This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here
20181019 PLA call
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: Phone: +1 770-657-9270, Participant Code: 985371, |
Date: 2018-10-19 Time: 11:30 AM | ||
| Facilitator | Mary Kay/ Austin | Note taker(s) | Anne |
| Attendee | Name
| ||
| x | Calvin Beebe | ||
| x | Lorraine Constable | ||
| Jean Duteau, | |||
| Tony Julian | |||
| Paul Knapp | |||
| x | Austin Kreisler, | ||
| x | Mary Kay McDaniel | ||
| x | Brian Pech | ||
| Wayne Kubick | |||
| John Roberts | |||
| Andy Stechishin | |||
| no quorum definition | |||
Agenda
Agenda review
- Notes of 20181005_PLA_WGM review
- Action items
- Issue re: Implementation Guides: Need to look at what we’re calling things vs. what they are. Need to figure out terms that disambiguate what we’ve created. Encourage the organization to clearly delineate what we mean by these names.
- Austin: This doesn’t belong at PLA – should go to SGB. Lorraine: ARB has put forth a definition of implementation guide vs. guidance.
- ACTION: Anne to research if the ARB definition was approved.
- Austin: This doesn’t belong at PLA – should go to SGB. Lorraine: ARB has put forth a definition of implementation guide vs. guidance.
- Issue re: Implementation Guides: Need to look at what we’re calling things vs. what they are. Need to figure out terms that disambiguate what we’ve created. Encourage the organization to clearly delineate what we mean by these names.
- MK will pull up the meeting minutes from the steering divisions to see what they’ve been doing. If steering divisions went away, who would be responsible for those things.
- Austin: This should be a TSC discussion, not a PLA discussion. It will be addressed in January. Calvin: This is an organizational construct question, which could be a PLA discussion.
- MK will pull up the meeting minutes from the steering divisions to see what they’ve been doing. If steering divisions went away, who would be responsible for those things.
- Discussion Topics
- Who doesn’t have a product family, and what should we do with them? Calvin: These tend to be products that are focused or self contained. Lorraine: There are also the ones that impact across families. Discussion over V3. CIMI is the more burning topic. Dissent within the group is one of the challenges. There are organizational conflicts of interest in the proposed set of management group members; there’s a preponderance of influence issue. How do we proceed with standing up a management group with immature methodology, and whose membership has conflicts of interest and preponderance of influence problems? Lorraine: The core divide is the division between people that believe that top down modeling from a clinical point of view abstracted from physical rotation is useful, but others believe we should be moving it to FHIR. Three different approaches went out to ballot this time. Brian: Federal government people are coming with models they’ve developed and are looking for a home for them, and CIMI seems sympathetic to their existing work products. Lorraine: And then there’s the MITRE folks. MK: Is there a way to bring out this stuff bubbling out to the surface? Austin, Paul, Lorraine met with them. TSC deferred the management group and will have to decide what to do about it. Board now has a statement on preponderance of influence. Brian: Is there a precept around product family consensus on appropriate methodology for that product family? There is lack of consensus within the CIMI community. Could be a marker for maturity to determine if they are mature enough to have a product family.
- ACTION: Anne to add to SGB agenda
- Austin: Need to discuss catch-all product family and what we’d call it. If TSC lands on the idea of getting rid of steering divisions, we need an approval step for all of the other products. Management Group would have an inventory of those products and a scheme for ensuring quality. Lorraine: It would be tough to staff that since there are only small communities that care. Discussion over who the groups would be: CDS, EHR, Arden, INM/CCOW, V3, etc. Calvin: Could be free-standing, non-tooled IGs. Brian: Some of these other “product families” don’t seem to fit the current way we’ve broken up families along expression of content. Austin: A core reason is to provide an engine to improve product quality. We have a set of products that don’t fall into a family and have no engine for improving quality. Brian: Other SDOs like NCPDP have on-staff, paid technical writers and defined standards around content that’s published under the NCPDP banner that has to go through a technical editing process. Maybe HL7 needs to look at putting in that professional technical editing of products. Lorraine: But their stuff is all in the same domain. Our staff don’t historically understand the content of our standards. Calvin: Do we take a quality focus, and is it structured around a more generic quality group that takes on a subset of the management groups do? Calvin: Would it be helpful to logically talk about our products and how they’re differentiated? EHR profiles vs. domain models, onesy standards like Arden, etc. Arden came from outside. Brian: HL7 should tighten up its product expression quality. MK notes that NCPDP has a contractor and a style guide to make things consistent. We need that for HL7 overall. Lorraine: We need to differentiate between the orphan stuff that is being developed and the stuff that we’re just maintaining like CCOW. Should prioritize the stuff that is being developed. Calvin: IN a way I think domain models are an underappreciated resource at HL7 and need to be brought up to first order standards. They’re lumped together under V3, which isn’t right. It’s modeling that speaks to the users. Lorraine: In terms of conceptual modeling, we could bring more standardized approaches. Calvin: Wasn’t there an enterprise architect tool we had a relationship with? Is it framed around modeling activities? Lorraine: Most of HL7 uses Enterprise Architect (EA), which we’re trying to move to a cloud-based tool. CIMI uses the competing modeling tool, MagicDraw. The DAMs have all been developed by only a handful of modelers so that has bred consistency. MK: Why can’t we say that EA is the modeling tool of choice? Austin: It would be a recommendation from EST to TSC. Brian: We can recommend tools but it’s hard to mandate tools. Austin: We do mandate the V3 publishing tool and 2.x. Other tooling has traditionally been optional. Lorraine: We’ve said that you have to use a tool that can create a standardized XMI. Austin: We’re trying to avoid falling into the trap we’re in with V3. MK: So where did we end up with a product family for other products? Lorraine: We ended up with the tooling question. Austin: We decided we need general quality guidelines. Need to look at where the roles of a management group would reside when there is a lack of a management group.
- ACTION: Continue conversation at next PLA call.
- ACTION: Revisit steering division question on next call
- Management group health metrics
- Who doesn’t have a product family, and what should we do with them? Calvin: These tend to be products that are focused or self contained. Lorraine: There are also the ones that impact across families. Discussion over V3. CIMI is the more burning topic. Dissent within the group is one of the challenges. There are organizational conflicts of interest in the proposed set of management group members; there’s a preponderance of influence issue. How do we proceed with standing up a management group with immature methodology, and whose membership has conflicts of interest and preponderance of influence problems? Lorraine: The core divide is the division between people that believe that top down modeling from a clinical point of view abstracted from physical rotation is useful, but others believe we should be moving it to FHIR. Three different approaches went out to ballot this time. Brian: Federal government people are coming with models they’ve developed and are looking for a home for them, and CIMI seems sympathetic to their existing work products. Lorraine: And then there’s the MITRE folks. MK: Is there a way to bring out this stuff bubbling out to the surface? Austin, Paul, Lorraine met with them. TSC deferred the management group and will have to decide what to do about it. Board now has a statement on preponderance of influence. Brian: Is there a precept around product family consensus on appropriate methodology for that product family? There is lack of consensus within the CIMI community. Could be a marker for maturity to determine if they are mature enough to have a product family.
- 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)
- develop form to request establishing a Product Family
Minutes
Agenda review
- Notes of 20181005_PLA_WGM review
- Discussion Topics
- Management group health metrics
- 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)
- develop form to request establishing a Product Family
Meeting Outcomes
| Actions
|
| Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items |
© 2018 Health Level Seven® International. All rights reserved
