This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here
<meta name="googlebot" content="noindex">

Difference between revisions of "20111004 SAIF AP ConCall"

From HL7Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 139: Line 139:
  
 
'''Minutes/Conclusions Reached:'''<br/>
 
'''Minutes/Conclusions Reached:'''<br/>
−
'''OO Questions from SAIF Pilot Coordination Project (Tracker 2037) '''
+
'''RFH – Should it be part of the SAIF AP'''
−
<br/>
+
*Austin: The TSC recently approved the PSS #809 for defining methodology around RFH.
−
Sub bullet #1 - When does OO need a Wrappers Facilitator for their Composite Order project?  By Jan 2012 according to the target date in project #38?
+
*As part of the project scope definition, they are defining the SAIF implementation guidance for RFH.
−
<br/>
+
*Given they mentioned SAIF, this team should decide if the project should be brought under the SAIF AP umbrella.
−
Patrick: Depends on if BF project has Wrappers requirements<br/>
+
*RFH tries to leverage lessons learned from 2.x and V3, success of CDA, and features that 2.x that makes it simpler to implement.   
−
Jane:  Since BF is only being balloted at the canonical definition, the canonical definition is being balloted this current cycle, and reconciliation and IG work will follow that.  Hence, at a minimum, it would be May 2012.<br/>
+
*What are the teams thoughts? While we don’t have to decide today, it’s something to think about.
−
Patrick: Needs MnM artifact definition input.  OO doesn’t need a Wrappers Facilitator.<br/>
+
*Patrick: This project is drawing a lot of energy; getting in at the ground floor for something as young and new, bears a good circumstances to pulling them in.  Patrick would be interested in talking with them some more.
−
<br/>
+
*Lorraine:  She believes it’s directly related to what we’re doing.
−
Austin:  OO doesn’t need a Wrappers facilitator, they need wrappers for the CO static model. Hence the coordination is a need to have wrappers in place.
+
*The group agreed to pursue the RFH team members in San Antonio to attend our SAIF AP meeting. No further action needed to be done right now.
−
<br/><br/>
 
−
SUMMARY:<br/>
 
−
OO has no need for Wrappers Facilitator<br/>
 
−
<br/>
 
−
Rewrite this coordination to be: Artifact Definition coordinates with InM project for Wrappers (InM and MnM)<br/>
 
−
The output will be Wrappers draft and Wrappers final, and will be a coordination between.<br/>
 
−
<br/>
 
−
OO will use the Wrappers draft and Wrappers final (OO and InM)<br/>
 
−
<br/>
 
  
−
Sub Bullet #2 - What is OO’s target date for creating the functional profile for composite order and lab order<br/>
 
−
Functional Profile won’t be ready to ballot by Jan 2012.<br/>
 
−
Targeting May 2012<br/>
 
−
<br/>
 
−
Sub bullet #3 - What is OO’s target date for Updating generator to create the new technical artifacts for BF?<br/>
 
−
Austin:  No sooner than having a SAIF IG for the BF.<br/>
 
−
Patrick:  From a tooling perspective, it takes a long time for this work.  Probably a 2013/2014 timeframe.  In the meantime, until the generator is ready, manual work will create the technical artifacts.<br/>
 
−
Jane:  Another dependency is that there will be other balloted items coming out of the the SAIF IG, and there are other items on the tooling priority list before getting to the BF work.<br/>
 
−
Austin:  The generator won’t be on the critical path for moving forward.<br/>
 
−
<br/>
 
−
sub bullet #4  - When does OO plan on balloting the Composite Order project?<br/>
 
−
Patrick:  We will be ready to ballot traditional artifacts for Jan 2012 (Static Model and dynamic model, etc).<br/>
 
−
<br/>
 
  
−
Sub bullet #5 - When will OO produce schemas in the OO Composite Order project?<br/>
+
'''Dependencies'''
−
Patrick: The constraint is that there are few resources that can create the schemas. OO will need to work with MnM and Tooling to create the schemas.<br/>
+
*Rick:  Suggesting to model some of the dependencies between the SAIF AP projects.
−
Austin:  Will need to identify who the resource is.<br/>
+
*Example:  OO needs something from MnM to continue on with some of the OO work
−
Patrick:  Dependant on the Artifact Definition project.  Is computable required for 2012? <br/>
+
*Rick was wondering if modeling/displaying the dependencies would be a worthwhile effort?
−
Patrick: Jan 2012 will be tough to meet but perhaps possible.  Keep as Jan 2012.<br/>
+
*Team agreed that this will be a worthwhile effort.
−
<br/>
 
