|
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| | '''Architecture Review Board''' | | '''Architecture Review Board''' |
| − | =January 14, 2010=
| + | *'''[[20100117_arb_minutes | Sunday Phoenix minutes]]''' |
| − | ==Quarter 1==
| + | *'''[[20100119_arb_minutes | Tuesday Q4 - Gov Sig]]'''* |
| − | [[Agenda_Minutes|Back to Agenda-minutes]]
| + | *'''[[20100121_arb_minutes | Thursday Phoenix minutes]]''' |
| − | <table border==1>
| |
| − | <tr><td>Name</td><td>Present</td><td>With</td><td>Affiliation</td><td>E-mail address</td></tr>
| |
| − | <tr><td>Aneja, Paul</td><td>No</td><td>Guest</td><td> </td> <td></td></tr>
| |
| − | <tr><td>Bond, Andy</td><td>Yes</td><td>ArB</td><td>NEHTA</td><td>andy.bond@nehta.gov.au</td></tr>
| |
| − | <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>Yes</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>Koehn, Marc</td><td>Yes</td><td>Guest</td><td>Gordon point Informatics LTD.</td><td>marc.koehn@gpinformatics.com</td></tr>
| |
| − | <tr><td>Koisch, John</td><td>Yes</td><td>ArB</td><td>Guidewire Architecture</td><td>jkoisch@guidewirearchitecture.com</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>No</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>NCI</td><td>meadch@mail.nci.gov</td></tr>
| |
| − | <tr><td>Nelson, Dale</td><td>No</td><td>Arb</td><td>II4SM</td><td>dale@zed-logic.com</td></tr>
| |
| − | <tr><td>Ocasio, Wendell</td><td>Yes</td><td>ArB</td><td>Agilex Technologies</td><td>wendell.ocasio@agilex.com</td></tr>
| |
| − | <tr><td>Parker, Ron</td><td>Yes</td><td>ArB</td><td>CA Infoway</td><td>rparker@infoway-inforoute.ca</td></tr>
| |
| − | <tr><td>Peres, Greg</td><td>No</td><td>Guest</td> <td> </td><td> </td></tr>
| |
| − | <tr><td>Platt, Joe</td><td>No</td><td>Guest</td><td>Ekagra Software Technologies</td><td>jplatt@ekagrasoft.com</td></tr>
| |
| − | <tr><td>Quinn, John</td><td>No</td><td>ArB</td><td>Health Level Seven, Inc.</td><td>jquinn@HL7.org</td></tr>
| |
| − | <tr><td>Robertson, Scott</td><td>No</td><td>Guest</td><td>Kaiser Permanente</td><td>scott.m.robertson@kp.org</td></tr>
| |
| − | <tr><td>Shakir, Abdul-Malik</td><td>No</td><td>ArB</td><td>Shakir Consulting</td><td>ShakirConsulting@cs.com</td></tr>
| |
| − | <tr><td>Smith, Karen</td><td>No</td><td>Guest</td><td>Technical Editor</td><td>karen@smithspot.com</td></tr>
| |
| − | <tr><td>Thompson, Cliff</td><td>No</td><td>Guest</td><td>OntoSolutions LLC</td><td>cliff@ontosolutions.com</td></tr>
| |
| − | <tr><td>VanArsdall, Eddie</td><td>No</td><td>Guest</td><td> </td><td> </td></tr>
| |
| − | <tr><td>Vanderzel, Michael</td><td>Yes</td><td>Guest</td><td>UMCG, RIMBAA</td><td>m.van.der.zel@ict.umcg.nl</td></tr>
| |
| − | <tr><td>
| |
| − | </table>
| |
| − | | |
| − | === Call to order ===
| |
| − | Call to order at 9:00am U. S. MST with Ron Parker as Chair and Tony Julian as scribe. Quorum was achieved.
| |
| − | ===Agenda ===
| |
| − | *Sunday Q1 | |
| − | **Call to order
| |
| − | **Approval of Agenda for Sunday
| |
| − | **Approval of Agenda for WGM
| |
| − | **Approval of Minutes
| |
| − | **Review of Decision Making Practices
| |
| − | === TSC update (Ron Parker)===
| |
| − | * Membership Criteria:
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | Charlie Mead: We (arb)submitted and voted on membership criteria. TSC made non-substantive changes, which was published. TSC voted on and passed. Changes were TSC control over membership: preponderance of membership and perception of competance.
| |
| − | Tony sent an e-mail to Lynn to obtain. [[Media:TSC_Approved_ARB_Membership.doc| TSC approved ARB membership criteria]]
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | Charlie Mead: TSC was active and productive for ARB and SAEAF. Discussion over the course of day about governance, and how it will happen. Issues about timing of SAEAF. ArB is not doing a good job of disseminating the SAEAF. To adopt takes top-down, and to implement takes governance. We need to do Architectural Harmonization.
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | Charlie Mead: NCI believes that SAEAF is intellectual property of HL7. Multiple organizations will have implementation guides. HL7 needs to worry about it's knowledge, and the HDF. NCI will support the tools to manage, and share the tooling to manage the SAEAF-derived semantic comtent, which they will share with the larger community.
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | Charlie Mead: We need governance: What we need to do is to go back to TSC with concrete notion of a architectural harmomnization would look like. How do we capture, and manage it.
| |
| − | Discussion was held about the aspects of SAEAF and TOGAF.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Wendell Ocasio: There are a significant numbr of items in the stack that are addressed in both.
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | Charlie Mead: There is no real need to even do a formal alignment. The excercise is to make sure your framework is covered by both.
| |
| − | | |
| − | John Koisch: What does TOGAF say about conformance? SAEAF is an instance of TOGAF that focuses on interoperability - for a given community.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Andy Bond: SAEAF is not an instance of TOGAF. We need to enable the instances to exist, and interoperate.
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | Ron Parker: Challanging for us to maintain SAEAF as an alternative or form of enterprise architecture - it is risky. Produce aretifacts that will export to HL7, to be used to build architecture.
| |
| − | [[Image:Rons-drawing-1.jpg|right|500px|Rons Drawing]] | |
| − | | |
| − | Charlie Mead: Focus on interoperability. TSC discussed the name again.
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | Ron Parker: Causes me angst - having to change the name to convey the meaning. People are desparate for coherent strategy for interoperability. We are grossly over-selling this - we need to tone down the rhetoric.
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | Charlie Mead: Closing the gap between rhetoric and reality.
