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

Difference between revisions of "March 22, 2011 Security Conference Call"

From HL7Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 27: Line 27:
 
#''(15 min)'' '''final ballot content for the May cycle is due on Sunday, March 27''' Follow through on the notification of intent to ballot the Security and Privacy Ontology material.''' ~ Tony Weida
 
#''(15 min)'' '''final ballot content for the May cycle is due on Sunday, March 27''' Follow through on the notification of intent to ballot the Security and Privacy Ontology material.''' ~ Tony Weida
 
#''(15 min)'' '''Alignment with MVCO'''
 
#''(15 min)'' '''Alignment with MVCO'''
(continuing) Jaime Delgado agreed witht he detail of alightment between the two ontolgoies (not to go specificially with only one ontology) they have sent a shorter description to be e-mailed to Tony later this week.
+
(continuing) Jaime Delgado agreed with the detail of alignment between the two ontologies (not to go specifically with only one ontology) they have sent a shorter description to be e-mailed to Tony later this week.
 
#''(15 min)'' '''Item3'''  
 
#''(15 min)'' '''Item3'''  
 
#''(5 min)'' '''Call for Agenda Items [[May 2011 Working Group Meeting - Orlando, Florida USA, Security WG Agenda]] '''
 
#''(5 min)'' '''Call for Agenda Items [[May 2011 Working Group Meeting - Orlando, Florida USA, Security WG Agenda]] '''
  
 
# '''Action Item:''' An inquiry about aligning the ontology with SAIF was sent to Galen Mulrooney, (It has been mentioned on past Security-CBCC calls as a likely source of information).  ''Status: Awaiting response from Galen.''   
 
# '''Action Item:''' An inquiry about aligning the ontology with SAIF was sent to Galen Mulrooney, (It has been mentioned on past Security-CBCC calls as a likely source of information).  ''Status: Awaiting response from Galen.''   
  '''Tony received comment back from Cliff Thompson, Jim Buckner and ... have been contacted to review the document paragraph regarding SAIF'''  A suggestion was also made to ping co-Chair Bernd Blobel.
+
  '''Tony received comment back from Cliff Thompson, Jim Buckner and Cecil Lynch have been contacted to review the document paragraph regarding SAIF'''  A suggestion was also made to ping co-Chair Bernd Blobel as well.
  
 
# '''Action Item:''' A paragraph was presented at the March 8th Security-CBCC meeting; comments were requested from the group but to date we have received none.  So, a couple questions:I believe that the ideal of the security and privacy ontology is well aligned in principle with a service-aware interoperability framework. Services can take advantage of the ontology to intraoperative, but I’m not aware that the HL7 SAIF says anything specific how you should create or use ontologies, so I’m not able to detail how it specifically aligns with practice.
 
# '''Action Item:''' A paragraph was presented at the March 8th Security-CBCC meeting; comments were requested from the group but to date we have received none.  So, a couple questions:I believe that the ideal of the security and privacy ontology is well aligned in principle with a service-aware interoperability framework. Services can take advantage of the ontology to intraoperative, but I’m not aware that the HL7 SAIF says anything specific how you should create or use ontologies, so I’m not able to detail how it specifically aligns with practice.

Revision as of 04:42, 12 April 2011

Security Working Group Meeting

Back to Security Main Page

Attendees

Back to Security Main Page


Agenda

  1. (05 min) Roll Call, Approve Minutes & Accept Agenda
  2. (15 min) final ballot content for the May cycle is due on Sunday, March 27 Follow through on the notification of intent to ballot the Security and Privacy Ontology material. ~ Tony Weida
  3. (15 min) Alignment with MVCO

(continuing) Jaime Delgado agreed with the detail of alignment between the two ontologies (not to go specifically with only one ontology) they have sent a shorter description to be e-mailed to Tony later this week.

  1. (15 min) Item3
  2. (5 min) Call for Agenda Items May 2011 Working Group Meeting - Orlando, Florida USA, Security WG Agenda
  1. Action Item: An inquiry about aligning the ontology with SAIF was sent to Galen Mulrooney, (It has been mentioned on past Security-CBCC calls as a likely source of information). Status: Awaiting response from Galen.
Tony received comment back from Cliff Thompson, Jim Buckner and Cecil Lynch have been contacted to review the document paragraph regarding SAIF  A suggestion was also made to ping co-Chair Bernd Blobel as well.
  1. Action Item: A paragraph was presented at the March 8th Security-CBCC meeting; comments were requested from the group but to date we have received none. So, a couple questions:I believe that the ideal of the security and privacy ontology is well aligned in principle with a service-aware interoperability framework. Services can take advantage of the ontology to intraoperative, but I’m not aware that the HL7 SAIF says anything specific how you should create or use ontologies, so I’m not able to detail how it specifically aligns with practice.
1. Does the draft paragraph match your understanding? 
2. Should I ask other people for input, and if so, who? #(5 min) Other Business - Request for Agenda Items for HL7 Working Group Meeting - May 2011, Orlando, Florida

Action Items

Back to Security Main Page