20090111 arb orlando minutes

Architecture and Review Board Meeting Minutes

January 11, 2009

Back to Agenda-minutes

Attendees

Name	Present	With	Affiliation	E-main address
Curry, Jane	Yes	ArB	Health Information Strategies	janecurry@healthinfostrategies.com
Grieve, Grahame	Yes	ArB	Kestral Computing	grahame@kestral.com.au
Julian, Tony	Yes	ArB	Mayo Clinic	ajulian@mayo.edu
Koisch, John	Yes	ArB	NCI	koisch_john@bah.com
Lynch, Cecil	Yes	ArB	ontoreason LLC	clynch@ontoreason.com
Mead, Charlie	Yes	ArB	Booz Allen Hamilton	charlie.mead@booz.com
Orvis, Nancy	?	ArB	DOD	nancy.orvis@tma.osd.mil
Parker, Ron	?	ArB	CA Infoway	rparker@eastlink.ca
Quinn, John	?	ArB	Health Level Seven, Inc.	jquinn@HL7.org
Shakir, Abdul-Malik	?	ArB	Shakir Consulting	ShakirConsulting@cs.com
Yongjian, Bao	?	ArB	GE Healthcare	yongjian.bao@med.ge.com
Bear, Yogi	?	Guest	US Dept. Interior, Park Service	yogi@jellystonepark.gov

Call to order

The meeting was called to order at 8:10am by chair John Koish with Tony Julian as scribe.

Agenda approval

MMS to approve the agenda below Grahame/Cecil Vote:(5-0-0)

1. Call to order
2. Approval of Agenda for quarter
3. Approval of Minutes of previous meetings
   1. December 18,2008
4. Approval of Agenda for WGM
5. Review of TSC decisions
6. Internal Governance for HL7
   1. specifically how ArB is expected to interact with other groups (like Harmonization)
   2. other groups (OMG) per AMS's work on MOUs
   3. Should we pursue inviting RIMBAA to ArB session on Thursday, or informal intersections through the week
   4. Should the ArB provide mentoring for groups? Who are the SOA Mentors?
   5. Question of where the SOA work should land, based on the temperate response from the SOA list and the oter co-chairs
7. Review of the Services Items for HL7 SOA WG, SAEAF Impacts
8. Adjournment

Approval of minutes

MMS Cecil/Jane to approve the Minutes of the December 18, 2008 meeting. (5-0-0)

Review of TSC decisions

1. Internal Governance for HL7

• The presentation was taken more literally than was expected - as a top-down organization instead of a conceptual view of the workings of the organization. Charlie McCay suggested that we re-visit the project scope statement - added to agenda for Sunday Q2.
• Slide with potential Recommendations was not well received - due to misunderstanding -specially the line about moving TSSD to ArB.

1. specifically how ArB is expected to interact with other groups (like Harmonization)

Cecil had specific recommendations: Decisions of the ArB cross multiple domains within HL7 as well as many WorkGroups within HL7, and have major impacts on everything. Part of the thinking, is that for any of this to work, all of it has to work. Without us having some concrete implementation, ArB needs to be informed of decisions at Harmonization - to the extent that if it moves to dynamic we need to have some communication.

• CM We need to have a representative at Harmonization. The dialog will have to go two ways so that we can impact harmonization.
• JC The voting structure works that VOCAB and MnM had stronger votes than other committees. Maybe ArB needs to have a voting seat, and possible a veto.
• CM If ArB is to do what John Quinn wants, ArB must have a vote. E.G. SOmebody is proposing to do something that has an impact beyond the scope, ArB needs to do something.
• KJ RIMBAA intended Hl7 RIM models to do things beyond messages. I would think it would impact the model.
• MW The ArB will be effective if it works by laying out principles and general statements, working through WG's and TSC. If someone wants to add an artifact we are not well worked out how to handle.
• JK We started looking at impact of the dynamic model on the MIF.
• GG We would go to harmonization as a WG to discuss. If we are on track, and making sense, we dont need an authoritative vote.
• CL There are things at harmonization that we need to understand, being at the table thinking about the needs of ArB - attendance is enough. There may be instances that come up over time that need decision.
• MW Are there any ArB members that regularly attend Harmonization?
• JC I used to.
• CL I often do.
• JK MW is our 'official' representative.
• JK we need funding to make sure that one of the co-chairs attend.
• JK Are there any other groups we need to inject ourselves into?
• JC There is group work during Harmonization beyond the Harmoization itself. We need concentrated analysis by veterans of their committees. Introduction of SAEAF topics during harmonization are needed. We can opportunistically take advantage of the Harmonization to provide information.

1. other groups (OMG) per AMS's work on MOUs

• AMS is not here, so we will punt.
• CL We need to discuss with RIMBAA.

