This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here
<meta name="googlebot" content="noindex">

Difference between revisions of "20090827 arb telcon minutes"

From HL7Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m
Line 1: Line 1:
−
=Architecture and Review Board Meeting Minutes=                                                                                                          
+
=Architecture and Review Board Meeting Minutes=
−
'''August 27, 2009'''           
+
September 3, 2009
  
−
[[Agenda_Minutes|Back to Agenda-minutes]]
+
[[Agenda_Minutes|Back to Agenda-minutes]]
  
−
Proposed Agenda
+
<table border="1">
−
  * Report on TSC discussion
+
<tr><td>Name                </td><td>Present</td><td>With  </td><td>Affiliation</td><td>E-mail address</td><tr>
−
  * Start the "primitives" versus "composites"
+
<tr><td>Thompson, Cliff    </td><td>Yes</td><td>?    </td><td>ontosolutions</td><td>cliff@ontosolutions.com</td></tr>
−
  * Introduce the technical editor, Karen Smith and review her proposed strategy.
+
<tr><td>Curry, Jane        </td><td>Yes</td><td> ArB  </td><td>Health Information Strategies</td><td>janecurry@healthinfostrategies.com</td></tr>
 +
<tr><td>Grieve, Grahame    </td><td>?  </td><td> ArB  </td><td>Kestral Computing</td><td>grahame@kestral.com.au</td></tr>
 +
<tr><td>Julian, Tony        </td><td>Yes</td><td> ArB </td><td>Mayo Clinic</td><td>ajulian@mayo.edu</td></tr>
 +
<tr><td>Koisch, John        </td><td>Yes</td><td> ArB </td><td>NCI</td><td>koisch_john@bah.com</td></tr>
 +
<TR><td>Kreisler,Austin    </td><td>Yes</td><td>OO </td><td>SAIC - Science Applications International Corp</td><td>SAIC - Science Applications International Corp</td></tr>
 +
<tr><td>Loyd, Patrick      </td><td>Yes</td><td>ARB</td><td>Gordon point Informatics LTD. </td><td>patrick.loyd@gpinformatics.com</td></tr>
 +
<tr><td>Lynch, Cecil        </td><td>?  </td><td> ArB  </td><td>ontoreason LLC</td><td>clynch@ontoreason.com</td></tr>
 +
<tr><td>Mead, Charlie      </td><td>Yes</td><td> ArB  </td><td>Booz Allen Hamilton</td><td>charlie.mead@booz.com</td></tr>
 +
<tr><td>Nelson, Dale        </td><td>Yes</td><td>Arb </td><td>II4SM</td><td>dale@zed-logic.com</td></tr>
 +
<tr><td>Ocasio, Wendell    </td><td>?  </td><td>ArB</td><td>Agilex Technologies</td><td>wendell.ocasio@agilex.com</td></tr>
 +
<tr><td>Parker, Ron        </td><td>?  </td><td> ArB  </td><td>CA Infoway</td><td>rparker@eastlink.ca</td></tr>
 +
<tr><td>Quinn, John        </td><td>?  </td><td> ArB  </td><td>Health Level Seven, Inc.</td><td>jquinn@HL7.org</td></tr>
 +
<tr><td>Robertson, Scott    </td><td?Yes</td><td>OO</td><td>Kaiser Permanente</td><td></td>
 +
<tr><td>Shakir, Abdul-Malik </td><td>Yes</td><td> ArB </td><td>Shakir Consulting</td><td>ShakirConsulting@cs.com</td></tr>
 +
<tr><td>Smith, Karen       </td><td>?  </td><td>ArB</td><td>Technical Writer</td><td>karen@smithspot.com </td></tr>
 +
<tr><td>Bear, Yogi(template)</td><td>?  </td><td>Guest </td><td>US Dept. Interior, Park Service</td><td>yogi@jellystonepark.gov</td></tr>
 +
</table>
  