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | Ron Parker: We need to discuss communication strategy: Enterprises do not need to build saeaf - they need to rely on a robust SAEAF expression of working interoperability(WI) to achieve it.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Andy Bond: Do not use SAEAF and enterprise architecture in the same breath.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Ann Wrightson: Whitepaper on SAEAF vs TOGAF would be useful.
| |
| − | RB: My experience with TOGAF will not change SAEAF.
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | Jane Curry: SAEAF is a filter.
| |
| − | RB: Zachman is about business architecture. TOGAF will not solve the problems SAEAF addresses - and vice-versa. SAEAF is to deliver interoperablity.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Ann Wrightson: COnclustion that it offers a toolkit, that will produce something like SAEAF.
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | Ron Parker: Premise is that I have a project, and I need to use achieve WI. Not Radically different, we are discussing the WI. There are huge implications of the understanding - business needs to be able to determine where it fits in the SAEAF.
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | Ron Parker: How does HL7 show derivation from the SAEAF? Is XYZ in the requiremenst? Where in the SPec?
| |
| − | | |
| − | John Koisch: At NCI have undertaken to understand HITSP interoperability spec( not core). A lot of alignment to the Behavioral Framework. Heart of it is traceability. Must be generally expressed in terms of EHR-FM, and how do you express in services? Work is maturing. Will share with ArB when ready.
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | Charlie Mead: Goal is to get SAEAF into the federal health mindset.
| |
| − | ===Behavioral Framework (John Koisch) ===
| |
| − | | |
| − | John Koisch: document is not ready.
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | Jane Curry: How mature is it?
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | Charlie Mead: Not a question of content shifting, concern over unclear specifications.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Wendell Ocasio: What level of specificity is needed?
| |
| − | | |
| − | John Koisch: What are you trying to establish with a BF? HL7 has been focused on information exchange. My question to Charlie is, given people misunderstanding, what are we trying to get out of doing the BF?
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | Charlie Mead: People will say it is too general, insufficient. Woody is vehement about why it is not being used today.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Patrick Loyd: We have methodology at a 10,000 foot view, but not at the lower levels.
| |
| − | | |
| − | John Koisch: Woody wants to see the schema to go in the mif.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Ann Wrightson: People in the UK want a short, lucid presentation of what is in it. The simple version should have been written first.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Patrick Loyd: we need to define a slice of artifacts, going to several groups, and one group must coordinate. We have three facilitators on OO. We agree that the whole list is invited to discuss.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Ann Wrightson: When will we see the ballot?
| |
| − | | |
| − | John Koisch: Today, the BF was comissioned for the ArB to do. I was trying to get vote from ArB - content has not moved in 9 months. The BF is suitable for having the same discussion, of how enterprise a and B support busines process. Does not mean it supports a MIF schema. The BF is not ballotable - it is generic - and is like looking at TOGAF.
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | Ron Parker: NOt a normative artifact.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Patrick Loyd: Need to ballot the framework in some form. At the same time we will need to ballot the architecture. MIF: I with ron and lloyds help defined requirements for model.
| |
| − | | |
| − | John Koisch: We also have AMS models.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Patrick Loyd: I modeled the requirements.
| |
| − | | |
| − | John Koisch: what the BF is right now, vote on whethere it expreses how HL7 needs to define conformance on interoperability. SAEAF - ITS expression, and MIF schema - should be compliant. We have not covered how we will ballot a service?
| |
| − | | |
| − | Patrick Loyd: What are the pieces?
| |
| − | | |
| − | John Koisch: We have an ontology.
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | Ron Parker: Question - What constitutes sufficient evidence that we can declare due diligence. The content is stable - the problem is how to land the spec, with how it can be achieved. There are others ready to consume the BF without HL7 spec. Question is this:(BF is not in DITA yet).
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | Ron Parker: What constitutes due diligence?
| |
| − | | |
| − | Grahame Grieve: I dont think you will like my answer. We need a normative ballot using it. Until we have done that, we may have to re-visit the framework.
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | Ron Parker: It worries me. In Canada we had gaps between the spec and the anticipation. We need to get it out.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Grahame Grieve: Clearly the process requires a process. You cant get there until you do it.
| |
| − | | |
| − | John Koisch: What do we ballot?
| |
| − | | |
| − | Marc Koehn: Once you have done that, I suggest that we are worried about reaction, but what I am hearing is that we have a clear idea which we have not communicated. Today it is at this stage - and has three more steps to go through. Every one of the three chapters will go through say three steps to validate, and we have not written it down.
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | Jane Curry: We have committed to go DSTU before we go normative.
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | Charlie Mead: We are conflating two issues - communication, and the notion of needing ballot. Having been 4 months of ECCF documentation, with edits, it is not perfect. I am 150% in favor of getting it out. The first round of comments, and did edits. Why would we vote on the BF?
| |
| − | | |
| − | Patrick Loyd: There is a high level view, and a down to earth view, what do we vote on?
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | Ron Parker: Vote on language and notion on use, with the evolution explained.
| |
| − | | |
| − | John Koisch: We vote on the document to agree on how it is represented. It will move a bit. Vote as a governance step - that the path of a framework is the path of a framework.
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | Ron Parker: Will not commit unless they have sense of stability. What do you (arb) members need to verify the stability.
| |
| − | | |
| − | John Koisch: BF is the part of SAEAF that communcates the computational framework. Maybe we dont need to vote on it.
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | Ron Parker: When can we put it in the DITA. THis meeting we will notify publishing of the content.
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | Charlie Mead: You are conflating what we decide and what publishing decides. Karen does not want to put something in DITA if there are substantive changes. We can agree, but if there are 50 unanswered question, Karen will not put it in.
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | Jane Curry: DITA is focused on topics - if we are still re-organizing, then putting it in DITA will drive you nuts. Once the topics are mapped, we can wordsmith the items under the topics.
| |
| − | | |
| − | John Koisch: IMHO the questions out there are not valid - we need a release so we can go further.
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | Ron Parker: Are there question that the ArB has?
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | Jane Curry: There are comments we need to review. The process has been to go back to the questioners to see if the re-wording is acceptable. One reviewer is seeing inconsistancies. I cant tell if the questions have been addressed. I would ask Charlie and John, can we get a version with all of the questions resolved? The structure re-work is a huge effort.
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | Charlie Mead: John has a few figures to fix, and the comments from the 5 reviewers have been addressed.
