This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here

20130509 Tooling WGM Minutes

From HL7Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Tooling Meeting

Meeting Information

HL7 Tooling Meeting Agenda/Minutes

Location: Room 127

Date: 2013-05-09
Time: Q1 and Q2 9 AM 12:30 PM Eastern
Facilitator: Andy Stechishin Note taker(s): Lynn Laakso
Attendee Name, Affiliation
x Woody Beeler
x JD Baker, Sparx
x Attila Farkas, CHI
x Lynn Laakso, HL7 HQ Tooling Support
x Brian Pech, KP
x John Quinn
x Rik Smithies, CS
x Andy Stechishin, Co-chair
x Michael van der Zel, co-chair
Quorum Requirements Met (co-chair plus 3 counting staff): (yes)

Q1 Agenda

Agenda Topics

  • Roll Call & Agenda Review
  • Project Topics: V3 Generator, Migration planning, HingX Participation, Tooling Challenge,


Q1 Minutes

Q1 Minutes/Conclusions Reached:

  • Roll Call & Agenda Review
  • Project Topics: V3 Generator, Migration planning, HingX Participation, Tooling Challenge,
    • V3 Generator
      • Woody in MnM and will be in late
      • longer publishing cycle this time may give more time to try the new V3 Generator for the ballot. After one successful ballot we can try using it for the Normative Edition.
      • CAN and UV Generator differences discussed in MIF versions, interoperability of artifacts,
      • Woody will lay out exactly what the schedule for the publishing as he has responsibility for support of the tools. Document layout for publishing was not part of the CAN needs, beyond generation of the schemas.
      • Combined generator and publishing suite with good documentation is the goal. 90% done with functions and about 60% with documentation. Glossary through MIF is not done. It is an evolutionary work based on what publishing needs. What it needs is a newbie to use it and get feedback. Josh offered some good points and fixes are needed.
      • Woody also working with Josh and Don a couple hours each week to bring them up to speed for maintenance and sustaining. Andy suggests that Michael take on working with it and providing feedback.
      • "Combined tool" history discussed. QA reports also need to be extended to the new combined tool. They will test with a couple of common domains from the new NE and expect it for September and hope to use it for 2014NE.
      • Gunther created a variation of the generator for R2B and that worked consistently for our other artifacts as well
      • WYSIWYG editing in publication materials has been clumsy for XMLSpy. Use of TinyMCE using MIF markup and XHTML types has improved that editing from the PubDB but you have to run it in a JavaScript environment (local server permissions). However, in the 64-bit world it can't communicate with 32-bit VBA.
      • Need to develop set of risks and mitigations for the tooling strategy with the HL7 Visio unable to run in 64 bit. AGENDA ITEM: propose reassess/update of the tooling strategy annually. Article for newsletter needed; Woody needs some help getting it written. Andy suggests a tooling update on a bi-monthly basis (every other month) like the interim release of PBS Metrics. Woody has had an action item forever on how to publish standalone documents; eligible for GTM webinar.
    • HingX - Woody has not been able to get to working on the API with the publishing issues this cycle. Andy and/or Michael may assist him with this testing. Representing JSON with XML has alleviated some concerns.
    • Tooling Challenge
      • 21 participants have declared interest and have set up GForge credentials. Three others have declared their intent to participate but have not established GForge credentials. None have yet committed anything to the project space.
      • Richard Soley of OMG may delegate the judging by OMG to another OMG Board member.
      • MIF Schemas referred to link for 2.2.0
      • Late May/early June would be better for Sparx (JD) scheduling to hold a webinar for participants to ask questions. ACTION ITEM: Need to clarify anticipated questions for the webinar, format of entry, use of toolingchallenge list.
      • As a result, you would have the representation of MIF in UML with plugins to EA
      • Andy has been the cochairs representative while Lynn has responsibility for managing the contest mechanism, participant tracking, etc.
      • Conflict of interest including or between cochairs has been recently addressed in the Tooling DMP.
      • Tooling challenge has rolled off the main page, so may need to create events for the deadlines in the event timeline.
      • Award presentation will be made at the Plenary presentation in Cambridge.
      • We'll need to figure out who will make the presentation of the award - Ken Harkin will likely be at the plenary meeting and JD can likely make it for Monday morning. John Quinn/Chuck Jaffe should probably be there to accept the winning entry on behalf of HL7. We should acknowledge the judges as well. Need to set an agenda/emcee/presentation format etc for that event. Introduce the judges, Sparx etc. (Andy asks about dress code and tying his own bow tie). ACTION ITEM: Need to set the timing and presenters etc for the plenary.
      • Discussion ensued on exactly what format XMI etc that we need to produce. Michael asks for whom the benefit will be greatest - Andy feels it lowers barriers to entry and will benefit the community at large. OMG will receive suggestions for the extension of UML so they would have an opportunity to discuss the advances this represents and perhaps Richard Soley can attend/present/receive.
      • ACTION ITEM: Send email to all participants to inform them they should be subscribed to the toolingchallenge list as questions and answers should be directed there. Thank them for participating. Reminder for those that haven't created their GForge credentials to do so, etc. Direct them to the resources on MIF, etc. Inform them of the webinar planned for late May/early June. Woody will be out June 5 for a week - plan it before then. May want to include instructions on anonymizing oneself on the GTM or how to hide participants.
  • HingX - Woody discussed metadata that HingX already has around their resources. Need to know the stock data needed for a resource.