−
Present:
+
==Call to order==
 +
The meeting was called to order at <time> by chair <name> with <name> as scribe.
 +
==Agenda approval==
 +
MMS to approve the agend below <Patrick/Tony> Vote:(7-0-0)
 +
*Call to order
 +
*Approval of agenda
 +
** Discussion of OO
 +
*** There were concerns that OO was not satisified with agenda for q4 wednesday.
 +
PL: The agenda for Q4 is OK.  OO decided that they would send one representative, since John is coming to Q3.  OO will continue to work on dynamic model, if OK.
 +
JK: Charlie, do you see any concern.
 +
CM: Please repeat.
 +
AK: OO is meeting q3/4 on wednesday for BH.  Q4 they will send a representative.
 +
JK: Q4 is the big rollout meeting.
 +
CM: I met with Marc, and we hammered out the Q4 meeting.  Marc would like each project would give a 5 minute talkd about what they are doing, what they know or dont know.  The OO plans should not be a problem.  I assume OO is interested in SAEAF from a messaging perspective.
 +
AK: Model consistency across the board.
 +
CM: There is no concern with parallel meetings.
 +
PL: OO agreed Austin or Patrick would be the best selection.
 +
CM: Good
 +
JK: Potential confilict - if OO is doing an EA rollout project, you will have to do the update.
 +
AK: Will you be able to join OO in Q4?
 +
CM: You should be doing that John.
 +
JK: Can you do the 5 minute on SMS?
 +
CM: Yes
 +
AK: We are good to go then.
 +
JK: Any issues?
 +
AK: Yes, but not to discuss here.
  
