20080819 ARB Jump Start

Minutes of the 20080819 August out-of-cycle Day 1

Back to Agenda-minutes

Tuesday Morning 0800 - 1200

Attendance

Health Level Seven, Inc.

Name	Role	Affiliation	email
Cecil, Lynch	ArB	ontoreason LLC	clynch@ontoreason.com
Charlie, Mead	ArB	Booz Allen Hamilton	charlie.mead@booz.com
Curry, Jane	ArB	Health Information Strategies	janecurry@healthinfostrategies.com
Julian, Tony	ArB	Mayo Clinic	ajulian@mayo.edu
Koisch, John	ArB	Boz	koisch_john@bah.com
Larsen, Ed	guest	HITSP	erlarsen@erlinc.com
Mulrooney, Galen ???	guest	VHA	galen.mulrooney@med.va.gov
Orvis, Nancy	ArB	DOD	nancy.orvis@tma.osd.mil
Parker, Ron	ArB	CA Infoway	rparker@infoway-inforoute.ca
Quinn, John	ArB	Health Level Seven, Inc.	jquinn@HL7.org
Rogers, Rich	guest	IBM	rrogers@us.ibm.com
Shakir, Abdul-Malik	ArB	Shakir Consulting	ShakirConsulting@cs.com
Wrightson, Ann	guest	NHS	ann.wrightson@wales.nhs.uk
Yongjian, Bao	ArB	GE Healthcare	yongjian.bao@med.ge.com

Meeting was called to order at 8:00am by John Koisch.

John went through the deck to date.

Review of Bernd Bobel's Document (30 minutes)

John presented Bernd's document that intersucts RUP, HL7, RM-ODP into a singe document. It is aligned with the DoD document at the Generic Componet Model. Agreement was reached to invite Bernd to the ArB Meeting in Vancouver.

John reviewed the 'bulls-eye' picture, and the intent of the ARB to help get down to the level needed. John reviewed the SAEAF and invited comments from the group.

Artifacts for SOA

• (I think this is a bit of a misnomer, esp in light of BB's work - this is the intersection of MDA, SOA, RM-ODP, a software engineering process, and HL7)

John presented the NCI work on Conceptual and Functional Apecifications.

• It was stated that if a team is using RUP, they have the basis of a SOA specification.
  • In the "Information viewpoint", "the specification will support the static and underlying state models for the ____ Analysis Model."
  • At the "Computational viewpoint", "the specification will support these groups of operations and their business context." This includes Rim specifications. "...Dependencies must be manifested in othere viewpoint's specifications, specially engineering. The conformance assertion is stated as a dependency on a function or functional profile."

Constraint model:

RM-ODP Viewpoint	Constraint	Pattern	Mostly Information VP
+Enterprise +Information -Computation	Analysis Model	DAM	Blueprint
-Enterprise +Information +Computation -Engineering	Conceptual Design	DMIM, CIM, RMIM	logical platform independent
Information+Computation+Engineering xTechnology	Implementable Design (ITS, XSD, DDL)	LIM	Platform bound ( one man's platform is anothers logical model)
x Implementation	_	Technology	_

Note: The interpretation of "platform" depends on your (non-rm-odp) viewpoint.

Specification Constraint Pattern

Each of the artifacts are expressed in a testable and verifiable way.

Transformation and Transition need to be understood - at both the implementation level as well as the conceptual design level, e.g. constraints on coded data-types. 

• We need to decompose the business context - work product of blueprint.

15 Minutes Break @10:45

Review of FW Presentation(75 Minutes )

• How SOA artifacts are diffferent, how they map to the FW, how they map to the FW
• Traceability from Requirements to Design to Implementation (Traceability across artifacts)
• 15 Minutes - Break

Cross Functional Teams and SOA Artifacts (90 Minutes)

Real World Example: NCI COPPA Information Model work / Constraint Pattern (30 minutes)

John Koisch: John discussed the NCI COPPA analysis model - it was built for communication and education, not for development. Classes are flattened, relationships dis-ambiguated. COPPA - If you look at the HSSP spec Alan Honey et. al. wrote the EIS spec - which can be instantiated as a service, as well as used as a pattern. COPPA is the horribly misnamed. Cooreleation -covers the coorelations between the services. Organization Person Protocol Abstraction

We need to be able to support changing definitions over time - by providing provenance of the data.

HDF is not very affected by services per se (60 minutes)

• need to show in S4 how unique SOA Artifacts support different aspects of the HDF, are created by different groups, etc.

Tuesday 1300 - 1700

Summary from above (30 minutes)

• Different groups need to expose XYZ artifacts to appropriately utilize/ support / give back to the HL7 Capability list. It is a QA issue when standards are in process.

ISCS (45 minutes)

• Detailed Structure
• Relation to Conformance Statements
• Ties from Groups

tbBAM - Structure of HL7 delivers support for customers to craft ISCS

• 30 Minutes - Tooling - It is not sufficient to simply rely on automated tooling (but we should def leveraged where we can).
• 30 Minutes - Capacity and Capability - We need to identify the "how to" as well as the phase transitions that are _easier_ and properly granulated.

15 Minutes Break

Empower the feedback loop from implementation back to specification development.(30 Minutes )

== Roles of HL7 Groups (60 Minutes) (including ArB) in

• • Conformance and Compliance
  • Process Mentoring
  • QA