20140507 HL7 PLA Meeting

From HL7Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

return to HL7 Product Line Architecture Meeting Minutes and Agendas
Return to HL7 Product Line Architecture Program

HL7 PLA Call Minutes

Location: Guest Room 1301

Date: 2014-05-07
Time: 3:30PM
Facilitator Mary Kay/ Austin Note taker(s) Lynn
Attendee Name


x Mike Atassi, Congosante
Woody Beeler
Lorraine Constable
Jean Duteau,
Rick Haddorff
Tony Julian
x Paul Knapp
x Austin Kreisler,
x Lynn Laakso
x Ken McCaslin
x Mary Kay McDaniel
Brian Pech
John Quinn
John Roberts
regrets Andy Stechishin
no quorum definition

Agenda

Agenda review

  • Notes of 20140319_PLA_call review
  • Clarification of Direction and Approach
  • Interim steps
  • Identifiy the next product family
    • develop form to request establishing a Product Family
  • Previous work
    • notional division of products into product families and lines, to provide examples for peer review.
      • Level of granularity
      • Identify which pieces are orphaned, and the political elements to be surfaced.
      • Positioning cross-product family artifacts (standards naming)
    • BAM-lite feedback and review
      • Governance on V2.x (v2.9 substantive changes)


Minutes

Convened 3:44 PM Agenda review: Austin would like to move the BAM lite review after minutes review and provide an update to give input to the rest of the discussion.

  • Notes of 20140319_PLA_call review - noted that we were to review Austin's diagram at the F2F.
  • BAM-lite feedback and review
    • Austin describes the latest state of the BAM from 12 steps in the model, top to bottom process on development of standards. 90% of that was stuff HL7 already does well - the BAM-lite discarded the common steps to the first three. The next iteration is only 2 steps, with a "Product Inventory".
    • He describes the inventory approach for a product family, to ask a potential product family to fill in that same grid this group started for ALL notional product families across the Board, but just for that Product Family.
    • Austin shows the definition of product families and product lines from BAM Section 3
    • Second charge of ARB was to take product family and product lines, and apply SAIF CD definition of governance, methodology, and management of the product lines.
      • Ken asks if the governance process determines whether a product is pursued if it falls outside of our existing product families. Austin notes that new products must be determined to be part of an existing product family or a new product family that is a single item, such as CCOW. We have products that are not linked to other product families. Arden Syntax is another such product. Ergo there is no requirement that each product fall into a product family that includes other products.
      • Ken clarifies that if someone brings new work to HL7 that doesn’t fit existing categories do we reject it? Austin says you need to review it to see if it does fit somewhere and if not we consider if it's a fit.
      • Use of GForge and other repository mechanisms by different types of projects reviewed.
      • The Step0 diagram needs extensive narration that is held within Ron Parker's mind. Lorraine and Tony are working to extract the knowledge.
      • Application to TSC has separated management and governance discussions and approvals, and acknowledged ARB as the methodology group.
    • Most of the products that are developed are self-selecting of the product family in which they belong, e.g. a new FHIR resource, an additional field in a V2.x segment. Recent issues with US Government sponsored projects have necessitated review by the US Realm Task Force.
      • The future of the US Realm TF is under review by the Internationalization Task Force so we are continuing to let it run as it is so far. Austin suggests we consider naming Ed as an ad-hoc member of the TSC.
      • Austin continues to describe the ARB efforts around development of the activity diagram modeling and associated description this week.
      • Further nominations to the ARB to help them get where they need to go will depend on the activity to define the skills and experience they need on the ARB for the September re-confirmation and new membership appointments to the ARB
    • Austin describes BAM section 7 for the lifecycle stage 01 and 02. Stage 3 was the product inventory that we were starting to attempt across the whole organization. Austin suggests we take a single product family and describe the governance structure for V2 and its IG for example.
      • Ken notes he is still fuzzy about FHIR and how other product family artifacts get morphed into FHIR artifacts. Austin recounts the cross-product immunization project did a similar thing looking across V2, V3, CDA, SOA and recommended the use of each family for aspects of the use case. It chose specifications from several notional product families. That is a good analysis for a product LINE to serve the needs of a specific consumer. CCDA information that needs to be on a REST transport becomes the FHIR product family. MaryKay notes that in the immunization cross paradigm example you might have the same information payload and just move it in different means.
      • One possible example might be the S&I Framework, but it may also align along the product family. Product line vs family as producer vs consumer perspective creates a matrix and not necessarily any direct relationship. MaryKay describes it as a "Standards Product Line".
      • Cross-product governance board discussed versus product family governance board. TSC might say "all product families must map to the RIM".
    • MaryKay relates an experience setting new employees to learn how to submit claims attachments.

Adjourned 4:57PM

Meeting Outcomes

Actions
Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items

© 2014 Health Level Seven® International. All rights reserved