  
−
Add New Coordination Item:<br/>
 
−
Austin:  OO and Publishing – will items be balloted via normal V3 process or as a PDF<br/>
 
−
<br/>
 
  
−
Sub bullet #6 - When does OO need a SOA Facilitator for their Composite Order project?<br/>
+
'''Join the Structured Docs call'''
−
Patrick:  Has needed one from the beginning.  Perhaps the best mechanism is for OO to finish the RMIMs (going to ballot in January 2012), and then engage a SOA facilitator for items worked on to be balloted in May 2012.<br/>
+
*Rick and Dave can attend the October 20th CDA R3 meeting.
−
Hence, keep the target date as Jan 2012.<br/>
 
−
<br/>
 
−
sub bullet #7 - Does OO or MnM think new fields and/or classes will be needed to support the new Behavioral Framework?<br/>
 
−
<br/>
 
−
Patrick: answer is definitely yes for BF<br/>
 
−
Patrick: CO will not have any new fields; OO doesn’t have anything special.<br/>
 
−
<br/>
 
−
Austin: What OO needs is a draft implementation of the BF and a final implementation of the BF, which is part of the SAIF IG project by MnM<br/>
 
−
<br/>
 
  
−
'''MnM Questions from SAIF Pilot Coordination Project (Tracker 2038)''' <br/>
 
−
Lloyd McKenzie updated 2038 with a status update.<br/>
 
−
<br/>
 
  
 +
'''SAIF AP Recurrence?'''
 +
*Patrick: every other week will match the pace we’ll be progressing.
 +
*Jane:  Would have a higher chance to attend the meetings.
  
−
'''Structured Docs Questions from SAIF Pilot Coordination Project (Tracker 2038)''' <br/>
+
 
−
Austin guessed May 2012, but will discuss further with Struc Docs and PA in San Diego<br/>
+
 
−
<br/>
+
'''Suggestion that the SAIF AP team do a draft Risk Assessment/Analysis to determine Governance.'''
−
'''OO/CBCC/Security/Structured Docs Questions from SAIF Pilot Coordination Project (Tracker 2040) '''<br/>
+
*Jane: One of the first steps of SAIF work is to do a governance analysis to identify what risks exists and how to mitigate those risks.
−
This item is more of a dependency than a coordination item.<br/>
+
*Jane is working on the Architecture Definition Analysis project and a Risk Profile is one of the first deliverables Jane is working on from that project.  She’d like to have the SAIF AP to ‘trial’ it.
−
Patrick:  None of the groups will know enough until MnM finishes the draft of the Artifacts. <br/>
+
*What are the risks to be able to implement an architecture program.
−
Austin: This task is dependant upon on project 798 and MnM finishing the artifact definition.<br/>
+
*Austin: Do we want to formalize it as a project?  The project would be to pilot the governance aspect of SAIF.
−
<br/>
+
*Austin is hope that we could give it enough detail/definition that people won’t think it’s too vague.
−
Are we having a call next week, Sept 7?<br/>
+
*Suggested sponsor: perhaps the TSC as the SAIF AP isn’t a Work Group and can’t really sponsor a PSS.  Other reviewers of the PSS could be the ArB and MnM.
−
Cancel next week’s call<br/>
 
  
 
<br/>Gforge Accounts can be requested via:  
 
<br/>Gforge Accounts can be requested via:  

Revision as of 13:38, 6 October 2011

SAIF Architecture Program – 2011-10-04 Meeting

Return to SAIF Architecture Program Wiki Home Page<br\> Return to SAIF AP Meeting Minutes and Agendas


Meeting Logistics

Agenda

  1. Role Call
  2. Agenda Review
  3. RFH (Resources for Healthcare) – should it be part of the SAIF AP (Kreisler)
    1. RIMBAA notes from Rene Spronk email on RFH:
      1. Resources for Healthcare - RFH (working title), a new standardization effort, is based on (HL7v3-) software implementation experiences and therefore is of interest to RIMBAA members. Grahame Grieve created RFH (see http://www.healthintersections.com.au/?p=502) as a response to the board’s “Fresh Look” initiative. It takes all sorts of experiences with HL7v3 and CDA into account to come up with a new approach which is easier to implement than Hl7v3. RFH was discussed in various working groups in San Diego (MnM, ITS, Devices, RIMBAA), a project plan to continue its development is likely to be approved later today. It received a rather warm welcome - See also Grahame’s blog on ‘outcomes of the San Diego meeting’ at http://www.healthintersections.com.au/?p=610. During RIMBAA’s Wednesday Q6 session (after the networking event and the free Margaritas) we had over 40 attendees for the RFH session, which focused on ‘implementation aspects’ of RFH. MnM will host a special ‘ introduction to RFH’ even in San Antonio, on Tuesday evening from 7 to 9 pm.
  4. How to handle dependencies (modeling them) What tool to use? (Hamill/Haddorff)
  5. SAIF AP Meeting recurrence – continue weekly or change to bi-weekly
  6. When can some of the SAIF AP team to join the Thursday Structured Docs 5pm ET call to discuss coordination items?
  8. Recurring Agenda Items
    1. Pilot Coordination updates (Rick Haddorff)
      1. Any new Coordination items? (Team)
      2. Project Schedule progress (Rick Haddorff)
  9. Action item review (see below)
  10. Next steps

