This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here

20130820 arb minutes

From HL7Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

ARB - Meeting (Date in Title)


  1. Call to order
  2. Roll Call
  3. Approval of Agenda and August 13, 2013 Minutes and August 6,2013 Minutes
  4. Governance
    1. Joint review of Ballot Criteria
      1. FHIR Management Group and FDG invited
  5. Methodology
  6. Management
    1. Review to-do list
    2. Review/update Arb BAM task list
    3. Report from Architecture Project
  7. Other business and planning
  8. Adjournment

Meeting Information

HL7 ArB Work Group Meeting Minutes

Location: Telcon

Date: 20130820
Time: 5:00pm U.S. Eastern
Facilitator Parker, Ron Note taker(s) Julian, Tony
Attendee Name Affiliation
X Bond,Andy NEHTA
X Constable, Lorraine Constable Consulting Inc.
. Curry, Jane Health Information Strategies
X Dagnall, Bo HP Enterprise Services
. Hufnagel, Steve U.S. Department of Defense, Military Health System
X Julian, Tony Mayo Clinic
X Lynch, Cecil Accenture
X Lloyd, Patrick
X Milosevic, Zoran Deontik Pty Ltd
X Parker, Ron CA Infoway
. Quinn, John Health Level Seven, Inc.
X Stechishin,Andy CANA Software and Service Ltd.
. Guests
X Kreisler, Austin HL7 TSC Chair
. McKenzie, Lloyd HL7 Canada/FHIR
X 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: Yes


  1. Approval of Agenda and August 13, 2013 Minutes and August 6,2013 Minutes
    1. Motion to approve agenda and minutes(Lorraine, Tony)
    2. Vote (7-0-0)
  2. Governance
    1. Joint review of Ballot Criteria
      1. FHIR Management Group and FDG invited
      2. Ron: Giving FHIR team a heads up.
      3. Lloyd: I am happy the ArB is reviewing the ballot.
      4. Ron: It is possible that there are things that will be responded by "next release", dont understand.
      5. Are the artifacts/specifications traceable and compliant to reference artifacts: RIM,V2, Domain Analysis Models(DAM)?
        1. Lloyd: You wont get very far on this.
      6. Scope and boundaries to make sure that cohesion and coherence are maintained with a minimum of overlap.
        1. Lloyd:Comments and suggestions are welcome.
      7. Are the extensions coherently supported? Management of extensions will be a problem- coherence of independent development.
        1. Lloyd: Not much in the specification - it is a process issue.
      8. Are the categories in the framework complete? The structure inhibits understanding of this.(New structure is coming).
      9. Are the patterns and application to service interfaces for the development of behavioural models clear?
        1. Lloyd: You wont see a lot of sophistication on patterns. There are building blocks - a simple pattern, but not much else done in that space.
        2. Lorraine: Some in the order/order response space
        3. Lloyd: Not may patterns, and those that exist are not complicated.
      10. Are there clearly defined conformance assertions(not to be confused with the conformance resource)?
        1. Lloyd: There are some, and we try to be clear in our language.
      11. 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.
        1. Lloyd: you wont see that in the spec at all.
      12. Ron: THis is an interesting perspective, but wont be in the DSTU.
        1. Lloyd: There is testing of the sample instances, aligned with the spec. Testing of software through the test servers and connectathon. As we approach normative we will neet to test an authoritative reference server.
        2. Lorraine: There is testing in the build process now. Beginning on thinking about versioning, branching, and management.
        3. Lloyd: Versioning process: There is none, although we have version tags. There is no anticipation of branching.
      13. Is the usage of 'null flavors' properly documented?
        1. Lloyd: If you see the word null flavor, that is a negative ballot. There may be null flavors in it, but should not use the V3 concept of Null Flavors.
        2. Lorraine: FHIR handles missing information in another way.
        3. Lloyd: Where the use case is in the 80% it is part of the value domain for the element. It may be a choice data type which allows text, numeric, or null flavors. We have not been rigorous doing that.
      14. Are the resources too fine-grained or too coarse-grained? Do we have recommendations for lumping resources together and/or breaking bigger resources apart?
        1. Lloyd:Any comments are welcome.
      15. Is there unacceptable overlap between resources (e.g., multiple resources defining the same data element)? Are redundantly defined data elements consistent across resources? If not, is the variance justified?
        1. Lloyd:Any comments are welcome.
      16. Even though FHIR is targeting RESTful interfaces, can the resources be used for other purposes and platforms?
        1. Lloyd: Resources are independent of a particular architectural paradigm.
      17. Bonus item: does the FHIR paradigm restrict common architectural principles of reuse, extensibility, abstraction, separation of concerns, encapsulation, etc. (this one may be hard to answer without more concrete metrics to guide us)?
        1. Lloyd: FHIR is about reuse - its sole purpose is for reuse. It has extensibility, but needs management in search. Lloyd:Abstraction: No, we dont do that. You can abstract a little bit, a collection of resources, but not like V3 modelling. Abstraction gets in the way of implementability. Would be curious if you find places it is needed, and why.
        2. Lloyd:Separation of concerns is good.
        3. Lloyd:Encapsulation of data types and resources are independent.
        4. Lorraine: Are there items you would like us to review for we have not covered?
        5. Lloyd: Not in the baliwick of architecture - I am concerned about consistency of elements in resources created by independant groups - discrepancies in level of detail, naming, etc. Would not be as coherent as it could be, and could cause problems down the road. If you see places you expect to see consistency, and there isnt, or if structure seems to be different between resources comment on it.
        6. Cecil: I will take a stab to see that I review as many of the resources as possible - will pop into OWL to look.
        7. Lloyd: I dont have RDF, but it is on my task list for September. We have sophisticated and tricky stuff in search, an architecural view would be useful. General feedback - is wording clear, definitions robust, organization straight forward. Report issues even if not architectural.
        8. Ron: There will be some good things coming out of the excercise. Have we divided up the tasks?
        9. Lorraine: No, not yet.
        10. Comments due to Tony by 9/3, he will consolidate for review on 9/10.
        11. Lloyd: Serious concern we will double the number of ballot items we had last time - both awesome and terrifying. We will have to triage into those of concern, and those not in scope.
  3. Methodology
  4. Management
    1. Review to-do list
      1. Tasks 2567,2611 were defered to 9/10.
      2. Ron proposed we put the glossary out, and let the comments come.
      3. Zoran will send comments to ArB list.
    2. Review/update Arb BAM task list
    3. Report from Architecture Project
      1. Austin: It has been distracted by the Clinical Decision Support(CDS) process. Are looking at organizational diagram. Discussing having a single governance board so we dont repeat CDS problems. Having a supreme court to review content is something we need to think of going forward, more permanently. It is what the old ArB used to do.
      2. Ron: Wednesday q4?
      3. Lorraine: Wednesday Q4 is joint with OO.
      4. Austin: then it is either Q3 or Q4.
  5. Other business and planning
    1. 8/27
      1. Start WGM planning
      2. Tutorial( Patrick)
      3. Glossary points (Zoran)
      4. WGM planning(all)
      5. Ballot review assignments
  6. Adjournment
    1. 9/3 Individuals review due - send to tony to consolidate. task 2623
    2. 9/10 joint review of FHIR ballot task 2623
    3. 9/17 Finalize WGM planning
    4. 9/24 WGM
    5. 10/1 FHIR ballot Recon call task 2623
    6. 10/8 BAM methodology requirements
    7. 10/15 Equip team to finish the BAM #Adjournment
  7. Adjournment
    1. Adjourned at 6:00pm U.S. Eastern