−
  * John Koisch,  
+
** Discussion of SOA WG
−
  * Jane Curry,  
+
JK: In Traverse city we had discussions around governance.  Charlie update ArB with TSC discussions.  Groups want SOA to mentor them to build services.  Emiled them to coordinate with ArB facilitator.  Charlie update HSSP discussion with TSC.
−
  * Karen Smith karen@smithspot.com
+
CM: I do think that the TSC is more aware of potential issues: Woody is worried that SOA workgroup are saying things about architecture of HL7, but should come through ArB.  Last week on TSC had formal discussion about TSC step up and motivate./require things to happen.  Which WG's will have to work with SAEAF.  HSSP issue is one of the general issue of services, publishing EHR services standard.  I asked Galen and have received no reply.  Tsc will be requiring the two groups to participate, and to start the discussion about HSSP. 
−
  * Kristi Eckerson - keckers@emory.edu
+
The whole issue of governance will be dealt with in Atlanta.  JK gave a good description of what is going on. It will be addressed.
−
  * Terry Hern terry.hearn@wellpoint.com
+
JK: There are action items for the TSC in Atlanta.
−
  * Cliff Thompson - cliff@ontosolutions.com
+
AK: There was a negative reaction in StrucDOc about being required to participate in SAEAF.
 +
CM: what will happen i think is that the TSC will not allow CDA-R3 to develop outside of SAEAF.  There is a disagreement among SD co-chairs.
 +
AK: The whole concept of anyone having governance of CDA is not well met.
 +
CM: It is needed for a EA.
 +
AK: Just wanted known that there is resistance.
 +
CM: It is a TSC responsibility.
 +
AK: Pushback that the TSC should not doing that.
 +
CM: The S in TSC stands for Steering.
 +
JK: There is the same issue with CTS2.
 +
** Discussion of CTS 2
 +
JK: A lot of discussion in CTS2, common terminology service-2, balloted as DSTU,and passed, and is viable for OMG to certify for HSSP.  Lloyd and Grahame have valid documented concerns about the DSTU and HSSP processes.  There is an informal resolution from VOCAB concering Grahame and Lloyd concerns. This is aproblem that the process is flawed thatyou cannot fromalize good citezenship.The solution I proposed to CTS2 including Vocab WG
 +
# OMG healthcare specs must be  SAEAF compliant
 +
# any project teams moving stuff will need review by HL7.  This may require full ballot, or formal peer review.  It should be run/facilitated by ArB.  There need to be a revisit of the MOU between OMG and HL7.  Lloyd was pleased by the solution - he wants to make sure things are going forward.  This is the common thing with multiple project teams.  It comes down to the whole compliance/conformance argument.  I would like to hear an endorsement of that.
 +
AK: Has implications - constrains the board.
 +
CM: What constraints?
 +
AK: Constraints on the MOU's to follow SAEAF.
 +
CM: There is discussion in the governance about INTRA and INTER governance.  John is seeing it extended beyond HL7, but HL7 should not micro-manage it.  It is a framework, and components derived should use the frameworks.
 +
JQ was tasked to touch base with Richard Soley goving hinm a summary of the important things.  Richard wrote back a committment to do that.  OMG is tighter ran that HL7. Richard's communication is a good indication.
 +
AMS: The MOU with OMG does not go to the level of detail where this would make a difference: Most detail joint projects, membership agreements, etc.
 +
CM: There is a General MOU with OMG, as well as the HSSP process.
 +
JK: Push back: There is a reason to revisit the MOU.  HL7 wants to say that if the other specifications are going to apply to healthcare, SAEAF will have to be adhered.  E.G. CTS2 represents industry - if you dont formalize the relationship, you wont get compliance.
 +
AMS: Im not sure it is in the MOU.  IF the Platform specific is developed in OMG, is it their product?
 +
JK: It is a shared model.  The HL7 Conceptual model is HL7, OMG's product is OMGs, to bring back to HL7 as a normative standard.
 +
AMS: Bringing it back, and balloting, would come out with a normative HL7 product.  HL7 develops, geta approved by ISO, then becomes and ISO product.  Will the OMG then become HL7 product?
 +
JK: no one knows the review process.
 +
AMS: OMG may have constituents beyond healthcare, and not be constrained by healthcare/HL7.
 +
JK: What happens beyond OMG, e.g. CTS2, see a model beyond healtcare, and OMG does not agree with concept domain. HL7 needs the domain. There may then be multiple domains to a model.
 +
AMS: Which may come back to HL7 as a normative spec.
 +
JC: Concept domains must be constrained to a value set. This alows compliance to a normative spec.
 +
AMS: We may get into similar with X12, NCPDP, not just OMG.
 +
CM: You dont know someone, then you see them on billboards - it will soon be 'Jane Jane the governance girl'
 +
JC: It will also be the ArB's role to be part of the appeal process.  More in the industry.  Charlie had an IBM whitepaper about TOGAF.  We need to understand what they are doing.  They have expanded dramiticly the last six months.
 +
JK: Motion to formalize the two stages?  Whatever is appropriate for each organization, that the MOU contain SAEAF language, and an ArB IPR process, maybe supplementary ballot review.  Proposal on this call, or Atlanta.
 +
CM: Worthwhile discussion. TSC will discuss in two weeks.
 +
JC: Agenda for Saturday is the other place we should come forward. I will be at TSC on saturday.
 +
JK: ArB should have draft thought.
 +
CM: TSC discussion on 9/14 should come first, then discuss and take to the TSC on 9/19.
 +
JK: ArB vote on the 17th
 +
  17 agenad - discuss TSC discussion.
 +
JK: Not today, wait for the TSC to discuss.
 +
** Primitives versus Composites
 +
JK: Jane set frame work for primitives/composities.
 +
JC: We need closure on the GRID. While you break down the conformance statements, you can sort them into viewpoints, but some cross viewpoints.  When we are dealing with composite artifacts, how do you understand which are primitive to reconcile for consistancy across viewpoints. 
 +
CM: The thing that is important for a framework that the distinction between composites and primitives are important in governance. We cannot name the composites up front - as the Alpha projects execute and we review their artifacts, we will not know what we are talking about.  Ther will be a lot of abstraction up front, then less.
 +
JC: That means that our homework on the GRID can be closed saying these are premature.
 +
CM: We should fill in the grid for composites for the Alpha projects.  IMO If we can identify primitives, we should, but focus on composites.
 +
JC: I am struggling with the artifacts that live in the business viewpoint are the scope for implementation.
  
−
There were insufficient ArB members to constitute a quorum. Karen Smith did go over her strategy for information and the other members on the call identified that their primary interest about the ArB was to observe the procedings and learn where we are and how we operate. Cliff Thompson has joined the project and is interested in ensuring the document he's prepared by abstracting highlights from the SAEAF documentation is current and relevant for the SOA WG and the HSSP audiences.
+
*Approval of minutes
 +
*Agenda Item 1
 +
*Agenda Item 2
 +
*Agenda Item 3
 +
*Other business, and planning for next meeting
 +
*Adjournment
 +
==Approval of minutes==
 +
MMS to approve the minutes of the Out-of cycle as posted to wiki by (Jane/Patrick)  Vote (7-0-0)
 +
==Agenda Item 1 - Discussion with OO==
 +
example of bullet list(s)
 +
*level 1
 +
==Agenda Item 2 - Discussion of SOA WG==
 +
*level 1
 +
==Agenda Item 3 - Discussion of CTS 2==
 +
*level 1
 +
==Agenda Item 4 - Primitives versus Composites==
 +
*level 1
 +
==Other business, and planning for next meeting==
 +
 
