This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here

20130806 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 and Minutes
  4. Management
    1. Quality Check for the Glossary
    2. Review to-do list
    3. Report from Architecture Project
  5. Governance
  6. Methodology
    1. Continue Ballot Criteria
  7. Other business and planning
    1. 8/13 walkthrough of FHIR ballot task 2623
    2. 8/20 Invite FHIR - FDG, FMG to review criteria task 2623
    3. 8/27 Start WGM planning
    4. 9/3 Individuals review due - send to tony to consolidate. task 2623
    5. 9/10 joint review of FHIR ballot task 2623
    6. 9/17 Finalize WGM planning
    7. 9/24 WGM
    8. 10/1 FHIR ballot Recon call task 2623
    9. 10/8 BAM methodology requirements
    10. 10/15 Equip team to finish the BAM
  8. Adjournment

Meeting Information

HL7 ArB Work Group Meeting Minutes

Location: Telcon

Date: 20130806
Time: 5:00pm U.S. Eastern
Facilitator Constable, Lorraine Note taker(s) Julian, Tony
Attendee Name Affiliation
X Bond,Andy NEHTA
X Constable, Lorraine Constable Consulting Inc.
. Curry, Jane Health Information Strategies
R Dagnall, Bo HP Enterprise Services
. Hufnagel, Steve U.S. Department of Defense, Military Health System
X Julian, Tony Mayo Clinic
R Lynch, Cecil Accenture
X Milosevic, Zoran Deontik Pty Ltd
. Lloyd, Patrick
R Parker, Ron CA Infoway
. Quinn, John Health Level Seven, Inc.
X Stechishin,Andy CANA Software and Service Ltd.
. Guests
. Kreisler, Austin HL7 TSC Chair
. Luthra, Anil NCI
. Pech, Brian Kaiser Permanente
. Shakir, Abdul Malik City of Hope National Medical Center
. Laakso, Lynn HL7
.
. Legend
X Present
. Absent
R Regrets
Quorum Requirements Met: Co-Chair + 3Yes

Minutes

  1. Approval of Agenda and Minutes
  2. Motion to approve minutes and Agenda (Tony/Andy)
    1. Move Patrick to Member
  3. Vote (4-0-0)
  4. Management
    1. Quality Check for the Glossary
      1. Zoran presented the protege version discussed a few quality problems in the glossary.
      2. Template definition is incomplete: Zoran recommends definition from ISO/IEC 10746-2(RM-ODP).
      3. Architecture definition in SAIF is missing. We are not using authoritive definitions.
      4. Zoran will identify open issues.
      5. Andy S: Suggest we prepare a list, and schedule for a call.
    2. Review to-do list
    3. Report from Architecture Project
      1. Discussed the CDS project from ONC. It has landed at a TSC task force and content review committee. Will push to out-of-cycle ballot so that they can reconcile by the end of the year.
  5. Governance
  6. Methodology
    1. Continue Ballot Criteria
    2. Ballot Criteria (2013-07-23)
      1. Cecil believes that the clinical content may be incomplete. Lorraine wondered if this was pertinent as a review criteria for the ArB. Cecil and Lorraine discussed that RIM mapping was important, Cecil said that there should be traceability from the RIM to the FHIR resources and was an appropriate area for review for the ArB. Andy spoke about FHIR containing elements architectural elements (from a bottom kind of approach). Cecil suggested that RLUS and the relationship to FHIR should be examined
      2. Suggested Criteria: Review from a point of view of the Behavioural Framework in SAIf that the accountabilities and roles that are implied by the contracts in the interactions,
      3. Suggested Criteria: Reviewing with a look toward ensuring that the relationships between the resources is clear
      4. Zoran asked of it was the role of the ArB to monitor and suggest alignment to other architectural activities (specifically such as hData).
      5. Suggested Criteria: Lorraine thought it would be important to ensure that all the rules around expected behaviour are defined.
      6. end 2013-07-23
      7. Patrick(E-mail):My comment regarding FHIR review criteria is the ARB should review from a wholeness or coherence perspective. As one reviews all the various artifacts, does it appear they follow the same architecture, are well bounded, follow a common framework, etc.
      8. Patrick(E-mail):I do not have any grand ideas about how to objectively perform an evaluation based on my comments above.... I have looked at the artifacts, scope of each resource is one of the key items to ensure is very well documented (so, has the scope been well documented for each resource).
      9. Andy S: Should we be looking at overlap of resources across boundaries.
      10. Lorraine: Coherence and completeness. Bo talked about framework and categorization: The structure inhibits understanding. Grahame is rewriting the presentation of content for review.
      11. Andy B: Management of extensions will be a problem.
      12. Andy S: This will be a problem.
      13. Lorraine: More general criteria that fits under.
      14. Andy B: Treatment of behaviour and workflow, not necessarily a single point solution for all aspects, but must have clear pointed jump-offs for others if it is not included in FHIR. There are half-dozen things FHIR is attempting to do better, we should evaluate for appropriateness.
      15. Lorraine: There is some choreography between orders and response.
      16. Zoran: Do they have elements of service interfaces?
      17. Andy B: I dont think so.
      18. Lorraine: The patterns imply them, but the jumping off points are not clear.
      19. Zoran: Coherence: Does it include links to logical view apart - or is it behavioural coherence?
      20. Lorraine: There are not Domain Analysis Models(DAM) for many of the resources. Traceability is implied by the underlying models.
      21. Lorraine: Should we review the design principles on the wiki?
      22. Candidate Criteria:
        1. Are the artifacts/specifications traceable and compliant to reference artifacts: RIM,V2, Domain Analysis Models(DAM)?
        2. Scope and boundaries to make sure that cohesion and coherence are maintained with a minimum of overlap.
        3. Are the extensions coherently supported? Management of extensions will be a problem- coherence of independent development.
        4. Are the categories in the framework complete? The structure inhibits understanding of this.(New structure is coming).
        5. Are the patterns and application to service interfaces for the development of behaviour models clear?
        6. Are there clearly defined conformance assertions(not to be confused with the conformance resource)?
        7. To what extent are testing of the conformance complete, and covered by testing(connectathon). (there is a server test to ensure that the servers conform to the specifications) The build process does validation and testing: tests examples against SNOMED, etc.
        8. Is the useage of 'null flavors' properly documented?
      23. The above list was e-mailed to the members of the ArB.
  7. Other business and planning
    1. 8/13 walkthrough of FHIR ballot task 2623
    2. 8/20 Invite FHIR - FDG, FMG to review criteria task 2623
    3. 8/27 Start WGM planning
    4. 9/3 Individuals review due - send to tony to consolidate. task 2623
    5. 9/10 joint review of FHIR ballot task 2623
    6. 9/17 Finalize WGM planning
    7. 9/24 WGM
    8. 10/1 FHIR ballot Recon call task 2623
    9. 10/8 BAM methodology requirements
    10. 10/15 Equip team to finish the BAM
  8. Adjournment at 6:00pm U. S. Eastern

--Tony Julian 22:12, 6 August 2013 (UTC)