This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here
Difference between revisions of "20110512 arb minutes"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m (→logistics) |
|||
| Line 52: | Line 52: | ||
|colspan="2"|ontoreason LLC | |colspan="2"|ontoreason LLC | ||
|- | |- | ||
| − | | | + | |X||Mead, Charlie |
|colspan="2"|National Cancer Institute | |colspan="2"|National Cancer Institute | ||
|- | |- | ||
| Line 87: | Line 87: | ||
|- | |- | ||
|} | |} | ||
| − | + | ==Minutes== | |
| + | #Agenda approved by concensus | ||
| + | #Minutes of April 28 meeting approved (Tony/John) | ||
| + | #Documents | ||
| + | ##[http://www.hl7.org/documentcenter/public/ballots/2011MAY/reconciliation/recon_saif_canon_r1_i1_2011may.xlsx Reconcillation spreadsheet] | ||
| + | ##[http://www.hl7.org/documentcenter/public/ballots/2011MAY/downloads/SAIF_CANON_R1_I1_2011MAY.pdf Canonical SAIF document] | ||
| + | #Reconcillation Discussion | ||
| + | ##Ron Parker: Ballot Comments - Majority of comments address an IG, and the requirements thereof. | ||
| + | ##Ron Parker: re-write and refine canonical. Then move to draft IG, to surface, and take through ballot. Based on that, go to DSTU/Normative. | ||
| + | ##Charlie Mead: The tricky part about canonical is you cant write on that is IG neutral. Parts have to be concrete. We can be neutral on the IF. GOvernance can be canonical- and ECCF comes from the rest. We cannot write a pure IG, because it would have to be HL7 IG. | ||
| + | ##John Koisch: We did not represent coherently what a specification is, and how they get written because we ran out of time. We could slove 70% of concerns about canonical if we could write a specification explanation - how you specify nesting of specifications. That could get redone in canonical, and solve a fair number of questions. | ||
| + | ##Wendell Ocasio: It is clear what a Information spec would be, but not what a behavior spec would be. | ||
| + | ##John Koisch: We should work around the model. | ||
| + | ##Wendell Ocasio: What is missing is the next steps - describing the specification, how you describe one. | ||
| + | ##John Koisch: The foundation is there to have the discussion. It is not pure computational - there is a series of interrlated correspondences. | ||
| + | ##Ron Parker: we can frame an approach - perceptions? Objectives of sunday are who do we need to meet with. | ||
| + | ##Charlie Mead: TSC would expect us to re-ballot. | ||
| + | ##Ron Parker: We need to also do other things. We need to map responsibilities. | ||
| + | ##John Koisch: Is there a strategy for dealing with people who just dont get it? Or communicate a coherent message for those who dont get it. | ||
| + | ##John Koisch: Add as outcome of Sunday. | ||
| + | ##Charlie Mead: Sumarize thought on Sunday about that. We can take to TSC on Sunday night. | ||
| + | ##John Koisch: The problem is that some of the comments are insightful - others are re-iteration of mis-understanding. One of the comments was about the verbosity - it is better to be precise - you can collapse in implementation. | ||
| + | ##Charlie Mead: The TSC Sunday evening is from ARb, not discussed on Saturday. We made choices, and they are robust enough. | ||
| + | ##John Koisch: Where that impacts is in the IF: He layed the groundwork to re-categorize some traditonal HL7 things. | ||
| + | ##Charlie Mead: Cecil has some items HL7 should change - the IF must be canonical. Is there a sense that the canonical IF will force HL7 to change. | ||
| + | ##John Koisch: My sense was he started HL7 as an expressive view for information, but what he found was if you are using a conceptual model, hl7's idea of conceptual is different. Cecil took a generic view, and turned some historical HL7 upsidedown. | ||
| + | ##Charlie Mead: I pushed him to make it neutral, not bound to the RIM. The further you get from the rim the harder interoperability with RIM uses gets. | ||
| + | ##Grahame: I did not notice radical departures - the ones JK discussed are minor. The 'MUST's behave like the RIM. Open Air does not meet the needs, although the concept map is compatible, the discussion is not. | ||
| + | ##Charlie Mead: Dont want to make HL7 specific, but want to make interoperability capable. The IF and BF are where we will have to address the most of the comments. | ||
| + | #Adjourn at 16:41 | ||
| + | [[User:Ajulian|Tony Julian]] 20:55, 12 May 2011 (UTC) | ||
[[Category:Arb Minutes]] | [[Category:Arb Minutes]] | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
Latest revision as of 20:55, 12 May 2011
ArB Agenda/Minutes
Agenda
- Call to order