 +
==Adjournment==
 +
 
 +
=Wiki how-to's=
 +
==Link examples==
 +
Remove the &lt;pre&gt; and &lt;/pre&gt; from the examples  to instantiate as clickable links
 +
 
 +
===wiki link with alternate name===
 +
<pre>[[Agenda_Minutes|Back to Agenda-minutes]]</pre>
 +
 
 +
[[Agenda_Minutes|Back to Agenda-minutes]]
 +
 
 +
====Wiki image file with alternate name====
 +
<pre>[[image:wikiimage.jpg|Template]]</pre>
 +
[[Image:Rejected.gif|Example of image]]
 +
 
 +
===document - must have uploaded it prior to accessing!===
 +
<pre>[[application/msword:Ex_word_document.doc|word document]]</pre>
 +
[[application/msword:Ex_word_document.doc|word document]]
 +
 
 +
Note to readers: Permitted file types: png, gif, jpg, jpeg, gif, zip, pdf, jpg, txt, doc.
 +
 
 +
===Fully qualified URL===
 +
<pre>http://www.hl7.org</pre>
 +
http://www.hl7.org
 +
* or
 +
<pre>[[http://www.hl7.org|HL7 Web site]]</pre>
 +
[[http://www.hl7.org| HL7 Web site]]
 +
 
 +
==Tables==
 +
===Tables for HTML programmers===
 +
<table border="1">
 +
<tr><td>Col1</td><td>Col 2</td><td>Col 3</td><td>Col n</td></tr>
 +
<tr><td>Col1</td><td>Col 2</td><td>Col 3</td><td>Col n</td></tr>
 +
</table>
 +
 
 +
===Tables for non-html===
 +
{| border="5" 
 +
|- 
 +
| '''Quarter'''||'''Type'''|| '''Topic''' || '''Chair''' || '''Scribe''' || '''Not available''' ||'''MinutesRcvd'''||
 +
|-
 +
|'''MON''' Q1 ||--||Plenary Session||--||--||--||N/A||
 +
|}
 +
==Categories==
 +
use <pre>{{InM Open Action Items}}</pre> to create a category
 +
18:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 19:48, 3 September 2009

Architecture and Review Board Meeting Minutes

September 3, 2009

Back to Agenda-minutes

<td?Yes
Name PresentWith AffiliationE-mail address
Thompson, Cliff Yes? ontosolutionscliff@ontosolutions.com
Curry, Jane Yes ArB Health Information Strategiesjanecurry@healthinfostrategies.com
Grieve, Grahame ? ArB Kestral Computinggrahame@kestral.com.au
Julian, Tony Yes ArB Mayo Clinicajulian@mayo.edu
Koisch, John Yes ArB NCIkoisch_john@bah.com
Kreisler,Austin YesOO SAIC - Science Applications International CorpSAIC - Science Applications International Corp
Loyd, Patrick YesARBGordon point Informatics LTD. patrick.loyd@gpinformatics.com
Lynch, Cecil ? ArB ontoreason LLCclynch@ontoreason.com
Mead, Charlie Yes ArB Booz Allen Hamiltoncharlie.mead@booz.com
Nelson, Dale YesArb II4SMdale@zed-logic.com
Ocasio, Wendell ? ArBAgilex Technologieswendell.ocasio@agilex.com
Parker, Ron ? ArB CA Infowayrparker@eastlink.ca
Quinn, John ? ArB Health Level Seven, Inc.jquinn@HL7.org
Robertson, Scott OOKaiser Permanente
Shakir, Abdul-Malik Yes ArB Shakir ConsultingShakirConsulting@cs.com
Smith, Karen ? ArBTechnical Writerkaren@smithspot.com
Bear, Yogi(template)? Guest US Dept. Interior, Park Serviceyogi@jellystonepark.gov

Call to order

The meeting was called to order at

Agenda approval

MMS to approve the agend below <Patrick/Tony> Vote:(7-0-0)

  • Call to order
  • Approval of agenda
    • Discussion of OO
      • There were concerns that OO was not satisified with agenda for q4 wednesday.

