20150602 arb minutes

ARB - Meeting (Date in Title)

Agenda

1. Call to order
2. Roll Call
3. Approval of Agenda and Minutes
4. Methodology (40 minutes)
   1. BAM Reconciliation Review:(20 minutes)
      1. Jay Lyle Comment(If Jay is present):This document gets off weakly, looking like a piece of a business architecture focusing on product architecture, with details focusing on design constraints (3a). It doesn't seem to be driven by business priorities or processes; it does provide a great deal of detail about the modeling conventions. Later, it gets into the process and organizational areas, but they seem to consist of UML icons. It would be much easier to read constructively it moved from business mission & process into organization and product lines. With methodology in an appendix."
   2. Task from TSC ( 20 minutes)
      1. Modeling of V2 publishing 2b
      2. current publishing risks
5. Management (20 minutes)
   1. Call Day/Time
   2. From Charlie: I have some news to report to the group from the ISO/IHE meeting that I attended on the Friday of the HL7 Paris meeting (the 15th) RE my suggestion at the ArB meeting on the 14th that we (the ArB) take the responsibility for launching and managing a project to build computable links between FHIR specifications and RIM semantics.
6. Governance
7. Other business and planning
8. Adjournment

Meeting Information

HL7 ArB Work Group Meeting Minutes Location: Telcon		Date: 20150602 Time: 5:00pm U.S. Eastern
Facilitator	Julian, Tony	Note taker(s)	Julian, Tony
Attendee	Name	Affiliation
X	Bond,Andy	NEHTA
X	Constable, Lorraine	Constable Consulting Inc.
R	Dagnall, Bo	HP Enterprise Services
.	Hufnagel, Steve	?????
X	Julian, Tony	Mayo Clinic
X	Knapp, Paul	Pknapp Consulting
.	Loyd, Patrick	ICode Solutions
.	Lynch, Cecil	Accenture
R	Milosevic, Zoran	Deontik Pty Ltd
.	Quinn, John	Health Level Seven, Inc.
X	Stechishin,Andy	CANA Software and Service Ltd.
.	Guests
X	Mead, Charlie	Vidal Group, Paris,France
X	Lyle, Jay
.	Laakso, Lynn	HL7
.
.	Legend
X	Present
.	Absent
R	Regrets
Quorum Requirements (Co-chair + 3) Met: Yes

Minutes

1. Call to order
2. Roll Call
3. Approval of Agenda and Minutes
4. Methodology (40 minutes)
   1. BAM Reconciliation Review:(20 minutes)
      1. Jay Lyle Comment:This document gets off weakly, looking like a piece of a business architecture focusing on product architecture, with details focusing on design constraints (3a). It doesn't seem to be driven by business priorities or processes; it does provide a great deal of detail about the modeling conventions. Later, it gets into the process and organizational areas, but they seem to consist of UML icons. It would be much easier to read constructively it moved from business mission & process into organization and product lines. With methodology in an appendix." '
      2. Jay: expect to see goals, flow through the end. Want to know the goals of the BAM:
      3. Andy S: There is legitimate concern, because of the label on the document. It does not match the traditional view of a business architecture.
   2. Tony J: Explained the model.
   3. Jay: Change the purpose/definition of the document.
5. Task from TSC ( 20 minutes)
6. Modeling of V2 publishing 2b
7. current publishing risks
   1. Lorraine: we have risks like this all over the organization. Struggling with doing this piecemeal. Is there a piece that ARB can do for EST.
   2. Paul: What is the TSC looking for, and why?
   3. Andy: Brian contacted me to verify the V3.
   4. Paul: Are we trying to model the replacement?
   5. Tony showed the embedded fields in a document.
   6. Paul: I think it is a high priority thing. If the organization is not prepared to address the problem we should not spend the time. First pass recognition that there are issues, it should be high priority for the organization to address
   7. Lorraine: One of the key pieces of the tooling stratgy.
   8. Paul: Committee has ideas, but no funding. Organization has funding. Concerns are legimate, real, and not being solved by natural events. Need to address the risks- identify, manage, and eliminate.
   9. Lorraine: Need to prioritize: FHIR has the same problems.
   10. Paul: Cannot be reasonably solved by volunteers.
   11. Lorraine: my soap box also. Has the CTO been involved? This is a CTO thing. Need clarification, resources. Will take to friday call.
   12. Paul: Will not happen. We need normal business and IT stuff - this is nothing special - need to take out the organizations reliance on the individuals.
8. Management (20 minutes)
9. Call Day/Time
   1. Can we meet one hour earlier - 4pm eastern.
   2. Lorraine - day job call for next 8-12 weeks.
   3. Charlie: if evening european dont want to meet on Friday.
   4. Paul: Thursday is ok
   5. From Charlie: I have some news to report to the group from the ISO/IHE meeting that I attended on the Friday of the HL7 Paris meeting (the 15th) RE my suggestion at the ARB meeting on the 14th that we (the ARB) take the responsibility for launching and managing a project to build computable links between FHIR specifications and RIM semantics.
      1. Charlie: Background: Pre-FHIR Grahame and I discussed the importance of the links between FHIR and RIM semantics. Notion of using semantic technologies e.g. RDF. Did not have RDF of RIM, and the resources were not available. FHIR has take off with little rigor with links to RIM semantics.
      2. Thursday meeting in Paris, I suggested that the ARB should take a leadership position to start a project to do so. John Q and Ken McCaslin asked who would do the work. RDF taskforce under ITS is interested. After ARB in PARIS there was a ISO/IHE/HL7/PHARMA meeting. Lack of linkage to the RIM came up. I volunteered that it was possible to have a project to do so - there was enthusiasm from ISO/IHE. John Hatem (PHARMA) have defined links, and would be available as a domain knowledge source - but his group has no RDF experience. RDF meeting said they have no domain knowledge, but would work with domain experts. Suggest that the development of FHIR/RIM semantics, joint with RDF, PHARMA using pharmacy domain as a pilot. Would provide toolkit to generated computable links.
      3. Andy: Instigated similar work for RDF support for FHIR - using FHIR for logical modeling, extracting the implementation. Needs to be a computable foundation. Has work that will be happening anyway. Can I end up adopting it further up the food chain? Can provide some resource.
      4. Lorraine: Base resources, or profiles to use cases.
      5. Charlie: Both - all could in theory have valid computable links. The general specification is the place to start.
      6. Paul: Joint FMG/FDB meeting - little work done in FHIR to RIM mapping, they should no longer require RIM mapping.
      7. Charlie: Pharmacy is compulsive in documenting their links.
      8. Lorraine: Which parts would be ARB?
      9. Charlie: Fundamental HL7/ARB project, pulling in the domain/technical expertise. What does the toolset look like, what is the value proposition?
      10. Andy: HL7 needs a mirror to gauge appropriateness of future FHIR development.
      11. Lorraine: Draft PSS.
      12. Charlie will draft PSS. Before next week meeting.
      13. Paul: Need to close the door on not requiring RIM links.
      14. Charlie: RDF group is interested.
10. Adjournment
    1. Adjourned at 6:00pm U.S. eastern