20160726 arb minutes

From HL7Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

ARB - Meeting (Date in Title)


Teleconferences are held on Tuesday at 4:00pm U.S. Eastern Schedules may be found at HL7.org Conference Call Center

Please join my meeting from your computer, tablet or smartphone.

  1. Join the meeting:
  2. If you cant use voip then capture the PIN from the screen for the above action, then
  • Weekly conference call.
  • For 24/7 customer service please call (844) 844-1322.


  1. Call to order
  2. Roll Call
  3. Approval of Agenda and Minutes
  4. Management
  5. Governance
  6. Methodology
  7. Other business and planning
  8. Adjournment

Meeting Information

HL7 ArB Work Group Meeting Minutes

Location: Telcon

Date: 20160726
Time: 4:00pm U.S. Eastern
Facilitator Julian, Tony Note taker(s) Julian, Tony
Attendee Name Affiliation
X Bond,Andy NEHTA
X Constable, Lorraine Constable Consulting Inc.
. Dagnall, Bo HP Enterprise Services
. Hufnagel, Steve ?????
R Hyland, Mario AEGIS
X Julian, Tony Mayo Clinic
X Knapp, Paul Pknapp Consulting
R Kubick, Wayne HL7 CTO
X Loyd, Patrick ICode Solutions
X Lynch, Cecil Accenture
X Milosevic, Zoran Deontik Pty Ltd
R Stechishin,Andy CANA Software and Service Ltd.
X Brown, Gilbert
X Dickenson, Gary
X Janczewski, Mark
X Peterson, Kim
X Present
. Absent
R Regrets
Quorum Requirements (Co-chair + 3) Met: Yes


  1. Approval of Agenda and Minutes
    • Motion to approve (Lorraine/Paul)
    • Vote 4-0-0
  2. Management
  3. Governance
  4. Methodology
    • EHR Immunization Functional Profile
      • Gary: Including content from CDC, ONC, NIST, CNI Advantage.
      • Lorraine: Is it available for review?
      • Gary: Yes, it is posted on HIMMS inovation website. HIMMS Innovation link. It will be used as a guideline for the use cases.
      • Lorraine:EHR taking the external content and applying HL7 processes.
    • Motion To approve on behalf of the ARB (Lorraine/Patrick)
    • Vote 6-0-0
    • ISM presentation to the SGB review
      • Lorraine: Walked through presentation. Calvin suggested we put it alongside of the problems. SGB will do more iterations.
      • Paul: good revelation in SGB that the viewpoints of the process are different.
      • Lorraine: When Patrick and I looked at the SAIF material it is target for SGB - who needs to create the IG for the work groups.
      • Paul: Pictures are not enough. We need to address the content, but is too complex for the WGs to consume. It is a good group. Event if we hate or fear what we see, we still don't shut it down. In a co-chair dinner the emotions would be violent.
      • Lorraine: Conceptual before the bits and bytes.
      • Paul: Any framework requires some degree of understanding on what you have created.
      • Lorraine: And VMR thought they were creating a Conceptual model.
      • Cecil: You get a blend of approaches:
      • Paul: You violate separation of concerns between conception and implementation in a one-person shop. They are like guardrails, not high fences. TSC can ask why a WG is creating a mixed bag, and not being aware of it.
      • Cecil: Those on the call are used to looking at all the layers. The person producing them does not have that demarcation in their mind. Hand it off to someone who has the mindset then they get confused, if they do have it, then they also are confused by the layers.
      • Paul: SAIF was presented at 100,000 foot level. Giving the creators a framework when they don't understand frameworks is a daunting task. It is hard, and people don't know what to do. Facilitators?
      • Lorraine: Same thing with security - guide for applying specs. The committee with support found it too hard - it hurt their brain.
      • Paul: In which case they don't do it. Not that they don't care. We need to lighten the effective load. ARB should think about a specification, SGB by application. Do we have tools we can give to people that they wont throw at us? It needs to be fairly readily consumable.
      • Lorraine: Calvin will bring back some of the process, and where they went with it.
      • Paul: That will show us what is way to hard as opposed to too hard. Since it is not part of their daily process, it may remain too hard. WGs take terminology to vocab - maybe we should do the same thing with this. House the expertise somewhere instead of making everyone do everything. One of the takeaways would be to drop the Publishing checkboxes into our grid. If there is anything we are producing that doesn't have a node is a problem.
      • Lorraine: We have trouble getting people to correctly select the product on the PSS.
      • Paul: If the framework give you organization of the information: All of the artifacts should have a happy home.
      • Lorraine: Which is what Calvin is going to do.
      • Paul: What is the GRID that will resonate with the masses, and is it 5x5 or 3x3. I thought we agreed in TSC that the grid being used was the 3x4.
      • Lorraine: with the technology underneath.
      • Paul: Articulate why the technology underneath- why does the column turn into a row. - or maybe we don't articulate that row. The exercise of dropping products in the grid will work for us, and teach us something.
      • Zoran: The decision to bring technology in was to bring in the separation of the specification from the system being implemented on the specification. Good decision. Its another view on the system we want to specify. We implement based on the system. If the implementation calls for cloud that's where we specify it. We need to educate people on the viewpoints - and the reasons. How to specify the constraints. What is the next educational step? We don't have good end-to-end examples to show why you have 3 or 4 or 5.
      • Lorraine: That's why Calvin will bring back concrete examples, and we will talk through it.
      • Paul: There is a level of understanding that the ARB has, a different area for domains. We should be able to decorate the grid with the foundational artifacts.
      • Paul: Can we divide the grid by family? Then they can populate. Prepopulating the grid and feeding back to the WGs is one direction.
      • Zoran: Grahame's reaction that FHIR was in the implementation cell: He thought it was more distributed. The danger is that we are focusing on the information viewpoint. We need some complexity which tells people how we populate the other cells.
      • Paul: Good to be discussing, but the community is not discussing it well. A query-response is not workflow.
  5. Other business and planning
  6. Adjournment