels.
    16. Bo: We said the flattened view and the UML view highlight different things better. Archimate-style shows sequencing, UML shows flows.
    17. Jane: Too bad EA does not have the Archimate view.
    18. Ron: There is merit in the idea of taking a pass through the steps without solving the normalization problems. Worry about the patterning problem later.Puts work on the ArB to solve later. If we figure the patterns in advance in an exemplar fashion, the facilitators will have an easier time: by identifying the pattern.
    19. Jane: More consistency.
    20. Ron: Flat lower level string bundle requires more QA for unbundling. Concensus? Changes the way we focus.
    21. Jane: I am going back to draw tools - diagram- to see the overall pattern, whethere activity or sketchier, where roles change, to tease out Governance, Management, and Methodology. I would need a tutorial on EA to do it in EA.
    22. Ron: Projecting forward to data capture, even if Jane was doing diagraming, the diagram would be useful. Looking at the meta-model for completeness, we may need that level to deal with patterns. WIll need methodology for ArB facilitators to work with teams.
    23. Jane: Did definitions get reviewed?
    24. Ron: Not yet.
    25. Bo: No better solution.
    26. Ron: Stick with spreadsheet then develope internal methodology. Facilitators will have to have session to come back and answer how we solve for x and y.
    27. Ron: Jane and I have to finish the 01 and 02 stages. Moceling recurrent things separately is correct.
    28. Jane: Harmonization also.
    29. Jane: we are describing the developemnt of project scope statements.
    30. Definitions:
      1. Ron: Jane and I started on the definitions. Work item is to review the definitions.
      2. Ron: On the wiki we have BA definitions on the phases.
      3. Jane: Created page with sections- need to hyperlink sections. As soon as definitions are agreed we put on the page. Chaged things in a cople of places in the dynamic model and business artifact.
    31. Ron: Read the definitions: Some are self evident, some nuanced.
    32. Jane: Classification into Governance, Management, and Methodology came from SAIF-CD.
    33. Ron: Red outline is part of a range reference in a dropdown. Add new row in middle of the range, then select and sort alpha. If you add to the end, they wont appear in the list.
    34. Jane: I added submitter, it let me use it, but when I did back it was not available. Excel Artifact?
    35. Dynamic model - Behavioral model is SAIF-CD term.
    36. Governance artifact is not a final product. A product is different. Governance artifact is not a working artifact, or product, but has criteria the others dont have.
    37. Bo: The typing so far is to add an attribute to the base class. When sterotyping in the model they were created to extend the meta-classes. Not explicit in the meta-model. Only pattern in meta-model is when associations to other classes are different.
    38. Ron: Governance contrain behavior.
    39. Cecil a different semantic path.
    40. Probelems, concerns, changes to Ron by next week.
  6. Other business and planning
    1. Ron not available next week.
    2. Hope Charlie can chair, otherwise still have working session.
  7. Adjournment