20130925 SAIF AP Meeting

HL7 SAIF Architecture Program – 2013-09-25 Meeting

Return to SAIF Architecture Program Wiki Home Page<br\> Return to SAIF AP Meeting Minutes and Agendas

Meeting Logistics

• Dates: Wednesday Q4 of the Working Group Meeting in Conference Room TBD
• Time: 15:30 - 17:00 Eastern Time

Q4 Agenda for SAIF Architecture Program

1. Role Call
2. Agenda Review
3. Joint meeting with OO to discuss Behavioral Framework
   1. How OO has used the Behavioral Framework (the thought is to meet in OO's meeting room to discuss this)
   2. Lessons Learned from OO's use of the Behavioral Framework
   3. How do we build on the Behavioral Framework (the thought is to head back to SAIF AP's meeting room to discuss this)
6. Call schedule for the upcoming trimester
7. Next WGM Needs

Meeting Attendees

X=Present on Call

Facilitator	Austin Kreisler	Note taker(s)	David Hamill
Attendee	Name	Affiliation
X	Austin Kreisler	TSC Chair
X	David Hamill	HL7 HQ / Program Manager
X	Ron Parker	ArB
	John Quinn	HL7 CTO
X	Lorraine Constable	Composite Order Pjt / OO Behavioral Framework Pjt
	Patrick Loyd	OO Work Group / Composite Order Pjt
X	Rick Haddorff	Project Services WG / SAIF Pilot Coordination Pjt
X	Jerry Goodnough	OO
X	Emory Fry	OO
X	Zoran Milosevic	HL7 Australia
X	Hans Buitendijk	OO
X	Alean Kirnak	Cross Paradigm Project
X	Abdul Malik Shakir	MnM
X	Woody Beeler	MnM WG
X	Freida Hall	OO
Quorum Requirements Met: Yes

Minutes

Meeting with OO to discuss Behavioral Framework Lessons Learned (Constable)

• Filling out the Interoperability Specification Matrix was difficult without the artifacts defined
• Done with conceptual – ready to step into logical – do not have the requirements from one to other
• It did not take as long to do RMIMs; can show scope and things that don’t fit (because of the Behavioral Framework in place)
• Wanted more comments on ballot of the behavioral aspect, not modeling
• Need a better way to publish complex models (EA to html)
• No conceptual datatypes available in the modeling – created for project and now in OO level – needs to be “elevated”
• Conceptual to RMIM and FHIR resources – human, not machine at this point;
• Created Tracker #2771 Follow up with Tooling and the projects that have been using EA to show them what she has done with the Behavioral Framework project to address the following:
  • EA – tooling to import and extract so business resources can review and provide input – Michael Van Der Zel of MAX project has a way
  • Need tooling to help so that not just one or two modelers can work on the project
  • Set-up way to meld way to use EA with Gforge
• Conceptual level for service – SAIF CD uses Contract Role
• Need SAIF style guide – template – profile for BF for EA tool
• Tried to pull in help with tutorials on EA, not too successful – maybe because of focus on FHIR content creation
• Tools – Content – ReUse –split into specific groups
• Can reuse as we go through FHIR – and apply to that creation process
• Traceability – which HL7 processes somewhat lack – are still needed and will be valuable as a project moves from conceptual to logical – gives the opportunity to provide the traceability requirements
• There seemed to be both a level of detail and abstraction in the artifacts that were reviewed. Creating the artifact information at a middle ground would be ideal.
• One goal of the project is to determine what deliverables from using SAIF are the most useful.
• One lesson learned is that we need a better way to publish the complex models. This was discovered during balloting.
• Another lesson learned is that SAIF should be ‘scalable’. Every project may not need every aspect of SAIF.
• The team was pretty successful with how to deal with things that are common and sharable.
• They did document in GForge how to connect various items to EA.
• The team did not notice anything was missing when they followed SAIF.
• The team discovered some tooling constraints.
• A SAIF Style Guide and Implementation Guide would be useful (Created Tracker #2772: Initiate a new project to create an Implementation Guide and SAIF Style Guide)
• Lorraine isn’t sure if balloting as a DAM is the correct approach.
  • ArB's core difference of a DAM and conceptual model: A DAM doesn't have the conformance requirement traceability aspects; a DAM is a component of a conceptual model
• If they had better guidance on how to go about the methodology, they probably would’ve had more help to do the work.
• A few other people are trying the same approach as the Behavioral Framework team (Jean Duteau is one)

Emory Fry added some of his experience:

• Used OO models for Orders in Orders Service project
• Emory Fry: – project with 3 services – what is the intent of the BF – consensus of what is or what it should be
• Emory: Level of granularity/detail worked well for Service project modeling – not too specific, not too fuzzy - went back to canonical document for guidance

Next Steps for Behavioral Framework

• At some point the team should step back and document. Lorraine expects to begin that work 6 weeks from now.

• ArB will take these minutes and come up with an interview process to interview Lorraine, Patrick and Cecil. The interview should focus on conceptual modeling in a behavioral space, and how it fits into SAIF. The outcome of the interview could be:
  • What gaps were identified within SAIF and need to be addressed
  • Attempts to generate documentation
  • Other technical artifacts that can be harvested from the BF work

• Applying changes from ballot to conceptual – can use that to pull bullet points for how they did this stylistically for future use (won’t happen until after some FHIR)

• Perform a vitality check for SAIF AP – significant event – feedback from alpha project testing out BF – need to go to back to SAIF CD and see if changes need to be made;

• Identify guidance in scaling to each project – what part(s) of SAIF should be used for each

• Have afternoon / webinar for new projects for SAIF

THIS MARKS THE END OF THE SESSION WITH OO

Updates from other projects

Cross Paradigm (Alean Kirnak)

• Began to look at trying MDMI.
• Model Driven Health Tool – MDHT
• Did some updates to the model.
• With MU Stage 2, they revisited the information model base.

The FHIR team had already mapped the V2 elements

• They discovered that the FHIR team doesn’t have a tool, such as MDMI, but rather is using Excel spreadsheets as the Cross Paradigm project originally used.

CDA R3 (Austin Kreisler)

• They did make progress over the summer.
• At the last WGM they discovered that there were some chunks missing in the narrative documentation for CDA R2. Patrick Loyd identified the gaps and filling them, which he completed over the summer and it’s in the publication database.
• The next step is to take the MIF version and transform it into a ‘flat’ layout to be used by CDA R3.
• All of this may be abandoned if the decision is that FHIR halts CDA R3. That will be a topic of discussion on Thursday in Cambridge.

Artifact Definition (AbdulMalik Shakir)

• Same place where we were in May.

Upcoming Call/Meeting Schedule

• Continue with Tuesdays at noon, when needed
• Schedule Wed Q4 in San Antonio

Adjourned 17:00 PM Eastern Time

New Action Items

Tracker #2771: Lorraine - Follow up with Tooling and the projects that have been using EA to show them what she has done with the Behavioral Framework project
Tracker #2772: Initiate a new project to create an Implementation Guide and SAIF Style Guide
Dave/Rick – Merge minutes taken from the OO session
Dave to reserve Q4 Wednesday for January 2014 WGM
ArB to take these minutes and come up with an interview process to interview Lorraine, Patrick and Cecil; another interview subject is Alean Kirnak given her experience on the Cross Paradigm project. The interview should focus on conceptual modeling in a behavioral space, and how it fits into SAIF.