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | Jane Curry: Need EA to save as svg. Can use EMF. AMS has a set of models, that needs to be expressed in EMF.
| |
| − | | |
| − | John Koisch: Model has been exported as HTML.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Wendell Ocasio: DITA needs vector graphics.
| |
| − | | |
| − | John Koisch: Load up the tools, so you can get at the EAP file.
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | Jane Curry: Karen does not have tools.
| |
| − | | |
| − | John Koisch: I will do it. If there is a image format issue, the consumer should solve it. You want people to work with the elemental things.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Wendell Ocasio: I dont need to have visio to look at the RIM models, what is the diffence.
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | Ron Parker: What is the source of truth. If we have to regen for each change, John would rather regen the core files, and the consumer will change to the view they need. This is a publishing excercise.
| |
| − | | |
| − | John Koisch: I will send it to Karen.
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | Jane Curry: As raw graphics, so they can be added as appropriate.
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | Ron Parker: We need a business process on methodology on content change and expression.
| |
| − | | |
| − | John Koisch: You understand my concern.
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | Jane Curry: We just need to understand the toolkit. We need to make changes in diagrams.
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | Ron Parker: Need to understand fit between SAEAF and TOGAF.
| |
| − | ===Adjournment ===
| |
| − | The meeting was adjourned at 11:00am U.S. MST
| |
| − | ==Quarter 2==
| |
| − | | |
| − | [[Agenda_Minutes|Back to Agenda-minutes]]
| |
| − | <table border==1>
| |
| − | <tr><td>Name</td><td>Present</td><td>With</td><td>Affiliation</td><td>E-mail address</td></tr>
| |
| − | <tr><td>Aneja, Paul</td><td>No</td><td>Guest</td><td> </td> <td></td></tr>
| |
| − | <tr><td>Bond, Andy</td><td>Yes</td><td>ArB</td><td>NEHTA</td><td>andy.bond@nehta.gov.au</td></tr>
| |
| − | <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>Yes</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>Koehn, Marc</td><td>Yes</td><td>Guest</td><td>Gordon point Informatics LTD.</td><td>marc.koehn@gpinformatics.com</td></tr>
| |
| − | <tr><td>Koisch, John</td><td>Yes</td><td>ArB</td><td>Guidewire Architecture</td><td>koisch_john@bah.com</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>No</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>NCI</td><td>meadch@mail.nci.gov</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>Yes</td><td>ArB</td><td>Agilex Technologies</td><td>wendell.ocasio@agilex.com</td></tr>
| |
| − | <tr><td>Parker, Ron</td><td>Yes</td><td>ArB</td><td>CA Infoway</td><td>rparker@infoway-inforoute.ca</td></tr>
| |
| − | <tr><td>Peres, Greg</td><td>No</td><td>Guest</td> <td> </td><td> </td></tr>
| |
| − | <tr><td>Platt, Joe</td><td>No</td><td>Guest</td><td>Ekagra Software Technologies</td><td>jplatt@ekagrasoft.com</td></tr>
| |
| − | <tr><td>Quinn, John</td><td>No</td><td>ArB</td><td>Health Level Seven, Inc.</td><td>jquinn@HL7.org</td></tr>
| |
| − | <tr><td>Robertson, Scott</td><td>No</td><td>Guest</td><td>Kaiser Permanente</td><td>scott.m.robertson@kp.org</td></tr>
| |
| − | <tr><td>Shakir, Abdul-Malik</td><td>No</td><td>ArB</td><td>Shakir Consulting</td><td>ShakirConsulting@cs.com</td></tr>
| |
| − | <tr><td>Smith, Karen</td><td>No</td><td>Guest</td><td>Technical Editor</td><td>karen@smithspot.com</td></tr>
| |
| − | <tr><td>Thompson, Cliff</td><td>No</td><td>Guest</td><td>OntoSolutions LLC</td><td>cliff@ontosolutions.com</td></tr>
| |
| − | <tr><td>VanArsdall, Eddie</td><td>No</td><td>Guest</td><td> </td><td> </td></tr>
| |
| − | <tr><td>Vanderzel, Michael</td><td>Yes</td><td>Guest</td><td>UMCG</td><td>m.van.der.zel@ict.umcg.nl</td></tr>
| |
| − | <tr><td>
| |
| − | </table>
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===Call to order ===
| |
| − | The meeting was called to order at 11:00am U.S. MST with Ron Parker as Chair and Tony Julian as scribe. Quorum was achieved.
| |
| − | === What do do with BF===
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | Charlie Mead: What wasw termed under the contract with Karen Smith was to get the Intro BF, ECCF into the DITA framework. Intro, ECCF, and BF are there. As soon as John gets the final graphics as SVG to Karen, we can declare Phase 1 done.
| |
| − | John will provide the figures 6-8 in SVG by tomorrow.
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | Charlie Mead: Final edits will be done by end of February.
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | Ron Parker: There is a resolution of the group on the disposition.
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | Charlie Mead: We can vote on all three simultaneously.
| |
| − | | |
| − | John Koisch: Resolution, or statement of endorsement. One of the things is ISO107 hitsp interoperability spec. Bring that to the ARB as an examplar, but not part of the SAEAF.
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | Jane Curry: Clairfy the term "Publication". Elements of the SAEAF book is examples, and methodology, which need to be exposed, and understood. We have dropped the ball on the communcation plan. We have an outline of a plan, not a real plan. We dont have roles, process, timelines, checkpoints.
| |
| − | | |
| − | John Koisch: It may be healthy thing to get on release schedule - maybe 6 times a year - 3 harmonization, 3 WGM.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Patrick Loyd: 60day before meeting preliminary proposals, 30days final proposals.
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | Charlie Mead: I can see that would be useful, but initially we would need to verify artifacts, then mine them across projects.
| |
| − | | |
| − | John Koisch: expectation before WGM meetings.
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | Ron Parker: timing expectations?
| |
| − | | |
| − | Patrick Loyd: between ballots - usually 6 weeks after WGM.
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | Ron Parker: would the nature of artifacts for harmonization be different than those for WGM.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Patrick Loyd: No, it is the same - it is iterative.
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | Ron Parker: Charlie, John said we need to make our content available for WGM, and document the state.e
| |
| − | | |
| − | Tony Julian: Do we have a mind map of phases?
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | Jane Curry: TSC approved two phases, to be complete by 2010. There is also the change management into the version of the SAEAF book we have to manage as things are revealed. We dont have a formal process yet. Phase 2 was supposed to harvest exxamples out of the alpha projects, and begin to create the artifacts.
| |
| − | | |
| − | John Koisch: Work Products: The nature of these products is different than say vocabularly. Different kinds of products may beg different publishing. E.G. EA projects, ArB needs to highlight another workstream, say "in OO we found this".
