This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here
Difference between revisions of "March 30th, 2010 Security Conference Call"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(→Agenda) |
|||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
[[Security|Back to Security Main Page]] | [[Security|Back to Security Main Page]] | ||
| − | ==Attendees== | + | ==Attendees== |
| − | * [mailto: | + | * |
| + | * [mailto: Bill Braithwaite] | ||
* [mailto:sconnolly@apelon.com Steven Connolly] | * [mailto:sconnolly@apelon.com Steven Connolly] | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
* [mailto:mike.davis@va.gov Mike Davis] Security Co-chair | * [mailto:mike.davis@va.gov Mike Davis] Security Co-chair | ||
* [mailto:gonzaleswebs@saic.com Suzanne Gonzales-Webb] CBCC Co-chair | * [mailto:gonzaleswebs@saic.com Suzanne Gonzales-Webb] CBCC Co-chair | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
* [mailto:rmcclure@apelon.com Rob McClure] | * [mailto:rmcclure@apelon.com Rob McClure] | ||
| − | |||
* [mailto:milan.petkovic@phillips.com Milan Petkovic] | * [mailto:milan.petkovic@phillips.com Milan Petkovic] | ||
* [mailto:ppyette@perimind.com Pat Pyette] | * [mailto:ppyette@perimind.com Pat Pyette] | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
* [mailto:richard.thoreson@samhsa.hhs.gov Richard Thoreson] CBCC Co-chair | * [mailto:richard.thoreson@samhsa.hhs.gov Richard Thoreson] CBCC Co-chair | ||
| − | |||
* [mailto:serafina@eversolve.com Serafina Versaggi] | * [mailto:serafina@eversolve.com Serafina Versaggi] | ||
| − | |||
* [mailto:craig.winter@va.gov Craig Winter] | * [mailto:craig.winter@va.gov Craig Winter] | ||
| − | + | ||
[[Security|Back to Security Main Page]] | [[Security|Back to Security Main Page]] | ||
| Line 36: | Line 25: | ||
#''(45 min)'' '''Update of Ongoing Projects''' | #''(45 min)'' '''Update of Ongoing Projects''' | ||
## Security and Privacy Ontology Project - (Mike) true version can be found on GForge. Will be discussed at next TSC meeting. Discussion at TSC meeting on which ontology to use. Some termoniolgy models in the current DAM that might provide discussion. The terminologists may propose a process to move forward to include Berndt and Cecil and develop the requirements for the ontology effort. | ## Security and Privacy Ontology Project - (Mike) true version can be found on GForge. Will be discussed at next TSC meeting. Discussion at TSC meeting on which ontology to use. Some termoniolgy models in the current DAM that might provide discussion. The terminologists may propose a process to move forward to include Berndt and Cecil and develop the requirements for the ontology effort. | ||
| − | (Steve) have been listenting to the SOA ontology and they have been favoring Protege ontology tool (as well as '''BFO''' as upper level ontology). We should keep aware of the status of this as it is preferred we stay in line with SOA. | + | (Steve) have been listenting to the SOA ontology and they have been favoring Protege ontology tool (as well as '''BFO''' ''B''asic ''F''ormal ''O''ntology www.ifomif.org/bfo as upper level ontology). We should keep aware of the status of this as it is preferred we stay in line with SOA. |
| + | The TSC approved the Security and Privacy Ontology Project: | ||
| + | ''excerpt from e-mail sent on 3/30/2010'': (from Lynn Lasko of HL7) | ||
| + | · Security and Privacy Ontology Project for Security Work Group [WG] of Foundation and Technology Steering Division [FTSD] (TSC Issue # 1478 – Status=Closed; Project Insight ID= 646). This project will develop a domain ontology encompassing the healthcare IT security and privacy domains providing a single, formal vocabulary embodying the concepts in each domain as well as concepts shared between the two. The concepts identified and defined in this ontology will be primarily drawn from those concepts contained in the Security and Composite Privacy DAMs. The concepts in this ontology will be extended in order to bridge to standard ontologies in associated domains such as enterprise architecture, clinical care and biomedicine. | ||
| + | (Rob) We will need specific use case to clearly cover our spectrum of use, phrases, concepts (to which BFO will not be necessary as an ontology) | ||
## Security and Privacy DAM '''[http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/download/frsrelease/635/7044/PeerReview__PublicCommentsConsolidated16Mar20100.DOC Harmonized Security and Privacy DAM Consolidated Peer Review Comments]''' | ## Security and Privacy DAM '''[http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/download/frsrelease/635/7044/PeerReview__PublicCommentsConsolidated16Mar20100.DOC Harmonized Security and Privacy DAM Consolidated Peer Review Comments]''' | ||
#''(5 min)'' '''Other Business''' | #''(5 min)'' '''Other Business''' | ||
Revision as of 17:31, 30 March 2010
Security Working Group Meeting
Attendees
- [mailto: Bill Braithwaite]
- Steven Connolly
- Mike Davis Security Co-chair
- Suzanne Gonzales-Webb CBCC Co-chair
- Rob McClure
- Milan Petkovic
- Pat Pyette
- Richard Thoreson CBCC Co-chair
- Serafina Versaggi
- Craig Winter
Agenda
- (05 min) Roll Call, Approve Minutes (To Be Posted Soon) & Accept Agenda
- (45 min) Update of Ongoing Projects
- Security and Privacy Ontology Project - (Mike) true version can be found on GForge. Will be discussed at next TSC meeting. Discussion at TSC meeting on which ontology to use. Some termoniolgy models in the current DAM that might provide discussion. The terminologists may propose a process to move forward to include Berndt and Cecil and develop the requirements for the ontology effort.
(Steve) have been listenting to the SOA ontology and they have been favoring Protege ontology tool (as well as BFO Basic Formal Ontology www.ifomif.org/bfo as upper level ontology). We should keep aware of the status of this as it is preferred we stay in line with SOA.
The TSC approved the Security and Privacy Ontology Project:
excerpt from e-mail sent on 3/30/2010: (from Lynn Lasko of HL7) · Security and Privacy Ontology Project for Security Work Group [WG] of Foundation and Technology Steering Division [FTSD] (TSC Issue # 1478 – Status=Closed; Project Insight ID= 646). This project will develop a domain ontology encompassing the healthcare IT security and privacy domains providing a single, formal vocabulary embodying the concepts in each domain as well as concepts shared between the two. The concepts identified and defined in this ontology will be primarily drawn from those concepts contained in the Security and Composite Privacy DAMs. The concepts in this ontology will be extended in order to bridge to standard ontologies in associated domains such as enterprise architecture, clinical care and biomedicine. (Rob) We will need specific use case to clearly cover our spectrum of use, phrases, concepts (to which BFO will not be necessary as an ontology)
- Security and Privacy DAM Harmonized Security and Privacy DAM Consolidated Peer Review Comments
- (5 min) Other Business
