Difference between revisions of "20090709 arb telcon minutes"
m (New page: =Architecture and Review Board Meeting Minutes= '''June 25, 2009''' ...) |
m |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
[[Agenda_Minutes|Back to Agenda-minutes]] | [[Agenda_Minutes|Back to Agenda-minutes]] | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
== Attendance == | == Attendance == | ||
| Line 26: | Line 24: | ||
<tr><td>Shakir, Abdul-Malik </td><td>Yes</td><td> ArB </td><td>Shakir Consulting</td><td>ShakirConsulting@cs.com</td></tr> | <tr><td>Shakir, Abdul-Malik </td><td>Yes</td><td> ArB </td><td>Shakir Consulting</td><td>ShakirConsulting@cs.com</td></tr> | ||
<tr><td>Yan, Peter</td><td>Tes</td><td>Guest</td><td>NCI</td><td></td></tr> | <tr><td>Yan, Peter</td><td>Tes</td><td>Guest</td><td>NCI</td><td></td></tr> | ||
| + | <tr><td>Huffington, Ken</td><td>Yes</td><td> | ||
</table> | </table> | ||
| Line 32: | Line 31: | ||
* Approval of Agenda | * Approval of Agenda | ||
* Approval of minutes [[20060625_arb_telcon_minutes|June 25, 2009 Minutes]] | * Approval of minutes [[20060625_arb_telcon_minutes|June 25, 2009 Minutes]] | ||
| − | * | + | * Agenda for out-of-cycle |
| + | ** Joint with MNM | ||
* questions from Karen: | * questions from Karen: | ||
| + | |||
1.What problem is SAEAF supposed to solve (I’m looking for an a sentence or two answer, not a paragraph) | 1.What problem is SAEAF supposed to solve (I’m looking for an a sentence or two answer, not a paragraph) | ||
| + | * The purpose of the safe is to provide consistency between all HL7 artifacts, and enable a standardized approach to Enterprise Architecure Development and implementation, which includes a means to measure the consistency. | ||
| + | |||
| + | JK: The HL7 Services Aware Enterprise Architecture Framework (SAEAF) consists of the means of capturing the essential integration semantics for a particular topic, a conformance and compliance model, and a governance structure. | ||
| + | |||
2.How close would you say the documents on the wiki are to being “final” (i.e., ready to edit)? I ask this because I see some blank slides. Do these represent data gaps that you want the technical editors to help fill, or will that content be inserted before editing starts? | 2.How close would you say the documents on the wiki are to being “final” (i.e., ready to edit)? I ask this because I see some blank slides. Do these represent data gaps that you want the technical editors to help fill, or will that content be inserted before editing starts? | ||
| + | * The documents are on gforge, not on the wiki. They are stable, but not final. The intent is to publish an annual edition. | ||
| + | AMS: Will we finalize at august meeting? | ||
| + | JK: NO, what will happen between now and august we will meet with EA rollout, and have revisions. | ||
| + | JC: With platform we saw changes. | ||
| + | JK: and with governance. | ||
| + | AMS: There will need to be publication releases. | ||
| + | JK: Woody said it should be published yearly, or bi-yearly, like the RIM. The SAEAF book becomes the holding ground for all of the documents, including core principles. | ||
| + | AMS: There will be a 2009 edition that identifies known deficiencies that will be covered in 2010 version. | ||
| + | JK: Published? | ||
| + | JC: Published with anticipate content. | ||
| + | AMS: Publishable by august? | ||
| + | JK: WHere do we draw the line? Do we have enough, is it stable enough, that the technical editor can stamp it, or do we have to include material from EA rollout to get it to version 1? The EA rollouts will give feedback, and if the gap is substantial, we will have to add the content, else we will put a bow on certain sections. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
3.The Governance deck does not have an accompanying Word document. Is that something that will come later, or is it not necessary? | 3.The Governance deck does not have an accompanying Word document. Is that something that will come later, or is it not necessary? | ||
| + | *Neither does the Behavioural framework. The slide decks are authoritative, the word documents are narrative providing further documentation. | ||
| + | JK: They wanted to get the document down, and worry about the presentation later. This is problematic, since it is hard to create document when you dont know the final format. The pictures will have to be there regardless of publishing format. John is trying to get Version 1 of Version 1. | ||
| + | JC: By august we should mark the core, to be relied on as authoritive content. | ||
| + | JK: Put a bookmark on that concept. | ||
| + | AMS: Even if it were a blog on the wiki. | ||
| + | JK: Maybe - it is not as convenient as it should be. It is a thorny problem. We have core images that have changed over the past. | ||
| + | AMS: If you dont publish the word, each viewer will see a different thing. | ||
| + | JC: I agree. I am struggling with taking the power-point and writing to it. | ||
| + | JK: The behavioral framework I have had to break down into specification, theory, etc. | ||
| + | JC: Trying to talk about four governance frameworks, between four different types of whoms. | ||
| + | CL: Each dependancy spawns another use case, which is connected to something else. | ||
| + | JK: Leveling is a problem: Use cases are at several levels. | ||
| + | JC: The governance issues around interpretation of content in the business rule context of different participants. | ||
| + | CL: We have come to many stakeholders contribute to the process, there must be an ultimate decision maker, who enforces the rules. | ||