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | Jane Curry: Expose examples, design practices.
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | Charlie Mead: Out of regular harmonization excercises.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Ann Wrightson:: We are diverging.
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | Ron Parker: there have been actionable points. Charlie has taken a crack at text:
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | Charlie Mead: There is a problem for some people separating the methodology from the content.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Marc Koehn: Can we create more action, to get people to try to use it.
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | Charlie Mead: Vote on ready to consume and use.
| |
| − | The following final resolution was crafted:
| |
| − | MMS Jane/Grahame (8-0-0)The SAEAF Book is currently under development and has just completed its Phase I technical editing and publishing effort. As a result of this activity, the
| |
| − | • Introduction
| |
| − | • Enterprise Conformance and Compliance Framework (ECCF),
| |
| − | • Behavioral Framework (BF)
| |
| − | chapters have been internally reviewed by the Architecture Board (ArB) and deemed of sufficient maturity to have them represented in the planned DITA publishing environment. As a consequence, these three artifacts are now available for use (within the context of SAEAF Alpha projectspbuuse) and comment by the HL7 community. Anyone interested in the content and application of the content of these three core components of the SAEAF Book to HL7 or other specification-development work are encouraged to download any or all of the three artifacts and submit comments to the ArB. Comments and suggested revisions we be managed an ArB harmonization process.
| |
| − | State of material:
| |
| − | Phase II of the technical editing and publishing effort will focus on the Governance Framework (GF), the Information Framework (IF), and – as a result of continuing work of the various SAEAF-based Enterprise Architecture Implementation Project (EA-IP) – the ongoing integration of experience on all the components of The SAEAF Book based on the practical application of various SAEAF components.
| |
| − | John Koish took the role of 'formal publisher'.
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | Ron Parker: we need to assign responsibility.
| |
| − | | |
| − | John Koisch: We want to publish without pointing to subversion. It is either a w-i-p, and you can be part of the process. We need one place where our stuff is.
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | Jane Curry: If we use PDF as our formal way, we can do so. It stays in word until comments get removed(to product the HTML DITA topics). We will concentrate on putting into DITA. Every topic needs an owner, and needs to be versioned separately.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Ann Wrightson:: It is helpful to download in PDF. I would be happy to have the powerpoints.
| |
| − | Jane Curry Will have to take up with HQ.
| |
| − | MMS (John/Charlie)(8-0-0)
| |
| − | That ArB will make a snapshot of it’s current work product publicly available its work products 3 weeks in advance of each WG meeting.
| |
| − | • Material will be published to a public location that is readily accessible.
| |
| − | • Each product will have an explanation of the current “state” of the product at the time of publishing.
| |
| − | • The process for communicating ArB work products will be developed in advance of the next WG.
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | Charlie Mead: The sophistication and multiple uses of content, which is not necessarily HL7 depenedt content, calls for formal adoption of topic maps. ArB should say we do or donot need topic maps. Cecil is not here but
| |
| − |
| |
| − | | |
| − | Jane Curry: The current SAEAF editing crew did not know enough about topic maps, so we used what we could within the timeframe requires. Someone will have to educate the SAEAF crew - we need to understand the impact. We are working out how to use the meta-data as associated to the topic map.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Ann Wrightson:: It is my opinion that DITA can be referenced by topic map. I would not anticipate anything harder than expressing the topic maps.
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | Jane Curry: At this stage, the question is how are we going to use the meta-data in DITA?
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | Charlie Mead: Should the ArB use topic maps? The current answer is 2 yes, the rest abstensions. Everyone should research topic maps - contact
| |
| − | Ann Wrightson:, Charlie Mead, or Cecil Lynch.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Grahame Grieve: Why topic maps?
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | Charlie Mead: ArB thinks topic maps are necessary.
| |
| − | ===Stan Huff's Product Strategy work ===
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | Ron Parker: We need a targeted call with Stan, to discuss the things the ArB has discussed that feed into his effort.
| |
| − | Grahame GrieveStan's document does not offer solutions:Stan's document is about perceptions, not reality. People dont understand what is going on. He will document in one place where the problems or perceived problems are.
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===Adjournment ===
| |
| − | The meeting was adjourned at 12:00 pm U. S. MST
| |
| − | == Quarter 3 ==
| |
| − | <table border==1>
| |
| − | <tr><td>Name</td><td>Present</td><td>With</td><td>Affiliation</td><td>E-mail address</td></tr>
| |
| − | <tr><td>Orvis, Nancy</td><td>Yes</td><td>Guest</td><td>U.S. DOD</td><td></td></tr>
| |
| − | <tr><td>Aneja, Paul</td><td>No</td><td>Guest</td><td> </td> <td></td></tr>
| |
| − | <tr><td>Bond, Andy</td><td>Yes</td><td>ArB</td><td>NEHTA</td><td>ancy.bond@nehta.gov.au</td></tr>
| |
| − | <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>No</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>Koehn, Marc</td><td>Yes</td><td>Guest</td><td>Gordon point Informatics LTD.</td><td>marc.koehn@gpinformatics.com</td></tr>
| |
| − | <tr><td>Koisch, John</td><td>Yes</td><td>ArB</td><td>Guidewire Architecture</td><td>koisch_john@bah.com</td></tr>
| |
| − | <tr><td>Loyd, Patrick</td><td>No</td><td>ARB</td><td>Gordon point Informatics LTD.</td><td>patrick.loyd@gpinformatics.com</td></tr>
| |
| − | <tr><td>Lynch, Cecil</td><td>Yes</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>NCI</td><td>meadch@mail.nci.gov</td></tr>
| |
| − | <tr><td>Nelson, Dale</td><td>No </td><td>Arb</td><td>II4SM</td><td>dale@zed-logic.com</td></tr>
| |
| − | <tr><td>Ocasio, Wendell</td><td>Yes</td><td>ArB</td><td>Agilex Technologies</td><td>wendell.ocasio@agilex.com</td></tr>
| |
| − | <tr><td>Parker, Ron</td><td>Yes</td><td>ArB</td><td>CA Infoway</td><td>rparker@infoway-inforoute.ca</td></tr>
| |
| − | <tr><td>Peres, Greg</td><td>No</td><td>Guest</td> <td> </td><td> </td></tr>
| |
| − | <tr><td>Platt, Joe</td><td>No</td><td>Guest</td><td>Ekagra Software Technologies</td><td>jplatt@ekagrasoft.com</td></tr>
| |
| − | <tr><td>Quinn, John</td><td>No</td><td>ArB</td><td>Health Level Seven, Inc.</td><td>jquinn@HL7.org</td></tr>
| |
| − | <tr><td>Robertson, Scott</td><td>No</td><td>Guest</td><td>Kaiser Permanente</td><td>scott.m.robertson@kp.org</td></tr>
| |
| − | <tr><td>Shakir, Abdul-Malik</td><td>No</td><td>ArB</td><td>Shakir Consulting</td><td>ShakirConsulting@cs.com</td></tr>
| |
| − | <tr><td>Smith, Karen</td><td>No</td><td>Guest</td><td>Technical Editor</td><td>karen@smithspot.com</td></tr>
| |
| − | <tr><td>Thompson, Cliff</td><td>No</td><td>Guest</td><td>OntoSolutions LLC</td><td>cliff@ontosolutions.com</td></tr>
| |
| − | <tr><td>VanArsdall, Eddie</td><td>No</td><td>Guest</td><td> </td><td> </td></tr>
| |
| − | <tr><td>Vanderzel, Michael</td><td>No</td><td>Guest</td><td>UMCG</td><td>m.van.der.zel@ict.umcg.nl</td></tr>
| |
| − | <tr><td>
| |
| − | </table>
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | === Call to order ===
| |
| − | The meeting was called to order at 2:00 pm U. S. MST with Ron Parker as Chair and Tony Julian as scribe. Quorum was achieved.