PL: The agenda for Q4 is OK. OO decided that they would send one representative, since John is coming to Q3. OO will continue to work on dynamic model, if OK. JK: Charlie, do you see any concern. CM: Please repeat. AK: OO is meeting q3/4 on wednesday for BH. Q4 they will send a representative. JK: Q4 is the big rollout meeting. CM: I met with Marc, and we hammered out the Q4 meeting. Marc would like each project would give a 5 minute talkd about what they are doing, what they know or dont know. The OO plans should not be a problem. I assume OO is interested in SAEAF from a messaging perspective. AK: Model consistency across the board. CM: There is no concern with parallel meetings. PL: OO agreed Austin or Patrick would be the best selection. CM: Good JK: Potential confilict - if OO is doing an EA rollout project, you will have to do the update. AK: Will you be able to join OO in Q4? CM: You should be doing that John. JK: Can you do the 5 minute on SMS? CM: Yes AK: We are good to go then. JK: Any issues? AK: Yes, but not to discuss here.

    • Discussion of SOA WG

JK: In Traverse city we had discussions around governance. Charlie update ArB with TSC discussions. Groups want SOA to mentor them to build services. Emiled them to coordinate with ArB facilitator. Charlie update HSSP discussion with TSC. CM: I do think that the TSC is more aware of potential issues: Woody is worried that SOA workgroup are saying things about architecture of HL7, but should come through ArB. Last week on TSC had formal discussion about TSC step up and motivate./require things to happen. Which WG's will have to work with SAEAF. HSSP issue is one of the general issue of services, publishing EHR services standard. I asked Galen and have received no reply. Tsc will be requiring the two groups to participate, and to start the discussion about HSSP. The whole issue of governance will be dealt with in Atlanta. JK gave a good description of what is going on. It will be addressed. JK: There are action items for the TSC in Atlanta. AK: There was a negative reaction in StrucDOc about being required to participate in SAEAF. CM: what will happen i think is that the TSC will not allow CDA-R3 to develop outside of SAEAF. There is a disagreement among SD co-chairs. AK: The whole concept of anyone having governance of CDA is not well met. CM: It is needed for a EA. AK: Just wanted known that there is resistance. CM: It is a TSC responsibility. AK: Pushback that the TSC should not doing that. CM: The S in TSC stands for Steering. JK: There is the same issue with CTS2.

    • Discussion of CTS 2

JK: A lot of discussion in CTS2, common terminology service-2, balloted as DSTU,and passed, and is viable for OMG to certify for HSSP. Lloyd and Grahame have valid documented concerns about the DSTU and HSSP processes. There is an informal resolution from VOCAB concering Grahame and Lloyd concerns. This is aproblem that the process is flawed thatyou cannot fromalize good citezenship.The solution I proposed to CTS2 including Vocab WG

  1. OMG healthcare specs must be SAEAF compliant
  2. any project teams moving stuff will need review by HL7. This may require full ballot, or formal peer review. It should be run/facilitated by ArB. There need to be a revisit of the MOU between OMG and HL7. Lloyd was pleased by the solution - he wants to make sure things are going forward. This is the common thing with multiple project teams. It comes down to the whole compliance/conformance argument. I would like to hear an endorsement of that.

