20111006 arb minutes

ArB Agenda/Minutes

Agenda

Seven (7) weeks until DSTU final content due - November 27, 2011

1. Call to order
2. Approval of Agenda
3. approval of Minutes
4. Find out what’s happening with Negatives and their withdrawal
5. Update the group on the developing dialogue with OASIS
6. Plan for next steps – in particular, assess where things are relative to
7. Review Andy’s proposal for IG compliance metrics
8. Glossary Discussion
9. Other business and planning for next meeting
10. Adjournment

Meeting Information

HL7 ArB Work Group Meeting Minutes Location: Telcon		Date: 20111006 Time: 4:00pm U.S. Eastern
Facilitator	Ron Parker	Note taker(s)	Ron Parker
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
.	Julian, Tony	Mayo Clinic
.	Koisch, John	Guidewire Architecture
X	Loyd, Patrick	Gordon point Informatics LTD.
.	Lynch, Cecil	Accenture
.	Mead, Charlie	National Cancer Institute
X	Milosevic, Zoran	NEHTA
.	Ocasio, Wendell	Agilex Technologies
X	Parker, Ron	CA Infoway
.	Quinn, John	Health Level Seven, Inc.
.	Guests
.	Laskso, Lynn	HL7 Staff
X	Patel, Anil	?
Quorum Requirements Met: Yes

Minutes

1. Call to order
   1. Called to order at 4:00pm U.S. Eastern
2. Approval of Agenda
   1. Approved by affirmation
3. approval of Minutes
   1. Motion to approve minutes of the September 29, 2011 meeting (Steve/Andy)
   2. Vote 6-0-0
4. Find out what’s happening with Negatives and their withdrawal
   1. Canada (Lloyd has indicated that they could all be withdrawn)
   2. Wendell is okay
   3. JohnK (Charlie sent him an email requesting withdrawal)
   4. Keith (Charlie sent him an email requesting withdrawal)
   5. Others are coming in…
   6. Grahame (Charlie sent him an email – and he has withdrawn his)
   7. ACTION: Tony to determine the list of negatives so we can map progress. Assumption is that ALL negs must be either withdrawn or designated non-persuasive (due diligence on our part)
5. Update the group on the developing dialogue with OASIS
   1. ACTION: Now that we have established what appears to be a meaningful dialogue, Charlie should post the recent threads to the ArB Listserv.
6. Review of deliverables for the Glossary
   1. Reviewed all terms in existing Glossary
      1. RP: mixed results not all accomplished, but a significant amount done.
      2. Jane is complete with her proposed changes on Discussion tab for each of her items and list of deletes forwarded to Tony.
      3. Anil is complete however he did not post updates to Discussion tab. He is forwarding his list of deletes to Tony.
      4. Ron is not complete, will have his done for first of week of Oct 10th. Anil has volunteered to post Ron’s updates to the Discussion tabs.
      5. Steve reviewed but did not provide updates to those that need to be modified.
   2. Marked (or removed) all terms that don’t exist in the SAIF CD (partially complete)
   3. Aligned Glossary definitions with SAIF CD definitions (partially complete… there are challenges in that the CD text seldom provides a clear definition in one place… team members are having to search the whole document and assemble a consolidated definition. This makes for “wordy” glossary entries, we will have to review and assess that)
   4. Identified additional terms in SAIF CD that are not currently in Glossary (and maybe even put them in)
      1. Identified any terms that are in CMs that are not in Glossary so they can be inserted (Assigned resources are making a pass through the document now, see next steps).
7. Plan for next steps – in particular, assess where things are relative to
   1. Correctness and completeness of the Glossary after this week’s work (team working to have all revisions in Discussion tabs and new items identified for next ArB call)
      1. Steve thinks everything in the Index should have a Glossary definition. If it is in the Index, it should be worthy of a Glossary entry.
      2. Discussion: People agree this may mean the index gets smaller. It is also a good test for identifying Index-worthy entries.
      3. Discussion on how to update the Glossary on the Wiki and review.
         1. While the Wiki supports individuals updating, it was felt that one person should do the deletes after receiving lists from editing team.
         2. Individual team members are encouraged to update the discussion tabs with revised narrative.
         3. Some discussion on just updating the Glossary narratives directly, however there may need to be group discussion on several things as the diffuse nature of the CD narrative means we may miss things in the Glossary definitions from certain perspectives.
         4. Best to review proposals for changes and addition, get consensus on whether it is covered properly, then update.
   2. Requests from Cecil relative to what he needs to proceed (Cecil did not attend this call so there was no discussion here).
8. Review Andy’s proposal for IG compliance metrics
   1. Discussion:
      1. Ron: diagram looks good and provides a logical flow. We probably need to add details to each “level” indicating what the specific conformity expressions are (primarily that each level requires some verifiable conformity to the next higher level).
      2. Steve: Your document says we that we cannot add anything to in local implementation guides?
      3. Andy: It doesn’t say things could not be added. We need to strive to have additions in an IG to be mapped back to SAIF canonical (either in terms of proper use of the concept) or potentially added to the CD. The idea is to have, as much as possible, a common foundation for all IG’s.
      4. Ron: organizations building an IG will do that speaking about their organizations specific artefacts, interoperability patterns, etc...
   2. ACTION: Ron to add this dimension of IG to the Glossary. RELATED: we probably need to update the CD to speak to this dimension of transitioning from CD to IG.
   3. Andy: conversation on initial level is conformity between CD and the IG, especially in the use of the CD language.
   4. Either taking part of the CD definitions and not representing them all versus extending.
   5. We must emphasize the concept of “internal completeness and consistency” of the IG (allowing templates to overlap)
   6. Steve: We lost our ECCF matrix in this document.
   7. ACTION: Andy to add a 4th bullet to SAIF Implementation Guide for ECCF Matrix
9. Other business and planning for next meeting
10. Adjournment

Tony Julian 02:46, 13 October 2011 (UTC) http://wiki.hl7.org/index.php?title=Arb_meeting_schedule#Teleconferences