Adjourned at 10:32 AM



HL7 Tooling Meeting Agenda/Minutes

Location: Room 127

Date: 2013-05-09
Time: Q2 11 AM Eastern
Facilitator: Andy Stechishin Note taker(s): Lynn Laakso
Attendee Name, Affiliation
JD Baker, Sparx
Woody Beeler, Beeler Consulting
x Attila Farkas, CHI
x Lynn Laakso, HL7 HQ Tooling Support
x Brian Pech, KP
x John Quinn
John Ritter, EHR
x Rik Smithies, CS
x Rob Snelick, CGIT
Rene Spronk, Marketing
John Ritter, EHR
Abdul-Malik Shakir, Shakir Consulting
x Andy Stechishin, Co-chair
x Michael van der Zel, co-chair
Quorum Requirements Met (co-chair plus 3 counting staff): (yes)

Q2 Agenda

Agenda Topics

  • Roll Call & Agenda Review
  • Tooling Strategy Discussion, Update from liaisons to other WG, Tactical Plan


Q2 Minutes

Minutes/Conclusions Reached:
Convened 11:16 AM

  • Roll Call & Agenda Review
  • Update from liaisons to other WG
    • Rik has an update to an action item 2510 to develop requirements for inclusion in a project scope statement to further flesh out the ontology work.
      • Clinical Statement use case:
        1. Take an RMIM and check that it conforms to the Clinical Statement DMIM
          • Generalizing: compare any model to any other and see if A conforms to B. Typically one is an RMIM and one a DMIM, but RMIM to RMIM, CMET to DMIM etc. are all also useful.
        2. Check RMIM is a valid constraint of a DMIM:
          • Check all classes, attributes, relationships, datatypes, cardinalities, conformance, vocabulary/terminology of RMIM are allowed in the DMIM.
          • A valid instance of the RMIM would always be an instance of the DMIM. In practice ITS issues around class/element renaming, mean that an RMIM instance will not necessarily look like an instance of the DMIM but it may still conform.
        • Background:
          The HL7 model development methodology is based on refinement by constraint. Starting from the RIM, other models constrain down, and unroll classes and relationships. In this way the new model is a true subset of the original (but can also be larger, in terms of “unrolled” classes expressed).
        • Why it’s needed:
          HL7 models are meant to be built this way, but often in fact are not, due to human error. This means there are often errors in published material where a domains RMIMs or CMETs don’t match the same domains DMIM.
          There is no tool that allows one model to be derived from another, except that Visio forces you to conform to the RIM model. In the ideal world it would be possible to start with a DMIM and constrain it directly, thus enforcing compatibility up front. Without such a tool it is left to the modeller to draw a new model that conforms, often starting from scratch. This is error prone, even assuming the person knows the original model well enough to know what the derived model should look like, never mind model it correctly.
        • In the absence of that tool, a good second best is a tool that checks models are compatible. Ideally this would be built into Visio, so you can compare the current model to another. This then approaches a tool that enforces compatibility when modelling. However it is assumed that an easier first step is for it to be available as a “command line” tool, to run as a QA step after modelling. It would presumably work from the MIF of each model, or the Visio xml.
        • Output would be a textual report of what in the second model is not compatible with the first.
        • The alternative at the moment is to manually check every class, attribute etc. between the two models. Typically involving creating a large spreadsheet by hand, this is time consuming and error prone, and needs to be repeated when either model changes.
      • Andy notes that Michael is planning to create a template for documenting requirements for tooling. We need to work towards developing a PSS for this once Lloyd's phase 2 is complete. Discussion ensued in relationship to the three-year plan versus a PSS.
      • Michael notes that AMS did a great job pulling requirements for MAX and may provide a good example.
    • Rob Snelick reports on MWB in Delphi (IGAMT) for CGIT