AK: Has implications - constrains the board. CM: What constraints? AK: Constraints on the MOU's to follow SAEAF. CM: There is discussion in the governance about INTRA and INTER governance. John is seeing it extended beyond HL7, but HL7 should not micro-manage it. It is a framework, and components derived should use the frameworks. JQ was tasked to touch base with Richard Soley goving hinm a summary of the important things. Richard wrote back a committment to do that. OMG is tighter ran that HL7. Richard's communication is a good indication. AMS: The MOU with OMG does not go to the level of detail where this would make a difference: Most detail joint projects, membership agreements, etc. CM: There is a General MOU with OMG, as well as the HSSP process. JK: Push back: There is a reason to revisit the MOU. HL7 wants to say that if the other specifications are going to apply to healthcare, SAEAF will have to be adhered. E.G. CTS2 represents industry - if you dont formalize the relationship, you wont get compliance. AMS: Im not sure it is in the MOU. IF the Platform specific is developed in OMG, is it their product? JK: It is a shared model. The HL7 Conceptual model is HL7, OMG's product is OMGs, to bring back to HL7 as a normative standard. AMS: Bringing it back, and balloting, would come out with a normative HL7 product. HL7 develops, geta approved by ISO, then becomes and ISO product. Will the OMG then become HL7 product? JK: no one knows the review process. AMS: OMG may have constituents beyond healthcare, and not be constrained by healthcare/HL7. JK: What happens beyond OMG, e.g. CTS2, see a model beyond healtcare, and OMG does not agree with concept domain. HL7 needs the domain. There may then be multiple domains to a model. AMS: Which may come back to HL7 as a normative spec. JC: Concept domains must be constrained to a value set. This alows compliance to a normative spec. AMS: We may get into similar with X12, NCPDP, not just OMG. CM: You dont know someone, then you see them on billboards - it will soon be 'Jane Jane the governance girl' JC: It will also be the ArB's role to be part of the appeal process. More in the industry. Charlie had an IBM whitepaper about TOGAF. We need to understand what they are doing. They have expanded dramiticly the last six months. JK: Motion to formalize the two stages? Whatever is appropriate for each organization, that the MOU contain SAEAF language, and an ArB IPR process, maybe supplementary ballot review. Proposal on this call, or Atlanta. CM: Worthwhile discussion. TSC will discuss in two weeks. JC: Agenda for Saturday is the other place we should come forward. I will be at TSC on saturday. JK: ArB should have draft thought. CM: TSC discussion on 9/14 should come first, then discuss and take to the TSC on 9/19. JK: ArB vote on the 17th 

17 agenad - discuss TSC discussion.

JK: Not today, wait for the TSC to discuss.

    • Primitives versus Composites

JK: Jane set frame work for primitives/composities. JC: We need closure on the GRID. While you break down the conformance statements, you can sort them into viewpoints, but some cross viewpoints. When we are dealing with composite artifacts, how do you understand which are primitive to reconcile for consistancy across viewpoints. CM: The thing that is important for a framework that the distinction between composites and primitives are important in governance. We cannot name the composites up front - as the Alpha projects execute and we review their artifacts, we will not know what we are talking about. Ther will be a lot of abstraction up front, then less. JC: That means that our homework on the GRID can be closed saying these are premature. CM: We should fill in the grid for composites for the Alpha projects. IMO If we can identify primitives, we should, but focus on composites. JC: I am struggling with the artifacts that live in the business viewpoint are the scope for implementation.

  • Approval of minutes
  • Agenda Item 1
  • Agenda Item 2
  • Agenda Item 3
  • Other business, and planning for next meeting
  • Adjournment

Approval of minutes

MMS to approve the minutes of the Out-of cycle as posted to wiki by (Jane/Patrick) Vote (7-0-0)

Agenda Item 1 - Discussion with OO

example of bullet list(s)

  • level 1

Agenda Item 2 - Discussion of SOA WG

  • level 1

Agenda Item 3 - Discussion of CTS 2

  • level 1

Agenda Item 4 - Primitives versus Composites

  • level 1

Other business, and planning for next meeting

Adjournment

Wiki how-to's

Link examples

Remove the <pre> and </pre> from the examples to instantiate as clickable links

wiki link with alternate name

[[Agenda_Minutes|Back to Agenda-minutes]]

Back to Agenda-minutes

Wiki image file with alternate name

[[image:wikiimage.jpg|Template]]

Example of image

document - must have uploaded it prior to accessing!

[[application/msword:Ex_word_document.doc|word document]]

word document 

Note to readers: Permitted file types: png, gif, jpg, jpeg, gif, zip, pdf, jpg, txt, doc.

Fully qualified URL

http://www.hl7.org

http://www.hl7.org

  • or
[[http://www.hl7.org|HL7 Web site]]

[HL7 Web site]

Tables

Tables for HTML programmers

Col1Col 2Col 3Col n
Col1Col 2Col 3Col n

Tables for non-html

Quarter Type Topic Chair Scribe Not available MinutesRcvd
MON Q1 -- Plenary Session -- -- -- N/A

Categories

use 

{{InM Open Action Items}}

to create a category

18:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.hl7.org/w/index.php?title=20090827_arb_telcon_minutes&oldid=26543"