| |
| − | ===Governance Review and Discussion(Jane Curry) ===
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | Jane Curry: Presented issues with governance.
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | Jane Curry: What does coherence mean in the Internal as well as external? How do we get coherence across specifications. THe original discussed governance across a single enterprise.
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | Jane Curry: Developing authority is the accrediting body for the device.
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | Charlie Mead: Jane, you need to publish what you have, not wait until you totally get it correct. The community needs to see and think about it.
| |
| − | | |
| − | John Koisch: The ArB should take paths.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Ann Wrightson: Everyone needs to weigh in.
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | Jane Curry: Validated some of my assumptions. The ripple effect of the discussion is days worth of work.
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | Ron Parker: When we see a community siezing on SAEAF aggressively, governance is both fundamental and problematic. If we can do governance well, and their is two flavors - Contact template, as well as contract.
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | Ron Parker: Their is stuff we have to feed into interfaces that allows the traceability.
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | Jane Curry: That is why we dont have the tooling.
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | Ron Parker: You need to do something soon so people know what governance they are embracing. In Canada, it is easy, tougher in the U.S.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Ann Wrightson: I find the idea of embracing this seriously flawed. I am scared that something that works for Canada and the NCI may not work for all. We have not made V3 usefull for anyone but early adopters.
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | Charlie Mead: NCI is moving forward because HL7 is not including governance. It is bigger than HL7 - you can bind the RIM, and anyting else to it.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Ann Wrightson: This goes back to conformance - there is nothing to look at.
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | Charlie Mead: You are right - NCI and Infoway have the inside track. You can say there were early adopters as well as co-opting the process. We were shackled by the TSC, who now realizes that we need to get it done.
| |
| − | | |
| − | John Koisch: What projects could do this?
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | Jane Curry: ArB - how do you articulate coherence? I would be happy to not drive that one. The other is articulation of community - which is not in HDF. We talk about affinity diagrams, but not community. That is one of the prerequisits of having a methodology. This is not the basic business purpose that shows up in problem statements.
| |
| − | | |
| − | John Koisch: It is a requirements document for those wanting to form a community.
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | Jane Curry: I am sure of it - I can make it up. I did not know how far to go into it - stating the problem as well as offering solution, or just stating the problem. It shows up in the prerequisits for transaction in the BF.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Andy Bond: BF calls it the local viewpoint, but not a holistic view. We have entry criteria, exit criteria etc. We have a community across HL7.
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | Jane Curry: There is a trade off.
| |
| − | | |
| − | John Koisch: HL7 V3 imply community without specing what is interoperability.
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | Cecil Lynch: Community without governance. THe critical issue is individual community is not where the governance lies - the organizational community has to state the rules. We allow a community to rise, without governance.
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | Charlie Mead: Governance framework does not build the solution or we should not call it a framework.
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | Jane Curry: Part of achieving the specification is how to set up governance to get coherence. One of the driving forces for SAEAF in the first place was the HITSP standards meant that any organization and cooresponding group had to comply with disparate examples. This is part of the specification, not the framework. The fit-for-purpose measure has to be expressed from the top-left corner down.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Ann Wrightson: HL7 does not have jurisdiction across national policies for vocabulary. The way that the framework makes the jurisdiction one of the things you have to consider, means you can say that those things are set by the community/nation.
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | Jane Curry: This will impact the SDO convergence framework. HL7 reports to ISO through ANSI, which must be changed to achieve the governance - that layer of no single nation, but the convergence of shared convergence across nations. U.S. will have to figure out how to take a universal spec and make it work.
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | Charlie Mead: YOu think that fits
| |
| − | | |
| − | John Koisch: Next steps - the concrete thing we can do is to come up with the contract specification. Then we will have governance, instead of a governance framework.
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | Ron Parker: The contract templates need to be adopted to enter into the contract.
| |
| − | ===Information Framework (who and when Charlie)===
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | Charlie Mead: We have core principles defined. The fact is now we have the BF and ECCF to the point where we are able to publish, missing is the governance framework and information framework. Who will write it, and how will it work? It would be great if we could find someone who would do it, it would be great.
| |
| − | | |
| − | John Koisch: Core Principles?
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | Charlie Mead: That would be great.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Ann Wrightson: SOA has not felt it was time to bring their aspects forward.
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | Ron Parker: THere is an aspect of SOA and TOGAF which apply.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Ann Wrightson: My main concern is the business need in the payload. It is the stuff that would form the meat of the semantic profiles.
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | Charlie Mead: If we could address that, we could get buy-in. Even Woody, the most passionate backer of V3, could show me that the rim-bound stuff will work, then I am in.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Ann Wrightson: We need to articulate what it is, what would it be for something to live withing V2, V3 and services.
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | Jane Curry: That speaks to the intended purpose of the information - computable or human readable.