Action Items to Review

  • Owner:
    • ID # and Description
      • Any update or other question?


Link to the Complete List of Action Items/Issues/Risks (GForge)

Meeting Attendees

X=Present on Call

Facilitator Austin Kreisler Note taker(s) David Hamill
Attendee Name Affiliation
X Austin Kreisler TSC Chair
Brian Pech Interested Participant
X David Hamill HL7 HQ / Program Manager
Ed Tripp Domain Experts SD \ TSC
X Jane Curry Tooling
Jim McClay Emergency Care
John Moehrke Security Cookbook
X John Quinn HL7 CTO
Lloyd McKenzie MnM Work Group / SAIF Implementation Guide Pjt
X Lorraine Constable Composite Order Pjt \ OO Behavioral Framework Pjt
X Patrick Loyd OO Work Group / Composite Order Pjt
X Rick Haddorff Project Services WG / SAIF Pilot Coordination Pjt
Robert Lario Object Management
Pat Van Dyke EHR WG
Steve Hufnagel ArB / SAIF Book Project / SOA
Wendy Huang Implementation Conformance WG
Margie Kennedy
Freida Hall Project Services WG
Quorum Requirements Met: Yes

Minutes

Minutes/Conclusions Reached:
RFH – Should it be part of the SAIF AP

  • Austin: The TSC recently approved the PSS #809 for defining methodology around RFH.
  • As part of the project scope definition, they are defining the SAIF implementation guidance for RFH.
  • Given they mentioned SAIF, this team should decide if the project should be brought under the SAIF AP umbrella.
  • RFH tries to leverage lessons learned from 2.x and V3, success of CDA, and features that 2.x that makes it simpler to implement.
  • What are the teams thoughts? While we don’t have to decide today, it’s something to think about.
  • Patrick: This project is drawing a lot of energy; getting in at the ground floor for something as young and new, bears a good circumstances to pulling them in. Patrick would be interested in talking with them some more.
  • Lorraine: She believes it’s directly related to what we’re doing.
  • The group agreed to pursue the RFH team members in San Antonio to attend our SAIF AP meeting. No further action needed to be done right now.


Dependencies

  • Rick: Suggesting to model some of the dependencies between the SAIF AP projects.
  • Example: OO needs something from MnM to continue on with some of the OO work
  • Rick was wondering if modeling/displaying the dependencies would be a worthwhile effort?
  • Team agreed that this will be a worthwhile effort.


Join the Structured Docs call

  • Rick and Dave can attend the October 20th CDA R3 meeting.


SAIF AP Recurrence?

  • Patrick: every other week will match the pace we’ll be progressing.
  • Jane: Would have a higher chance to attend the meetings.


Suggestion that the SAIF AP team do a draft Risk Assessment/Analysis to determine Governance.

  • Jane: One of the first steps of SAIF work is to do a governance analysis to identify what risks exists and how to mitigate those risks.
  • Jane is working on the Architecture Definition Analysis project and a Risk Profile is one of the first deliverables Jane is working on from that project. She’d like to have the SAIF AP to ‘trial’ it.
  • What are the risks to be able to implement an architecture program.
  • Austin: Do we want to formalize it as a project? The project would be to pilot the governance aspect of SAIF.
  • Austin is hope that we could give it enough detail/definition that people won’t think it’s too vague.
  • Suggested sponsor: perhaps the TSC as the SAIF AP isn’t a Work Group and can’t really sponsor a PSS. Other reviewers of the PSS could be the ArB and MnM.


Gforge Accounts can be requested via: http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/account/?action=UserAdd

Adjourned 10:59 AM Eastern Time

Retrieved from "https://wiki.hl7.org/w/index.php?title=20111004_SAIF_AP_ConCall&oldid=55096"