1. Should we pursue inviting RIMBAA to ArB session on Thursday, or informal intersections through the week

• JK There is a tooling convocation Tuesday Q6 - two different meetings at the same time.
• CL The inauguaral meeting was demonstrations of what people were doing. What I saw was that they have to plan beyond the persistance in the database. It allows us to review what real-world inplementations are being done?
• CM Arent they messaging instead of services.
• CL Some are doing services.
• JK Their web site shows that they have scope beyond messages.
• CL THe work of GELLO has an impact on RIMBAA.
• JK Are you (cecil) going to be there?
• CL Yes
• Micheal I heard about database - you need to do services as well as messages and documents -all three.
• CM Given that the biggest delta is in the Behavioral Framework, RIMBAA is having to create behaviors. If they are doing this in the context of V3 messages, we are on paths that are not totally aligned?
• JK I spent a lot of time going through the materials: They are working on content models instead of messaging - using the engineering viewpoint of ArB.
• JK The other upshots of ArB - Invite RIMBAA to thursday Q3 to discuss. We can have focused discussion this week. Cecil and I will offer to help.
• Micheal We need SAEAF to do this well.

1. Should the ArB provide mentoring for groups? Who are the SOA Mentors?

• JK I recevied a temperate response. Galen responded that the remarks to JK would be included in SOA tuesday Q1. The SOA co-chairs are discussing informal sessions. I had a long conversation with Charlie McCay : The ArB is responsible for the infrastructure to implement the SAEAF. If the SOA workgroup is not going to do it, the ArB must do so. If the SOA WG does not want to do it, we take it to the Steering Division.

WE, HL7 are moving away from WorkGroups doing everything, rather cross-functional teams. ArB is responsible for delivery of this stuff, e.g. contracts, syntax of healthcare, the way the Behavioral Framework impacts is on us.

• JK: Should the ArB provide mentoring for groups?

• ?? Where we fint in the project, par of the SOA response is because we are project oriented. John you were part of the structure of SOA to do things this way.
• JC HSSP was the collaberative program with OMG, and that various projects were structured under HSSP. Is the SOA/HSSP doing everything as a project?
• ?? We are not sure that OMG makes a follow-up to the PASS work? Is there an alternative path?
• CM I did a project in SOA WG in 2006. The framework was very clear about what HL7 did. Once the HL7 material was balloted, it was handed off to OMG, or someone. Is that a correct statement?
• ?? It does not have to be OMG
• CM There was no path beyond HSSP. What SAEAF brings to the table is HL7 bringing full responsibility beyond HSSP. HL7 is not done just because it is handed off.
• MW We should discuss our opinions with the SOA WG.
• JK No, there was not reason for us to be authoritative.
• CM Correct.
• JK HSSP and Arb both support analysis - every HSSP artifact can be included in the Behavioural Framework. We created a behavioral framework that SOA did not well receivd. Our behaviral framework looks like the services one. I sent a e-mail to SOA about the things we need to discuss, and there was little response. I dont care who does the work, it just needs to be done.
• CM The SOA WG is focused on projects framed by the HSSP, so they dont have the bandwidth to do the infrastructure stuff.
• ?? It makes sensed to have a framework, and ArB makes sense as a framework for projects to go. Even when you were working on it in SOA there was little bandwidth.
• JK THe SOA WG is engaged in project facilitation, and is working within and outside of HL7 to get services working.
• ?? There is a lot out there.
• JK It has been suggested, SOA is doing project facilitation, Charlie McCay say we own it.
• MW ARB will say that this needs to be done, a project team should be assembled, and the work should go forward.
• JK The HL7 SOA workgroup is committed to project facilitation. Tuesday Q1 will be a call for action.
• JC the appropriate channel is the Foundation WG.
• ?? DOn Jorgenson(sp)
• ?? My perspective is one layer down: Knowing that JK is involved in Arb work, the next logical step is for us to get back to it.
• JK THis body has been really trying to take a kid glove approach - does not want to own the work. There was the perception that SOA WG should have first right of refusal. Nobody wants to step on anybody's toes.
• ?? We have had good participation from implementors, domain specialists. SOme dont want to work at a UML model, and others want to look at implementation that is a step below the modeling.
• JK My sense is that in the past, a lot of this stuff helps PASS a lot, the challenges are that you dont have a rigorous notion of a healthcare contract. The SAEAF and behavioral framework give you the foundation you need.
• ?? What is the next step? Who do we go to? We need to understand what you need. What you are working on now is difficult.
• JK The next problematic thing is that the HSSP thing provides for service specification at a subset of what we have defined. There need to be some re-factoring, and some specification work done by PASS and others in light of the Behavioral Framework, including a set of logical models in the HL7 space. If they make it to OMG is beyond our scope.
• ?? DO you see the Functional model as a work output?
• CM It is a deliverable that can be executed internally. I heard that the HSSP says that when you get to this point you are done, while the SAEAF says you need to go further.
• GG It is up to HSSP. What we said is that the HSSP and others are separated. It is not important to us what HSSP chooses.
• CM We made the assumption that SOA WG would provide the infrastructure. They said no, they are doing HSSP. Therefore the Arb is responsible.
• JK HSSP can do what the want?
• CM No, SOA WG is stopping at HSSP.
• JK It is not a full specification.
• CM No, you dont havee to go beyond the requirements.
• ?? The HL7 SOA group is a partition, before SOA was relevant, in relation with OMG. HSSP makes sense, SOA can have another agenda.
• CM All of the SOA work is HSSP.
• GG The problem is that the WG suffered personell changes, not a policy change, but rather a loss of energy.
• JK THe last point that needs to be resolved is brought up by CL: The OMG is malusing the HL7 artifacts in their specification. To what extent is HL7 endorsing the OMG output of the HSSP? In my experience the specifications that OMG puts out suffer from lack of Healthcare. Is tehre something we need to be proactive about?
• CL One of our kinds of governance is relationships to other bodies. OMG impacts us using there standards for decision support, that ignores the healthcare datatypes: You cant find the ODM specificaion and generate our UML artifacts. We need to discuss moving OMG forward beyond financial to healtcare requirements.
• JK OMG is willing to make HL7 a voting member for healthcare standards.
• CL More complex: OMG has relatinships with W3C. For us to get our representation in we have a problem.
• JK From the ArB advising TSC? Is it appropriate that this takes several years? When the DSTU comes back and is not in alignment with SAEAF and BF what should we say?
• CM We are responsible for architectural integrity.
• MW If people in OMG have things that HL7 should do differently, we should tell them to get their representatives to raise the issues. The HL7 representative should work go ter OMG to do it right. THe Nominated rep may not be able to do so. We are members, and have the right to comment on ballots, the WG has to deal with it. If the WG says it is not related just because it conflicts with your SAEAF, the the TSC will have to get involved.
• JK What about timing?
• MW It is not reasonable to make them happen more quickly.
• CL Meads approach is correct. We need to do an evaluation of where those touchpoints are, and have the proactively represented to OMG.
• JC This datatype one has been around for a while. It is one of the reasons why the V2 datatypes are prefered. We are talking about an industry revolution to recognize more complex data structures.
• CL We have strength to go back and approach since we are moving to the ISO datatypes. FOr us to move forward, we must have our Datatypes reprsented in OMG artifacts.
• JC we must develope a communication plan to reach out to others to bring them in alignment.
• JK ArB?
• JC We must discover the gaps.
• CM There is a collective ArB responsibility: John Quinn would say that ArB should enforce archetectural integrity. How we do it, we dont understand yet. Cecil was passionate about those things going to ballot that dont have archetectural integrity. Those things are beyond Major NEgative - it is a global veto.
• JC we must distribute knowledge, not at the end point.
• JK We recognize that the framework looks like this , but HSSP can cut it off early.
• JC if someone has an informational model that is RIM derived without correct alignment with datatypes, it must be fixed.
• GG Ballot qualityu
• CL we have CMETS that dont meet integrity.
• CM We have an existing ballot quality.
• JC Yes, ballot quality
• CM Knowing that there is a specific issue with OMG, datatypes, should we triagualate on OMG with W3C about the datatype specification.
• CL Yes, the work from UML to OWL and back
• CM Is this correct alignment?
• CL Since they are co-dependent on the specification, we need to rais the issue.
• CM THey are asking for a relationship.
• GG Can I be on that call?
• CM Yes
• GG Not Can I be, rather do you want me to?
• ?? IF the ArB defines the framework we need a definition of archetectural intefgrity..
• CM Yes, the SAEAF talks to that
• ?? I went to my first OMG - they have a level of detail we dont , their 'arb' enforces their Archetectural integrity.
• JK THere is a notion that HL7 does not have the provision for that level of rigor.
• ?? SAEAF and the ArB should make that question irrevelant.