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | Charlie Mead: THe last version of the BF gets at notions of -unified field theory - the choice of interoperability pardigm gets to the organization and complication of the information. We start to look at transactions, trust community, etc. We dont have anything for information, we need to get on paper.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Wendell Ocasio: Payload level semantics versus static semantics. That is part of the informational issue.
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | Jane Curry: one of the questions I had, was at the Platform Specific level, serialize and communicate, is it ok to demonsrate the understanding of the meaning, or do you have to carry the semantics - are they discoverable? The information sematics is at the model level, does not have to be normative at the information level.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Ann Wrightson: Rich information as part of the contract.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Wendell Ocasio: If it is in the contract, you dont need it in the model.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Ann Wrightson: If the information is in the contract, you dont have to model it. The contract has to specifyu the information missing in the model.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Wendell Ocasio: The community can specify.
| |
| − | | |
| − | John Koisch: Not in the model.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Wendell Ocasio: Does not have to be understoo in the computable.
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | Jane Curry: Wraps around to the share purpose conversation, what are you trying to accomplish.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Ann Wrightson: The framework may have one decision, while the information level may make another decision.
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | Charlie Mead: The way we developed ECCF and BF, we developed presentations, then wrote the documentation. In this case we know more, and less. We dont understand the information -we know the RIM and datatypes. There are other issues that have not been addressed - we just have a model and vocabulary bindings. We cant have a similar framework for V2 and V3. There are issues that surface around what documents really are - things people have not thought about. Publishing the core principles as the information model may not be the answer. SOmeone will have to build the slides, then circulate, and expand. Cecil should lead us through concept maps, so we can get our heads around it.
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | Jane Curry: The dita maps were helpful, although not quite the same, I would be happy to participate in that. That is a fruitful conversion in real-time.
| |
| − | | |
| − | John Koisch: You cant play in anything else.
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | Ron Parker: You are grounded.
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | Charlie Mead: You are being governed.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Ann Wrightson: Do a little bit of polling first. The was a lot of work done on v2-v3, there is some work I have done that we could gather which would give Cecil a head start.
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | Jane Curry: Need to talk about templates design requirements. Request to harvest the validation of problems that surfaced.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Ann Wrightson: Future interactions.
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | Jane Curry: Context stuff, important when the purpose is to pull data from multiple sources that have various levels of verification at the collection level. Many think that human readability will solve the problem.
| |
| − | | |
| − | John Koisch: Why do we care about human readability?
| |
| − | | |
| − | Ann Wrightson: Whey should we stop there, there are multiple purposes.
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | Jane Curry: That came out in the functional model.
| |
| − | ===Adjournment===
| |
| − | Adjourned at 3:13 pm U.S. MDT
| |
| − | =Tuesday Q2 - Government SIG dialogue=
| |
| − | Wide ranging discussion with these pertinent points
| |
| − | * SAEAF focus on Working Interoperabilty backed by the Service Contract is attractive even if the various enterprises have their own Enterprise Architectures based on a different framework.
| |
| − | * Authoritative Requirements - SAEAF should borrow the primacy and process of requirements management from TOGAF
| |
| − | * NHIH needs what SAEAF offers.
| |
| − | * For example interoperability in a Gov agency - if an enterprise security policies are specified at a physical level - Conformance and Compliance can help to persuade agreement to participate even if an alternate physical security strategy is proposed
| |
| − | * Authoritative Services that can mitigate among distinct systems of record = statement that would resonate
| |
| − | * Distrust of ArB and SAEAF within HL7 - evaluated as if it is providing benefit immediately - and it's not even complete - Alpha projects will be helping to finish and inform the process of creating the HL7 Enterprise Architecture Specification. Beta projects will need to be recruited that can demonstrate that an authoritative requirements driven process can produce a Services Contract with full traceability to the end stage technology binding.
| |
| − | =January 21, 2009=
| |
| − | [[Agenda_Minutes|Back to Agenda-minutes]] | |
| − | <table border="1">
| |
| − | <tr><td>Name </td><td>Present</td><td>With </td><td>Affiliation</td><td>E-mail address</td><tr>
| |
| − | <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>?</td><td> ArB </td><td>Mayo Clinic</td><td>ajulian@mayo.edu</td></tr>
| |
| − | <tr><td>Koisch, John </td><td>?</td><td> ArB </td><td>Giidewire Architecture</td><td>jkoisch@guidewirearchitecture.com</td></tr>
| |
| − | <tr><td>Loyd, Patrick </td><td>?</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>?</td><td> ArB </td><td>National Cancer Institute</td><td>meadch@mail.nih.gov</td></tr>
| |
| − | <tr><td>Nelson, Dale </td><td>?</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>Shakir, Abdul-Malik </td><td>?</td><td> ArB </td><td>Shakir Consulting</td><td>ShakirConsulting@cs.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>
| |
| − | ==Thursday Q3 ==
| |
| − | *Call to order
| |
| − | *Approval of Agenda for Quarter/Day
| |
| − | *SAEAF and RIMBA Defered to a telcon
| |
| − | *Results of meeting w/Electronic services( Ron Parker)
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | Ron Parker: SAEAF deserves its own page, not public. There will be a public page which will refer people to ArB. It will be pointed to from other wiki pages.
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | Jane Curry: Instead of pointing to gforge, there is now under the ArB front page. Tony will harmonize.
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | Ron Parker: Met with Conformance and answered their questions.
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | Ron Parker: Met with Electronic services: We will provide the the HTML to be presented to the public, Electronic Services will apply stylesheets.
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | Ron Parker: Timelines: PIC has peer review document, Ron talked with Helen about tweaking.
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | Jane Curry: DId we articulate that the next iteration is due 3week before next WGM.
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | Ron Parker: For next call will provide project plan for our cycles. We have more budget for Karen's work - two working groups meeting for here time. We need persistant tools to manage versions/content.
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | Jane Curry: We committed to find out from NCI because they are selecting tools presently.
| |
| − | *Revisit Governance Scope
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | Ron Parker: Talked to Charlie about expectations - 10-11 pages - trying to scope down governance to match current release of ECCF and BF.
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | Jane Curry: My pushback: There is a significant scoping excercise within the governance of the ECCF. Your interoperability community is usually a multiple-community effort. Some are constrained at the ECCF. They need to be in more than one stack.
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | Ron Parker: I want that in. It is difficult to discuss scoping without the language. Charlie said ECCF and BF gave us a grammer.
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | Jane Curry: I dont have to do specification?
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | Ron Parker: No
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | Jane Curry: In the implementation HL7 will have to address coherence across domain.
