This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here
Difference between revisions of "20140319 PLA call"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(Created page with "return to HL7 Product Line Architecture Meeting Minutes and Agendas<br/> Return to HL7 Product Line Architecture Program {|border="1" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" ...") |
|||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 38: | Line 38: | ||
===============================================================================---> | ===============================================================================---> | ||
|- | |- | ||
| − | | || Calvin Beebe | + | |x || Calvin Beebe |
|- | |- | ||
| || Woody Beeler | | || Woody Beeler | ||
| Line 52: | Line 52: | ||
| || Tony Julian | | || Tony Julian | ||
|- | |- | ||
| − | | || Paul Knapp | + | |x || Paul Knapp |
|- | |- | ||
| − | | || Austin Kreisler, | + | |x || Austin Kreisler, |
|- | |- | ||
| − | | || Lynn Laakso | + | |x || Lynn Laakso |
|- | |- | ||
| || Ken McCaslin | | || Ken McCaslin | ||
|- | |- | ||
| − | | || Brian Pech | + | |x || Brian Pech |
|- | |- | ||
| − | | || John Quinn | + | |x || John Quinn |
|- | |- | ||
| || John Roberts | | || John Roberts | ||
|- | |- | ||
| − | | || Andy Stechishin | + | | x|| Andy Stechishin |
|- | |- | ||
| Line 85: | Line 85: | ||
===Agenda=== | ===Agenda=== | ||
Agenda review | Agenda review | ||
| − | *Notes of [[ | + | *Notes of [[20140305_PLA_call]] review |
| − | |||
*Use [http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/download/docmanfileversion/7854/11468/%32%30%31%34%4a%61%6e%5f%50%72%6f%64%75%63%74%4c%69%73%74%5f%47%72%69%64%5f%66%69%6c%74%65%72%2e%78%6c%73%78 filtered product grid] to map our existing products into notional division of products into product families and lines, to provide examples for peer review. | *Use [http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/download/docmanfileversion/7854/11468/%32%30%31%34%4a%61%6e%5f%50%72%6f%64%75%63%74%4c%69%73%74%5f%47%72%69%64%5f%66%69%6c%74%65%72%2e%78%6c%73%78 filtered product grid] to map our existing products into notional division of products into product families and lines, to provide examples for peer review. | ||
**Level of granularity | **Level of granularity | ||
| Line 97: | Line 96: | ||
===Minutes=== | ===Minutes=== | ||
| + | Austin convenes at 2:05 PM | ||
| + | *Agenda review: BAM-lite - no ArB rep; but Austin would like to review the structures that were initially set up and review products in the grid against the ECCF ISM matrix. Need to determine end product of the product matrix exercise. | ||
| + | *Notes of [[20140305 PLA call]] (no call scheduled 3/12) Andy moves approval, Calvin seconds. | ||
| + | *Use [http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/download/docmanfileversion/7854/11468/%32%30%31%34%4a%61%6e%5f%50%72%6f%64%75%63%74%4c%69%73%74%5f%47%72%69%64%5f%66%69%6c%74%65%72%2e%78%6c%73%78 filtered product grid] to map our existing products into notional division of products into product families and lines, to provide examples for peer review. | ||
| + | **Level of granularity - are V3 Messages a product family vs V3 Documents (CDA) or is V3 a family? Do we lump them together as RIM-based or split them as different paradigms… | ||
| + | ***Even within Publishing, the V3 publishing has little to do with CDA IGs which are standalone documents. Andy notes the IG publishing quality subgroup has identified problems with the variance in quality on the IGs. | ||
| + | ***Calvin notes that the base standard is a V3 specification, and the IGs are a different animal that have a different approach to specificity from other IGs. They have different development as well as publication methodology. | ||
| + | ***Austin notes that the differences in methodology were not initially expressed in these notional product families in the spreadsheet. IGs as a constraint on a base standard is similar in approach but under the covers they look very different. Paul notes that the templates concept is also a granular prescriptive control on the base standard. Calvin maintains that V2 IGs are consistent among themselves. V3 messaging IGs are also consistent. V3 document IG there is a templating IG strategy which has layers of consistency. Granularity of modeling is different. | ||
| + | ***what is the goal - establish list of families and component products? Input to standing up product families? How do we use the FHIR governance example to apply? Austin's original intent was to identify the business architecture for HL7 to follow SAIF governance principles in organizing our products around product families. Paul asks about what this approach could mitigate problems established in the product web site where Lynn has created "dummy" products that show up on this spreadsheet as rollup entries or explicitly describing a V2.7 chapter. | ||
| + | ***Further the V2 editors are trying to act as management group and perhaps we reconstitute it with a formal structure. Calvin suggests we identify the current management groups (even in an existing WG) and ask for their SWOT analysis on how their management function is working for their product family. Calvin notes that the quality guidelines for CDA IGs they are establishing is creating a management group. Andy notes that we should not take that function away from the group necessarily but formally recognize that it happens. They may be doing that management function "in absentia" since a formal group doesn't exist. Austin suggests that part of a process to establish a product family management group is to inventory what their products are. | ||
| + | ***Another motivation to establish product families is to drive consistency across product families. Paul adds there are advantages to knowledge transfer in helping groups that do constraints via IG to the template approach and FHIR profiling. Calvin suggests that the governance is held in the TSC, which has been apportioned to FHIR for example. | ||
