20111020 arb minutes

ArB Agenda/Minutes

logistics

Time: 4:00pm U.S. Eastern

Please consult http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock for your local times

1. Please join my meeting. https://www2.gotomeeting.com/join/535702651

Or go to www.gotomeeting.com At the top of the page click on the join meeting button

Then enter Meeting ID: Meeting ID: 535-702-651

2. Join the conference call: Dial 770-657-9270 Passcode 854126#

Agenda

Five (5)  weeks until DSTU final content due - November 27, 2011

1. Call to order
2. Approval of Agenda
3. approval of Minutes
4. Oasis update: Charlie Mead
5. Action:(from October 13 meeting) Look for concepts missing from the glossary
6. Walk through the discussion tabs and discuss on the next call.
7. Conformity Document (Andy)
8. Other business and planning for next meeting
9. Adjournment

Meeting Information

HL7 ArB Work Group Meeting Minutes Location: Telcon		Date: 20111020 Time: 4:00pm U.S. Eastern
Facilitator	Ron Parker	Note taker(s)	Tony Julian
Attendee	Name	Affiliation
X	Bond,Andy	NEHTA
X	Curry, Jane	Health Information Strategies
.	Grieve, Grahame	Kestral Computing
X	Hufnagel, Steve	U.S. Department of Defense, Military Health System
X	Julian, Tony	Mayo Clinic
.	Koisch, John	Guidewire Architecture
.	Loyd, Patrick	Gordon point Informatics LTD.
.	Lynch, Cecil	Accenture
X	Mead, Charlie	National Cancer Institute
.	Ocasio, Wendell	Agilex Technologies
X	Parker, Ron	CA Infoway
.	Quinn, John	Health Level Seven, Inc.
X	Milosevic, Zoran	NEHTA
.	Guests
.	Laskso, Lynn	HL7 Staff
.	Buckler, Andrew	????
Quorum Requirements Met: Yes

Minutes

Five (5) weeks until DSTU final content due - November 27, 2011

1. Call to order
2. Approval of Agenda
3. approval of Minutes

1. 1. Charlie connected with Ken Lasky. They are interested in SAIF-CD.
   2. Next steps:
      1. Statement of recognition of the SAIF-CD in their document, with link to it
      2. We will link to their document.
      3. We have alot of commonality - so Ken would like to list things from SAIF-CD. Can we list things from their document things we did not do as well.
      4. There is an opportunity to coalesce through ISO -Zoran has familiarity- If someone can propose an ISO strategy Ken is willing go do it. It would be a good thing for both organizations
      5. Action: Charlie will add a one-paragraph - generally a co-reference. Zoran will send things for the opening paragraph to Charlie.
      6. Action: If there are specific things in the RAF document we can include we should do so quickly - we only have four weeks to publication
      7. Jane: We have two roots: RMODP is not part of TC215, but HL7 has a relationship with ISO for healthcare, and could publish our informative document as a technical report. Do we want the relationship to RMODP or TC215.
      8. Zoran: RMODP was done with software engineering.
      9. Jane: Our path to ISO is through ANSI, and TC215.
      10. Charlie: Do you have an idea of what you would like to see?
      11. Zoran: There is a formal relation between standard bodies. I was suggesting we investigate them.
      12. Charlie: RAF wants to form the notion of conformity of a SOA. They are talking to the open group, as well as OMG.
      13. Zoran: Conforance for testing is not what we are talking about.
      14. Charlie: They would like to migrate into a broader notion of conformity.
      15. Zoran: Re: Harmonization between SAIF and RAF. There are two elements - harmonization between SAIF-CD to RAF, as well as Implementation guides. One point identified is accountibility concepts represent actions such as delegation. This leve of detail ma be more of the implementation guide - the boundary is not so clear.
      16. Charlie: As stuff crosses the border from SAIF-CD to SAIF-IG are there RAF concepts that would help determine conformity, or are they IG specific.
      17. Jane: They make assumptions that explicity stated would become conformity criteria, other places they make assertions that are conformity criteria. RAF is more in solution space, they imply things that we explicit define in SAIF-CD.
      18. Charlie: If we say all IG's need to do this, it is a conformity criteria.
      19. Jane: They make an assumption of something that has happened outside solution space. Some of the stuff is structure and specifity that belongs in an IG.
      20. Charlie: Do you have time to pull some of that out?
      21. Jane: Just governance - accountability and role definitions.
      22. Charlie: Any thoughts about expressions would be interested.
      23. Zoran: with my ODP hat, they need to strengthen the governance and accountability.
      24. Charlie: Any other immediate issues? I left a voice-mail for John Quinn: he was supposed to get permission to make it publically available.
      25. Zoran: I have a question about the 60day review.
      26. Charlie: It is closing at the end of this week. He would like to go through the review comments in the next month, anythin we give them about SAIF/ODP they will take into consideration.