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | Ron Parker: What is needed to support current level of participation? What would the alphas need to know?
| |
| − | | |
| − | Ann Wrightson:: I am concerned that people tend to assume that when you do this you are introducing across organization. We need to make concious effort that it be larger than a single interop community.
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | Jane Curry: Interoperability community needs to assess where focus is required, as well as the spec stack scope. When you start drawing pictures, on what subject, it depends on the share purpose at the subject level. They may make different choices for another subject.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Ann Wrightson: We discussed in ITS this morning. Some people can do this, but we need to provide a method for doing it.
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | Jane Curry: I disagree with your disagreement. At what point are you drawing what from where? It is not top-down driven.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Ann Wrightson: I am concerned about the triangle. People only populating the implementable.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Andy Bond: Not only tech stack is computable: It should be a logical transformation. Governance can cover policy and regulation. This will control layer appropriate for community. They can get interoperability at the conceptual level.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Ann Wrightson: SOme of the interoperability has not been document.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Andy Bond: It consists of some things that dont work.
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | Ron Parker: It is fuzzy thinking. The governance Jane needs to express is to governance in terms of ECCF - identifying shared purpose and shared governance. What is formal expression and grammer thereto. How do you govern WG's is a separate conversation.
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | Jane Curry: Explain "What is needed to support current level of interest and participating.
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | Ron Parker: Focus on the participatants. Identify formalisms or artifacts (existing or new) required for this expression. People are struggling on what the tangable things look like.
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | Jane Curry: I got out of tuesday a big change is the idea of authoritative requirements - who is providing, and what is their authority? From headspace? Never Declared? VS requirements stated/external with know ownership.
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | Ron Parker: Anything else.
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | Jane Curry: Interconnecting systems have to have relationships to an organization. The problem is when you cross boundaries?
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | Jane Curry: there are two levels - i will try not to do six.
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | Ron Parker: Opportunities to extend.
| |
| − | *Information Framework Sketch
| |
| − | | |
| − | Ann Wrightson: Sketched drawing (past link here).
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | Jane Curry: You dont have to provide context within an environment.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Ann Wrightson: all of these are concepts. It applies literally to the UML model, where there are named concepts - same framework in another direction.
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | Jane Curry: I got into this understanding the granularity of concepts. Definition of addressable storage/atomic unit.
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | Ron Parker: When I look at this, we are trying to describe a pattern to express the payload in services.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Ann Wrightson: You have to bring in the semantic model.
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | Ron Parker: There is a whole bunch of educational wrapping.
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | Cecil Lynch: This gets to what I was trying to talk about -tying these together. V2 is not in the charter, but will eventually need to be. We have a v3 framework, but we need a way to provide v2. THe easy way is to use common logic. Trying to explain common logic to everyone is difficult. There are a few things we have to pull in.
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | Jane Curry: Syntatic model has parts that need to express.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Ann Wrightson: It needs work between Cecil and I.Needs to brought forward into practical model. We have to be rigorous about names, and how you find the names. THis is fundamental.
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | Cecil Lynch: by syntatic model do you mean grammer?
| |
| − | | |
| − | Ann Wrightson: This being a schema, but not fixed to. It is the means whereby the structure is expressed - could be a regular expression.
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | Cecil Lynch: IN common logic Parsed literal would be a sentence. The syntatic model provides the conjuctions?
| |
| − | | |
| − | Ann Wrightson:Uses the concept representation convention. What you just talked about is at the concept level. You have to do all of the above before you get there.
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | Cecil Lynch: Common logic covers all of this.
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | Ron Parker: You are in the problem solving. Jane brought up that many of the community will not understand common logic. YOu have to go through the exercise.
| |
| − | *Items brought up this meeting
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | Ron Parker: Tony will transfer JK's email into tracker.
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | Cecil Lynch: CDA R3 project plan is done.
| |
| − | Item 10: ROn will take.
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | Ron Parker: Discussed agenda for next quarter.
| |
| − | *Adjournment
| |
| − | ==Thursday Q4 ==
| |
| − | *Call to order | |
| − | *Approval of Agenda for Quarter
| |
| − | *Gforge for action items
| |
| − | | |
| − | Ron Parker: Several people will be getting notifications from Gforge.
| |
| − | *Schedule for SAEAF document Publishing | |
| − | | |
| − | Ron Parker: Talked to electronic services, and will be pushing out before next WGM. Is it OK to push it out now?
| |
| − | | |
| − | Charlie Mead: ECCF is ready.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Jane Curry: I need to look at it again.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Charlie Mead: I take responsibility for all of the corrections - will push through publishable version of BF by end of weekend.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Jane Curry: Intro is original version was from May, We need to ask the intro has timing stuff in it - update all of the time, or take that stuff out.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Charlie Mead: Take out timing.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Ron Parker: I will review the intro.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Charlie Mead: HL7 will have to build implementation guide from HDF. We have releasable ECCF, couple of days to release the BF, first draft of information framework in three weeks. Jane will have governance by Feb 1, 2010.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Jane Curry: Will be at same level of scope as ECCF.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Charlie Mead: HL7 and others will have to build implementatin guides.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Ron Parker: When do we want to do harmonization? Needs to be halfway between WGM's.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Ron Parker: There will be an anchor page. I agreed to publish a public declaration on the HL7 Page. Elevator pitch - if you want more, contact the TSC.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Charlie Mead: I had to write saeaf-snapshop. I just sent to TSC. We need to all edit it. Charlie will distribute to ArB list. Goal is two pages of text and the tryptic.
| |
| − | Ron will put on next meeting agend.
| |
| − | *Alpha Facilitation
| |
| − | | |
| − | Ron Parker: Charlie McCay said that the facilitators we not known. I will have rotating agenda Item around updates for saeaf, with facilitators giving 5 minutes once a month.
| |
| − | *Peer Review
| |
| − | | |
| − | Ron Parker: Discussed peer review with PIC, and will tweak for our needs, circulate peer review, and complete for next WGM.
| |
| − | *Other business and planning
| |
| − | *Telcon Schedule
| |
| − | Thursdays at 11:00 Eastern
| |
| − | Thursdays at 18:00 Eastern
| |
| − | We will have standing agenda Items.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Charlie Mead: The more we can make problem solving, not meetings to report what can be read in e-mail.
| |
| − | * Naming of the SAEAF.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Charlie Mead: Hl7 Services Aware Enterprise Architecture Framework - and interoperability framework.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Ron Parker: We we talked as SOA contextualized they were happy. You could assume it is an entire framework. It(the name) seems loaded to services. We keep running up against misunderstandings.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Andy Boyd: My suggestion is SAIF. Services Aware Interoperability Framework. Needs strong statement between.