| + | ***Austin shows a diagram of a proposed structure. The proposed product director reporting to the CTO failed to make the budget and John voices concern that the tasks would fall to him. FGB has been struggling with leadership due to day job changes and has not been able to be as effective as they could. Calvin notes that TSC owns the governance football and must consciously delegate areas. Calvin suggests we review this diagram at the F2F. | ||
| + | Adjourned 2:58 PM. | ||
===Meeting Outcomes=== | ===Meeting Outcomes=== | ||
Latest revision as of 19:02, 19 March 2014
return to HL7 Product Line Architecture Meeting Minutes and Agendas
Return to HL7 Product Line Architecture Program
| HL7 PLA Call Minutes Location: Phone: +1 770-657-9270, Participant Code: 985371, |
Date: 2014-03-19 Time: 2PM | ||
| Facilitator | Ken/ Austin | Note taker(s) | Lynn |
| Attendee | Name
| ||
| x | Calvin Beebe | ||
| Woody Beeler | |||
| Lorraine Constable | |||
| Bo Dagnall | |||
| Jean Duteau, | |||
| Rick Haddorff | |||
| Tony Julian | |||
| x | Paul Knapp | ||
| x | Austin Kreisler, | ||
| x | Lynn Laakso | ||
| Ken McCaslin | |||
| x | Brian Pech | ||
| x | John Quinn | ||
| John Roberts | |||
| x | Andy Stechishin | ||
| no quorum definition | |||
Agenda
Agenda review
- Notes of 20140305_PLA_call review
- Use filtered product grid to map our existing products into notional division of products into product families and lines, to provide examples for peer review.
- Level of granularity
- Identify which pieces are orphaned, and the political elements to be surfaced.
- Positioning cross-product family artifacts (standards naming)
- BAM-lite feedback and review
- Governance on V2.x (v2.9 substantive changes)
- develop form to request establishing a Product Family
Minutes
Austin convenes at 2:05 PM
- Agenda review: BAM-lite - no ArB rep; but Austin would like to review the structures that were initially set up and review products in the grid against the ECCF ISM matrix. Need to determine end product of the product matrix exercise.
- Notes of 20140305 PLA call (no call scheduled 3/12) Andy moves approval, Calvin seconds.
- Use filtered product grid to map our existing products into notional division of products into product families and lines, to provide examples for peer review.
- Level of granularity - are V3 Messages a product family vs V3 Documents (CDA) or is V3 a family? Do we lump them together as RIM-based or split them as different paradigms…
- Even within Publishing, the V3 publishing has little to do with CDA IGs which are standalone documents. Andy notes the IG publishing quality subgroup has identified problems with the variance in quality on the IGs.
- Calvin notes that the base standard is a V3 specification, and the IGs are a different animal that have a different approach to specificity from other IGs. They have different development as well as publication methodology.
- Austin notes that the differences in methodology were not initially expressed in these notional product families in the spreadsheet. IGs as a constraint on a base standard is similar in approach but under the covers they look very different. Paul notes that the templates concept is also a granular prescriptive control on the base standard. Calvin maintains that V2 IGs are consistent among themselves. V3 messaging IGs are also consistent. V3 document IG there is a templating IG strategy which has layers of consistency. Granularity of modeling is different.
- what is the goal - establish list of families and component products? Input to standing up product families? How do we use the FHIR governance example to apply? Austin's original intent was to identify the business architecture for HL7 to follow SAIF governance principles in organizing our products around product families. Paul asks about what this approach could mitigate problems established in the product web site where Lynn has created "dummy" products that show up on this spreadsheet as rollup entries or explicitly describing a V2.7 chapter.
- Further the V2 editors are trying to act as management group and perhaps we reconstitute it with a formal structure. Calvin suggests we identify the current management groups (even in an existing WG) and ask for their SWOT analysis on how their management function is working for their product family. Calvin notes that the quality guidelines for CDA IGs they are establishing is creating a management group. Andy notes that we should not take that function away from the group necessarily but formally recognize that it happens. They may be doing that management function "in absentia" since a formal group doesn't exist. Austin suggests that part of a process to establish a product family management group is to inventory what their products are.
- Another motivation to establish product families is to drive consistency across product families. Paul adds there are advantages to knowledge transfer in helping groups that do constraints via IG to the template approach and FHIR profiling. Calvin suggests that the governance is held in the TSC, which has been apportioned to FHIR for example.
- Austin shows a diagram of a proposed structure. The proposed product director reporting to the CTO failed to make the budget and John voices concern that the tasks would fall to him. FGB has been struggling with leadership due to day job changes and has not been able to be as effective as they could. Calvin notes that TSC owns the governance football and must consciously delegate areas. Calvin suggests we review this diagram at the F2F.
- Level of granularity - are V3 Messages a product family vs V3 Documents (CDA) or is V3 a family? Do we lump them together as RIM-based or split them as different paradigms…
Adjourned 2:58 PM.
Meeting Outcomes
| Actions
|
| Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items |
© 2014 Health Level Seven® International. All rights reserved
