20090709 arb telcon minutes

Architecture and Review Board Meeting Minutes

June 25, 2009

Back to Agenda-minutes

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

• 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. JC: you need a decision.

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?

• Yes - separate content from presentation to the best of the editors ability.

Agenda for out-of-cycle

JK: Next few weeks an implementation guide to the SAEAF, from the EA projects. I have a meeting I cannot miss, so we need a backfill. JK: After the initial call of laying it out, subsequant calls members of the ARB volunteer to work with projects to lay out artifacts, existing work, logical models, platform specific, and conceptual models. These should drive our converstations in august to determine the state of the SAEAF. Do we need richer content, implementation guide? Marc Koehn will come to discuss needs. JC: Are we still sticking with SAEAF, or change the name? JK: John Quinn went back on changing the name. I assume that was gurglings. PL: I would say I found myself immediately 1. Frustrated because we could not make a decision. 2. Had to start refering to it as SAEAF. As we have done more publication and outreach, people are feeling more comfortable that their needs are being represented. I believe that for internal reasons changing the name would buy us something. But we have more important things to do. JK: Groups outside of HL7 are refering to it as SAEAF. AMS: We went through the same thing with Version 3. RP: If we made it funny, it would buy us a lot of points. JK: waste no more time on the name. RP: more socialization, then ask if the name is ok. AMS: It may become a time when subcomponents have a name of their own. JK: It is a working title - once we change the presentation format into the SAEAF book, people will consume sections of it. AJ: So we will have a control section. JK: Maybe. JK: agenda for august out-of-cycle. Woody wants a full day session. I am not sure we have time - we have content maturation issues coming out of the EA rollout, and formalization. AMS: A lot of the MnM issues will be transition. JK: There are a lot of things that people have opinions, but dont have the energy to weigh in on. I have talked with Woody and Lloyd about the Behavioral Framework. People feel that the decisions are not getting enough publication, else people dont have enough energy. AMS: Return of the backroom zealots. JK: Trust, not advocate backroom zealotry. Definition of SOA and Service are references. AMS: MnM had the same reputation of making decision without involving others. We dont want that label. MnM communication was not effective. We should meet with them, and make sure the topic would have been covered anyway. RP: I agree. I am not sure we need to give the same to other work groups. JC: what are the issues. RP: they have not stated. AMS: we need to publish our agenda, and where we want to include MnM. MnM should not be involved in tooling, datatypes, etc. There is a topic of how are we going to transition. What are we going to do about it? JK: I will reach out to Woody and Lloyd to see what topics they want to cover. JC: which day? JK: Wednesday. JC: Last time they suspended harmonization - they took it that seriously. AMS: All of MnM JC: portions. JK: Leaving aside the joint meeting, what are topics? JC: do we have an agreement on what the core is? We need that for direction to the editors. JK: A small caution I think part of the job of the editor is to sift through and discover the core. CL: We will have to go through the slide deck and find gaps that we have question about, and make sure they are satisfied before we hand if off. JK: Homework -review the components. CL: I have reviewed, and discussed with Jane. Others may have comments that have surfaced since then. Make sure documents have our internal question answered. JK: Do people have time to look at chunks, or decks, and return . AMS: I am interested in the behavioral framework, and would comment. JK: Are you still interested in getting togethere to discuss>? AMS: Yes. JC: Your one term was all that was out of scope. JC: I have not released the new version. CL: The distance between points in a powerpoint leaves more wiggle room than some other format. JK: It sounds like our august meeting will focus around

• • Core material
  • EA rollout.

JK: It sounds like we need to have people to be able to come in, with an internal adjudication process for issues. ??For each section that we do, if we can take a controlled review, like a ballot review, with negative majors, minors, etc, and spend our time solving the negatives. CL: What is the agenda item for the EA rollout? What would be accomplished. JK: Next three weeks meeting with EA rollout, in terms of implementation guide for the SAEAF should surface holes. Marc Koehn will want to discuss what we need to do, then a slew of items like what does a conformance statement look likg. We need common groung. CL: Yes, If we are having that process, then that is where our majors/minors will come from. That should drive the corrective actions. If we had access to it before the meeting, it would be good. Then we could close the gaps. EA rollout should drive that activity. JK: My thinking as to the majority of out time: we need engagement to get good feedback. We dont have a structure to bring the comments centrally. What do we do? FOrmal process? Divide and concur? or wait for EA Rollout in the next two-three weeks. CL: I feel like our hands are tied until then. JC: we will find out through the rollout projects. I dont know how much pre-work we can do, except to complete the outstanding work. RP: I see project-managment like behavior coming up, it should not be John Koisch's problem. JC: Did we loose him? JK: Me? I am still here. Ron is right. Everybody is busy, and as we reach out to the other groups the workload is expanding. RP: Escalate to MR. Quinn. JK: They will ask, where do you need the help? The EA rollout should structure the problem. If we have a specific roll on a number of projects, we should bring that to ground. The plan was to detail how the NCI is doing it. Very few see the enormity. AMS: I have to hang up. JC: I will have to close the meeting. JK: I will put together a draft agenda. AMS can I reach you tomorrow>? AMS: Not until tuesday. JK: Can I send an email, and get response. I sent one to Ron. RP: Find a way to have someone else to facilitate the meetings where you bring content, to facilitate the discussion. JK: I agree. RP: There are time John needs to flip hats. He is trying to explain his life, not ram it through. JK: I 1000% would support. JC: Agenda e-mail as well as logistics will be sent out.

• should we have Joint with MNM

• Adjournment