| |
| − | *Next WGM meeting schedule (day/quarter)
| |
| − | The following will be submitted:
| |
| − | **Sunday Q1
| |
| − | **Sunday Q2
| |
| − | **Sunday Q3
| |
| − | **Tuesday Q4
| |
| − | **Thursday Q3
| |
| − | **Thursday Q4
| |
| − | == expectations ==
| |
| − | | |
| − | Ron Parker:
| |
| − | *The model expresses what is to be consumed. Where is the entry point? We have a provision for expression of business requirements. Do we expect every WG to express this? We need to think about a superset of the WG, wherein enterpriseA can find their place.
| |
| − | *What are the disparities?
| |
| − | *When there is no expression of requirement in the current model I dont know how to do it.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Charlie Mead: You are confusing instances of things generated from saeaf with saeaf content. What you really are saying is does the saeaf have the grammer.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Jane Curry: SAEAF on the top right should be the sum total of the things build from the saeaf catalog.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Charlie Mead: This is the SAEAF derived HL7 .
| |
| − | | |
| − | Ron Parker: Next thing to do, as an architecture board, how are we providing guidance on how to use the HL7 assets. How are we providing a way for a 'newbie' to consume the content.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Ron Parker: Requirements for a WG are understood and generated by a WG, not expressed as architecture understand by other parties.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Andy Boyd: There should be a layer of SAEAF's. Then there is an instance (WI) on the diagram. We dont play SAEAF as the enterprise architect. Saeaf is not a container for instances - just a reference framework.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Ron Parker: We need to make it real. We need an entry point to understand the spec, and the mapping to the architecture. Charlie, we need to talk about this soon. If I was a large enterprise wanting to bet the farm on this, I would want to know persistance and traceability. I would not invest in this if I could not map my architecture to the HL7 WI.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Charlie Mead: I have collegues who think I am leading NCI over the cliff. NCI believes that HL7 stuff that is NOT SAEAF is safe - solid/stable. SAEAF brings BF, and testable conformance framework. NCI is signing up and trusting HL7. NCI wil do this irrespective of HL7 - use framework to build their own implementation guide. NCI is depending on the grammer, not implementation guide.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Ron Parker: Not sustainable model - it can't just be NCI. This idea formalizing requirements can be convuluted.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Lloyd McKenzie: How far to building artifacts?
| |
| − | | |
| − | Ron Parker: Requirements space - nada.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Lloyd McKenzie: HL7 has only story boards for requirements.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Ron Parker: Blueprint 2015 is building a business architecture.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Jane Curry: From the artifact list, what had to be validated was a scope statement.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Ron Parker: EHR-FM fits there. Someone has to filter, do checklist, and validate what exists. This allows someone to play with the enterprise. Vendors have an entry point into the requirements spec.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Ron Parker: I propose work activity.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Lloyd McKenzie: Until tools are in place, we have nothing.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Charlie Mead: NCI is investing in tools that it will give away. Expect HL7 to have input.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Lloyd McKenzie: How can you do it without the artifacts?
| |
| − | | |
| − | Charlie Mead: Two projects have developed some artifacts. CAEHR team running under SAEAF, is suppose to flesh out artifacts, which will drive the tooling.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Lloyd McKenzie: Would be quite useful to feedback to MnM, vocab. From the Arb.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Charlie Mead: Not from the ArB, from the projects. They have complex interrelationships that must be managed with tools.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Andy Boyd: There is an expectation that we have to fill in all the blanks, or we fail. In some cases we have to extend what we have done.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Lloyd McKenzie:My expectation we will have requirements. From the dynamic model perspective it will change - static model will stay the same until we realize expansion.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Cecil Lynch: Is there expectation that someone will say At this pism level you will use this cmet?
| |
| − | | |
| − | Lloyd McKenzie: Making services aware, you remove assumptions on how things work, or organized, or structured. All messages make assumptions about content. In services constrained schemas instead must be partitioned. Need artifacts at the universal level to accomplish. The real services aware part means looking again at the universal level.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Cecil Lynch: That is why this is dynamic - we constrain in a tool - in such a way it makes sense.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Lloyd McKenzie: You have a dynamic environment, developing the static model has to reconfigure itself.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Ron Parker: When organizations engage, i need chunks - i have embraced the model. Goes to fundamental model of providing soa design.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Lloyd McKenzie:1. Getting the modellers into that state, 2. Normally, you say here is my enterprise, so I can do soa. HL7 does not have a single enterprise - we have hundreds.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Ron Parker: Different classes of consumers. Solutions at low level are problematic.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Lloyd McKenzie: I understand how to do it in Canadian context, but in the diverse framework environment, it gets more challenging.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Jane Curry: There are implications for system boundaries. Documents have no system boundaries. Messaging have system boundaries, but no implied behavior.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Ron Parker: What level of WI do we need to express.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Jane Curry: People have to adopt cost to finish the work.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Cecil Lynch: We are providing a model - eventually it needs to be concrete. ECCF requires backward chaining. You have to be able to compare what you are doing to the model. Then you can suplement what is missing.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Ron Parker: Methodology may evolve.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Lloyd McKenzie: Core approach. Historically we have defined structures at the lowest level. Most cannot be implemented at the univerasal leve. You cannot implement any spec without constraint. We can derive schemas with XS:ANY, or constrain.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Cecil Lynch: Different level of compliance.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Ron Parker: Next working group meeting, who(what audience) needs to discuss this.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Lloyd McKenzie: I expect a couple of phases. Changing the currents requirements gathering.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Ron Parker: Beyond what we have expressed with SAEAF book, there is another relation to requirements gathering.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Lloyd McKenzie: We will not start tooling until we have designed the whole stack below:
| |
| − | ==SAIF Implementation Guide==
| |
| − | *Requirements Acquisition CIM level (with tooling)
| |
| − | *Artefact Development
| |
| − | *Traceability
| |
| − | *Atrefact Balloting
| |
| − | *Traceabiligy
| |
| − | *Artefact Publishing
| |
| − | *Registered use of Product
| |
| − | Next Meeting:
| |
| − |
| |
| − | 6:00pm Eastern On January 28, 2010 Late,
| |
| − | *Adjournment
| |
| − | Adjourned
| |
| − | [[User:Ajulian|Tony Julian]] | |
