This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here

February 12, 2013 Security Working Group Conference Call

From HL7Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Security Working Group Meeting=

Back to Security Main Page


Back to Security Main Page


  1. (05 min) Roll Call, Approve Minutes & Accept Agenda
  2. (15 min) Security and Privacy Ontology Reconciliation
  3. (15 min) Item2
  4. (15 min) Item3
  5. (05 min) Other Business

Meeting Minutes

Roll Call, Approve Minutes & Accept Agenda Minutes approved (0 abstain, 0 objections, remaining accept); minutes approved Note: NIB is due on the 17th for the upcoming May 2013 ballot

Note: Recommendation to add Errata page for Security and Privacy DAM Release 2

Security and Privacy Classification system During the WGM, Security briefed the EHR on itsactivities; recommendation is that additional discussion be done at an EHR meetings on the integrity of the EHR in regards to the WGM Security and Privacy Classification System presentation given by Mike.

(from Reed)

  • EHR prmarily focused on other subjects
  • Gary and Pat did mention presentation and would like to continue the discussion especially in terminology piece
    • On Monday, EHR looking at the use case simplification matrix for its identification of its common life-cycle events of all the use cases which are currently stood up in S&I.
    • a number of the use case have comment record management events
    • The internal discussion to look at those as a subset (the use case matrix) maps across the … as a place to identify record management life cycle events relate to integrity tags for consideration for your purpose of rules.
    • propose a dedicated call on this topic, and walk through the presentation again (also to get Reed up to speed)
      • separate call w/Mike, Reed,
      • addition to the IAM section of requirements that we could use to put some of the thoughts here for the integrity stuff (more than what’s there now)
  • Same document (link?) that Reed is talking about is including several S&P section and matrix and might be useful for the Security and CBCC WGs to look at.

Security and Privacy Ontology Reconciliation

  • Two emails sent by Tony (to be resent to John Moehrke) on proposed resolutions of remaining comments. (Note: all negative comments were resolved); emails were sent on February 12 at 2:25 PM to the Security listserve
  • John will take a look at the spreadsheet sent off line in order to allow for more effective use of meeting time
  • Latest ballot reconciliation version can be found on gforge: Amalgamated Security and Ontology Ballot Reconciliation

Regarding the reconciliation spreadsheet:

  • For the Temporary Notes (Column N), recall that green highlighting indicates that the comment has previously been resolved as indicated. Others, in yellow, remain to be resolved so any entries for them in the disposition column are currently just the recommendation of the editor.
  • Numeric references below are to comment numbers in Column A, not to row numbers.

Comment 26 entails discussion with the SOA working group and then with HL7 at large. I have contacted Ken Rubin of the SOA WG. Meanwhile, having discussed and generally agreed on the indicated disposition comment during an earlier teleconference, perhaps we can agree to mark it persuasive (to our WG).

Comment 35 elicited lengthy and useful, but as yet inconclusive discussion during our last teleconference. I’ll follow up with a separate post to our listserv.

The draft resolutions of the following eight comments are editorial in nature (sometimes acknowledging the call for more and/or clearer explanation). During the next teleconference, I’d like to propose a “block” resolution to mark them as persuasive with the disposition comments indicated:

  • 51
  • 76 – 77
  • 79 – 80
  • 83 – 85

The following four comments entail straightforward modeling changes, so I’d also like to propose marking them as persuasive with the indicated disposition comments:

  • 46
  • 55
  • 60
  • 67

These eight comments might be quickly satisfied with the explanations shown in the spreadsheet:

  • 38 – 39
  • 52
  • 59
  • 61
  • 69
  • 72
  • 74

The following twenty comments probably require some level of discussion. In preparation, WG members are encouraged to review the comments (Column L), temporary notes (Column O) and draft disposition comments (Column T):

  • 37
  • 40
  • 42 – 45
  • 47 – 48
  • 53 – 54
  • 57 – 58
  • 62 – 66
  • 68
  • 70 -71
  • 73
  • 75


Action Items

Back to Security Main Page