- Approval of Agenda
- approval of Minutes of April 28 (Tony/)
- Discussion of Ballot Reconcillation and Orlando Agenda
- Other business and planning for next meeting
- Adjournment
Meeting Information
| HL7 ArB Work Group Meeting Minutes Location: Telcon |
Date: 20110512 Time: 4:00pm U.S. Eastern | |||||
| Facilitator | Ron Parker | Note taker(s) | Tony Julian | |||
| Attendee | Name | Affiliation | ||||
| . | Bond,Andy | NEHTA | ||||
| . | Curry, Jane | Health Information Strategies | ||||
| X | Grieve, Grahame | Kestral Computing | ||||
| . | Hufnagel, Steve | U.S. Department of Defense, Military Health System | ||||
| X | Julian, Tony | Mayo Clinic | ||||
| X | Koisch, John | Guidewire Architecture | ||||
| . | Loyd, Patrick | Gordon point Informatics LTD. | ||||
| . | Lynch, Cecil | ontoreason LLC | ||||
| X | Mead, Charlie | National Cancer Institute | ||||
| X | Ocasio, Wendell | Agilex Technologies | ||||
| X | Parker, Ron | CA Infoway | ||||
| . | Quinn, John | Health Level Seven, Inc. | ||||
| . | Shakir, Abdul-Malik | Shakir Consulting | ||||
| . | Guests | |||||
| . | Haddorff, Rick | Mayo Clinic | ||||
| . | Laskso, Lynn | HL7 Staff | ||||
| . | Milosevic, Zoran | NEHTA | ||||
| Quorum Requirements Met: Yes | ||||||
Minutes
- Agenda approved by concensus
- Minutes of April 28 meeting approved (Tony/John)
- Documents
- Reconcillation Discussion
- Ron Parker: Ballot Comments - Majority of comments address an IG, and the requirements thereof.
- Ron Parker: re-write and refine canonical. Then move to draft IG, to surface, and take through ballot. Based on that, go to DSTU/Normative.
- Charlie Mead: The tricky part about canonical is you cant write on that is IG neutral. Parts have to be concrete. We can be neutral on the IF. GOvernance can be canonical- and ECCF comes from the rest. We cannot write a pure IG, because it would have to be HL7 IG.
- John Koisch: We did not represent coherently what a specification is, and how they get written because we ran out of time. We could slove 70% of concerns about canonical if we could write a specification explanation - how you specify nesting of specifications. That could get redone in canonical, and solve a fair number of questions.
- Wendell Ocasio: It is clear what a Information spec would be, but not what a behavior spec would be.
- John Koisch: We should work around the model.
- Wendell Ocasio: What is missing is the next steps - describing the specification, how you describe one.
- John Koisch: The foundation is there to have the discussion. It is not pure computational - there is a series of interrlated correspondences.
- Ron Parker: we can frame an approach - perceptions? Objectives of sunday are who do we need to meet with.
- Charlie Mead: TSC would expect us to re-ballot.
- Ron Parker: We need to also do other things. We need to map responsibilities.
- John Koisch: Is there a strategy for dealing with people who just dont get it? Or communicate a coherent message for those who dont get it.
- John Koisch: Add as outcome of Sunday.
- Charlie Mead: Sumarize thought on Sunday about that. We can take to TSC on Sunday night.
- John Koisch: The problem is that some of the comments are insightful - others are re-iteration of mis-understanding. One of the comments was about the verbosity - it is better to be precise - you can collapse in implementation.
- Charlie Mead: The TSC Sunday evening is from ARb, not discussed on Saturday. We made choices, and they are robust enough.
- John Koisch: Where that impacts is in the IF: He layed the groundwork to re-categorize some traditonal HL7 things.
- Charlie Mead: Cecil has some items HL7 should change - the IF must be canonical. Is there a sense that the canonical IF will force HL7 to change.
- John Koisch: My sense was he started HL7 as an expressive view for information, but what he found was if you are using a conceptual model, hl7's idea of conceptual is different. Cecil took a generic view, and turned some historical HL7 upsidedown.
- Charlie Mead: I pushed him to make it neutral, not bound to the RIM. The further you get from the rim the harder interoperability with RIM uses gets.
- Grahame: I did not notice radical departures - the ones JK discussed are minor. The 'MUST's behave like the RIM. Open Air does not meet the needs, although the concept map is compatible, the discussion is not.
- Charlie Mead: Dont want to make HL7 specific, but want to make interoperability capable. The IF and BF are where we will have to address the most of the comments.
- Adjourn at 16:41
Tony Julian 20:55, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