Break at 10:30

1. Question of where the SOA work should land, based on the temperate response from the SOA list and the oter co-chairs

Adjournment

• Other business, and planning for next meeting
• Adjournment

Approval of minutes

MMS to approve the minutes of the <meeting> as posted to <posting site> by <name/name> Vote:(0-0-0)

Agenda Item 1

example of bullet list(s)

• level 1
  • level 2
    • level 3
  • level 2
• level 1

Agenda Item 2

Example of numbered list

1. Numbered level 1
   1. Numbered level 2
      1. Numbered level 3
      2. Numbered level 3
   2. Numbered level 2
2. Level 1

Agenda Item 3

Example of grey-boxed note:  The line begins with a space!

Wiki how-to's

Link examples

Remove the <pre> and </pre> from the examples to instantiate as clickable links

wiki link with alternate name

[[Agenda_Minutes|Back to Agenda-minutes]]

Back to Agenda-minutes

Wiki image file with alternate name

[[image:wikiimage.jpg|Template]]

document - must have uploaded it prior to accessing!

[[application/msword:Ex_word_document.doc|word document]]

word document

Note to readers: Permitted file types: png, gif, jpg, jpeg, gif, zip, pdf, jpg, txt, doc.

Fully qualified URL

http://www.hl7.org

http://www.hl7.org

• or

[[http://www.hl7.org|HL7 Web site]]

[HL7 Web site]

Tables

Tables for HTML programmers

Col1	Col 2	Col 3	Col n
Col1	Col 2	Col 3	Col n

Tables for non-html

Quarter	Type	Topic	Chair	Scribe	Not available	MinutesRcvd
MON Q1	--	Plenary Session	--	--	--	N/A

Categories

use

{{InM Open Action Items}}

to create a category

18:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)