1. Conformity Document (Andy)
   1. Andy: Main issue is the ECCF statement of conformity assertion. There are specific language issues with each of the frameworks. If we have generic conformity we acn expand on it in the frameworks. In behavior we dont need to map tightly, but under governance we need to be specific about shared purpose and community. ECCF will hae to be more around the characteritics of conformity exposed. The diagram of relationships we did could be included.
   2. Zoran: at NEHTA we have gained experience explaining linkages between BF-IG, BF-CD and IF-CD, IF-IG. We have learned a lot of lessons in the last couple of months.
   3. Jane: there is a fair amount of language that can tie GF and ECCF. Eg. NHS requires national identifier - so this is an external reference that constrains the identifiers used in messages. This should be exposed in the IG.
   4. Charlie: that is what we need. NCI is starting to enforce governance/compliance.
2. Action:(from October 13 meeting) Look for concepts missing from the glossary
3. Walk through the discussion tabs and discuss on the next call.
   1. Charlie: Are all of the terms in the concept maps in the glossary?
   2. Ron: Not sure
   3. Charlie: Do we know if we have all of the concepts in the concept maps in the glossary?
   4. Ron: I dont think people have been doing this.
   5. Charlie: The concepts in the concepts are important. The concept maps are a subset of the glossary.
   6. Ron: We did assignments of the groups, but have not assigned the concept maps.
   7. Charlie: The easy thing would be for the authors to see if the concepts are in the glossary. Alphabetical partitioning was to remove terms not in SAIF-CD,
   8. Ron: Check accuracy, and add terms missing.
   9. Charlie: It would not be that hard - I will check to see that all concept map terms are in the glossary. Where is Cecil on what he is to do?
   10. Ron: I dont have a sense of it.
   11. Charlie: I will find out where Cecil is.
   12. Jane: We found that not all of the concepts in the CD have a crisp stand-alone definition.
   13. Charlie: Is everyone ok with having more in the glossary than the document?
   14. Anil: I will take up Ron's stuff.
   15. Charlie: we will then be up to date.
   16. Ron: The deletions have been done.
   17. Charlie: I will do the concept map, and send to Tony.
4. RFH
   1. Does the ArB have an official position on Grahame's RFH? Is it reasonable to expect ArB to do so?
   2. Charlie: I dialoged with Grahame about the alignment of RFH and SAIF. After SanDiego, the modifications to SAIF-CD mean that you could write an SAIF compliant RFH-IG.
   3. Ron: Is it usable in HL7.
   4. Charlie: It is a bottom-up approach based on micro-ITs's. You need conformance - errors in semantic consistencies would bubble up. Grahame thought he would come up with an answer to the governance issue by the end of this week. Considering going to semantic web instead of XML.
   5. Ron: Sounds like it would be acceptable.
   6. Charlie: The MnM project should surface this. ArB needs to push MnM to address the issue. The micro-its's could be inoperable.
   7. Ron: Dennis' question is how it would work within HL7.
   8. Jane: Green CDA, et. al. are trying to express without explicit reference to the RIM, and if not governed well, you would have issues.
   9. Ron: I would like us to treat at the January WGM. It may be place before the Board.
   10. Charlie: I will bring up the W3C discussion at the TSC on Monday. Without governance RFH has issues. I will make sure it gets on the MnM agenda. W3C want to bring resources, and bring people to HL7 to work on the project. I am tring to define the project.
5. Ballot Issues
   1. All negatives have been withdrawn except the the german contingent. TSC addressed the issue: We dont have to declare the German Vote non-substantive. We are preparing for the negative vote in January. I wanted to make sure - The TSC says we have done all we need to do for the May ballot - it is a closed issue.
6. Other business and planning for next meeting
7. Adjournment

http://wiki.hl7.org/index.php?title=Arb_meeting_schedule#Teleconferences