      • Analysis completed and then put on the shelf, when Pete's laptop was found and the source is being evaluated.
      • Tony Julian is willing to assign Matt from Mayo to work on the gaps. Need an older version of Delphi to work from. Rob will pass it over to them and Mayo will pick up the ball.
      • Working on the tool generation of PDFs as well as XML as stepping stones towards publishing.
      • Question on its relationships with HAPI - context free validation occurs at the end of the stream, rather than profiling capabilities.
      • Rob shows the LRI Datatypes PDF.pdf as an example.
      • They are leveraging DITA for this and would like to compare to MDHT but did not get a response. They recommend Sean Muir and Galen Mulrooney as contacts. They are using DITA to generate the documentation from within the tool that already contains the processable artifacts. HL7 existing transforms already generate PDF so DITA has not been widely adopted.
      • Michael asks about what PSS is this about. NIST is managing the project, so it's not really within HL7.
      • They plan to make it open source and the IP issues are still at large. It would likely become an "HL7-endorsed" tool. Andy suggests that some IHE profiles are even tighter than our IGs that might benefit from the standardization of how they write their IGs/profiles. The IHE Profile balloting process within HL7 is unknown; has not yet been started or exercised. Discussion on IHE profiles ensued.
    • Relationship to the Tooling challenge for UML to UML traceability suggests Michael.
    • Andy suggests a page for projects with requirements and tag the wiki page for cross references
    • Diego put some stuff together for the Education PSS and cross referenced it with Heather's designing an HL7 tutorial. We may assign that to the new cochair Dennis.
    • Templates ITS work continues, and are supposed to be using HingX. Jane may report on an upcoming Tooling call.
    • Vocab making progress with NLM tool, and adopting a stronger leadership effort. Vocab is also looking for a replacement tooling liaison from Vocab and will be discussed on an upcoming call.
    • SDWG, same as Templates report
    • Michael has nothing to report from Patient Care or RIMBAA.
    • We had a report on EHR tool on Tuesday and that the demonstrations went well. Still need an updated contract with dates for subsequent deliverables. Michael and Andy will need to communicate with William.
  • Tooling Strategy Discussion, Tactical Plan
    • Tooling Strategy was approved after the January meeting. We need a tactical plan and then prioritize the projects for value to membership. Priorities are on users easier to use HL7 rather than producing HL7. How do you use tools to take a standard and create a constrained implementation guide. Help desk idea within HL7 is not gaining traction. No one is paying us to be the back-up help desk for the ONC.
    • Discussion ensued on the membership model and the revenue plans for tooling and the development of the tactical plan.

Adjourned 12:32 PM


Meeting Outcomes

Actions
  • Schedule reassessment/update of the tooling strategy annually.
  • Develop Tooling update Article for newsletter on a bi-monthly basis (every other month) like the interim release of PBS Metrics. Woody needs some help getting it written.
  • Tooling Challenge:
    • Need to clarify anticipated questions for the webinar, format of entry, use of toolingchallenge list.
    • Need to set the timing and presenters etc for the presentation of the award winner at the plenary.
    • Send email to all participants to inform them they should be subscribed to the toolingchallenge list as questions and answers should be directed there. Thank them for participating. Reminder for those that haven't created their GForge credentials to do so, etc. Direct them to the resources on MIF, etc. Inform them of the webinar planned for late May/early June
  • Michael and Andy will need to communicate with William on updated EHR S FM Profile Designer contract with dates for subsequent deliverables. .
Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items
  • .


Return to Tooling


© 2013 Health Level Seven® International. All rights reserved.