| + | |||
4.The Snapshot documents have a different look and feel than the other documents. I’m assuming the same look and feel should be applied to all documents. Is that correct? | 4.The Snapshot documents have a different look and feel than the other documents. I’m assuming the same look and feel should be applied to all documents. Is that correct? | ||
* Presentation on behavioral compatibility and platforms | * Presentation on behavioral compatibility and platforms | ||
* Adjournment | * Adjournment | ||
Revision as of 19:26, 9 July 2009
Architecture and Review Board Meeting Minutes
June 25, 2009
Attendance
| Name | Present | With | Affiliation | E-mail address |
| Curry, Jane | Yes | ArB | Health Information Strategies | janecurry@healthinfostrategies.com |
| Grieve, Grahame | No | ArB | Kestral Computing | grahame@kestral.com.au |
| Julian, Tony | Yes | ArB | Mayo Clinic | ajulian@mayo.edu |
| Koehn, Marc | No | Guest | Gordon Point Informatics Ltd | Marc.Koehn@GPInformatics.com |
| Koisch, John | Yes | ArB | NCI | koisch_john@bah.com |
| Loyd, Patrick | Yes | ArB | Gordon point Informatics LTD. | patrick.loyd@gpinformatics.com |
| Lynch, Cecil | No | ArB | ontoreason LLC | clynch@ontoreason.com |
| Mead, Charlie | No | ArB | Booz Allen Hamilton | charlie.mead@booz.com |
| Nelson, Dale | No | Arb | II4SM | dale@zed-logic.com |
| Ocasio, Wendell | No | ArB | Agilex Technologies | wendell.ocasio@agilex.com |
| Parker, Ron | Yes | ArB | CA Infoway | rparker@eastlink.ca |
| Quinn, John | No | ArB | Health Level Seven, Inc. | jquinn@HL7.org |
| Shakir, Abdul-Malik | Yes | ArB | Shakir Consulting | ShakirConsulting@cs.com |
| Yan, Peter | Tes | Guest | NCI | |
| Huffington, Ken | Yes |
Agenda
- Call to order
- Approval of Agenda
- Approval of minutes June 25, 2009 Minutes
- Agenda for out-of-cycle
- Joint with MNM
- questions from Karen:
1.What problem is SAEAF supposed to solve (I’m looking for an a sentence or two answer, not a paragraph)
- The purpose of the safe is to provide consistency between all HL7 artifacts, and enable a standardized approach to Enterprise Architecure Development and implementation, which includes a means to measure the consistency.
JK: The HL7 Services Aware Enterprise Architecture Framework (SAEAF) consists of the means of capturing the essential integration semantics for a particular topic, a conformance and compliance model, and a governance structure.
2.How close would you say the documents on the wiki are to being “final” (i.e., ready to edit)? I ask this because I see some blank slides. Do these represent data gaps that you want the technical editors to help fill, or will that content be inserted before editing starts?
- The documents are on gforge, not on the wiki. They are stable, but not final. The intent is to publish an annual edition.
AMS: Will we finalize at august meeting? JK: NO, what will happen between now and august we will meet with EA rollout, and have revisions. JC: With platform we saw changes. JK: and with governance. AMS: There will need to be publication releases. JK: Woody said it should be published yearly, or bi-yearly, like the RIM. The SAEAF book becomes the holding ground for all of the documents, including core principles. AMS: There will be a 2009 edition that identifies known deficiencies that will be covered in 2010 version. JK: Published? JC: Published with anticipate content. AMS: Publishable by august? JK: WHere do we draw the line? Do we have enough, is it stable enough, that the technical editor can stamp it, or do we have to include material from EA rollout to get it to version 1? The EA rollouts will give feedback, and if the gap is substantial, we will have to add the content, else we will put a bow on certain sections.
3.The Governance deck does not have an accompanying Word document. Is that something that will come later, or is it not necessary?
- Neither does the Behavioural framework. The slide decks are authoritative, the word documents are narrative providing further documentation.
JK: They wanted to get the document down, and worry about the presentation later. This is problematic, since it is hard to create document when you dont know the final format. The pictures will have to be there regardless of publishing format. John is trying to get Version 1 of Version 1. JC: By august we should mark the core, to be relied on as authoritive content. JK: Put a bookmark on that concept. AMS: Even if it were a blog on the wiki. JK: Maybe - it is not as convenient as it should be. It is a thorny problem. We have core images that have changed over the past. AMS: If you dont publish the word, each viewer will see a different thing. JC: I agree. I am struggling with taking the power-point and writing to it. JK: The behavioral framework I have had to break down into specification, theory, etc. JC: Trying to talk about four governance frameworks, between four different types of whoms. CL: Each dependancy spawns another use case, which is connected to something else. JK: Leveling is a problem: Use cases are at several levels. JC: The governance issues around interpretation of content in the business rule context of different participants. CL: We have come to many stakeholders contribute to the process, there must be an ultimate decision maker, who enforces the rules.
4.The Snapshot documents have a different look and feel than the other documents. I’m assuming the same look and feel should be applied to all documents. Is that correct?
- Presentation on behavioral compatibility and platforms
- Adjournment
