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

20111013 arb minutes

From HL7Wiki
Revision as of 21:03, 13 October 2011 by Ajulian (talk | contribs) (→‎ECCF)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

ArB Agenda/Minutes

Agenda

Six (6) weeks until DSTU final content due - November 27, 2011
  1. Call to order
  2. Approval of Agenda
  3. Approval of Minutes
  4. Action Items from last meeting:
    1. ACTION: Tony to determine the list of negatives so we can map progress. Assumption is that ALL negs must be either withdrawn or designated non-persuasive (due diligence on our part)
    2. ACTION: Now that we have established what appears to be a meaningful dialogue, Charlie should post the recent threads to the ArB Listserv.
    3. ACTION: Ron to add this dimension of IG to the Glossary. RELATED: we probably need to update the CD to speak to this dimension of transitioning from CD to IG.
    4. ACTION: Andy to add a 4th bullet to SAIF Implementation Guide for ECCF Matrix
  5. Other business and planning for next meeting
  6. Adjournment

Meeting Information

HL7 ArB Work Group Meeting Minutes

Location: Telcon

Date: 20111013
Time: 4:00pm U.S. Eastern
Facilitator Ron Parker Note taker(s) Tony Julian
Attendee Name Affiliation
X Bond,Andy NEHTA
X Curry, Jane Health Information Strategies
. Grieve, Grahame Kestral Computing
X Hufnagel, Steve U.S. Department of Defense, Military Health System
X Julian, Tony Mayo Clinic
. Koisch, John Guidewire Architecture
. Loyd, Patrick Gordon point Informatics LTD.
. Lynch, Cecil Accenture
X Mead, Charlie National Cancer Institute
X Milosevic, Zoran NEHTA
. Ocasio, Wendell Agilex Technologies
X Parker, Ron CA Infoway
. Quinn, John Health Level Seven, Inc.
. Guests
. Laskso, Lynn HL7 Staff
Duckler, Andy BBMSC
Quorum Requirements Met: Yes

Minutes

  1. Call to order
  2. Approval of agenda
  3. Approval of minutes
    1. 'Motion to approve (Jane/Anil)
    2. Vote 6-0-1
  4. Action Items from last meeting:

Negative ballots

  1. ACTION: Tony to determine the list of negatives so we can map progress. Assumption is that ALL negs must be either withdrawn or designated non-persuasive (due diligence on our part)
    1. Boone, Keith: GE Healthcare IT --- Has been emailed
    2. Blobel PhD, Bernd: HL7 Germany --- Will not withdraw
    3. Flemming, Daniel: HL7 Germany Voter --- Has been emailed
    4. Oemig, Frank: HL7 Germany Voter #3 --- Has been emailed
    5. Bishop, Charlie: HL7 UK --- Has been emailed
    6. Smithies, Rik: HL7 UK Voter #2 --- Has been emailed
    7. Scott, Philip: HL7 UK Voter #3 --- Has been emailed
    8. Whittaker, Martin: HL7 UK Voter #5 --- Has been emailed
    9. Glover, Hugh: HL7 UK Voter #6 --- Verbal agreement to withdraw next week
    10. Hinchley, Andrew: HL7 UK Voter #7 --- Has been emailed
    11. Wrightson, Ann: HL7 UK Voter #8 --- Has been emailed
    12. McCay, Charlie: Ramsey Systems Ltd. --- Has been emailed
    13. Charlie: John Quinn will address with the TSC.

OASIS dialog

  1. ACTION: Now that we have established what appears to be a meaningful dialogue, Charlie should post the recent threads to the ArB Listserv.
    1. There is a strong coincidence with our work and the OASIS work.
    2. Ron: Can we share the thread, and talk about it
    3. Charlie: The chair of the group Ken passed the document around to a number of people in the OASIS group, and one wrote back several paragraph analysis: "This is a good document. Wish we had known about it sooner. Ken asked for a conference call avout things they can do in a reasonable amount of time. Thomas Erl has gotten into it, and has put saif-cd video on his website, and is asking HL7 Board to release for general consumption.
    4. Charlie: Ken was supposed to get back to me by the end of this week to set up a strategy discussion for what is possible. It would be nice to acknowledge the document. I don't know how much we can do.
    5. Jane: Conversation to see if there are congruent or different definitions. We should have a statement about the degree of alignment between the documents.
    6. Charlie: They wish they had aligned with RM-ODP - but it is too late to go back and do so. Differences will center around RM-ODP and their own framework.
    7. Charlie: They wished they had access to Thomas Erl. They have spent 5 years, and are not going to start over. A joint reference paragraph would show that a vertical from their perspective, and a horizontal from our perspective are thinking about this.
    8. Zoran: In the last week I have done an extensive analysis between ODP and the OASIS document, and have found a good alignment. I have done a spreadsheet showing the alignment and how they can use ODP. We have a powerful triangle. The alignment between OASIS and ODP is strong. There is strong alignment between SAIF and ODP. I discussed alignment with OASID and HL7. I am waiting to see what Ken sees about that. If we can bring in Thomas Erl that is fantastic.
    9. Ron: Charlie: We might want to talk to John Quinn about the relationship. There has not been historically an collaboration. My personal feeling - I would like us as we get the SAIF cd normalized, and out the door, to start thinking about this context for interoperability about enterprise architecture, and produce that kind of dialog for others. For example, the architecture of messaging. There has been a move around IHTSDO for terminology. It is time for us to think about clearly partitioning these things to be more adaptive.
    10. Jane: There will have to be changes in methodology to align interoperability. I have been trying to emphasize the language of interoperability - pushing the edges.
    11. Ron: We have done work around the challenge of adapting our standards around clinical so that we might be able to innovate. The timelines are long, which is problematic. We have built a document about using templating content into constructs, where the balloted content is maintained. I want to be able to translate to a service oriented perspective, to add ability for systems to interact. As we develop the IG for HL7, and Canada steps into this space we have a need for people to incorporate our product.
    12. Zoran: We need examples of how we use SAIF for end-to-end problem solving.
    13. Ron: We can establish patterns around workflow that can be instantiated in services. Canada needs the ability for the infrastructure and governance so that any vendor who can meet the criteria can join the space. That is our problem - their are still people saying that plug-and-play in healthcare is impossible. We can build frameworks for patterns.
    14. Zoran: In Austrailia we have the same referral spec.
    15. Ron: We have adapted our work to the Austrailian spec.
    16. Jane: not just vendors - not all jurisdictions have the same rules - but you need to know the people policies that will allow you to participate. If we go with interdependent registries, you can begin to automate.
    17. Zoran: Is there something like that that Steve is facing in his project?
    18. Ron: Steve: Is organizational or enterprise E-referal in your scope?
    19. Steve: HITSP has addressed the issue with consults and transfer of care interoperability specification.

Glossary

  1. ACTION: Ron to add this dimension of IG to the Glossary. RELATED: we probably need to update the CD to speak to this dimension of transitioning from CD to IG.
    1. Ron: Last week we were not consistent. Anil, I have not had the time to package things to send to you. I told Charlie we were able to remove the items not referenced. We agreed to update the discussion page behind the concepts to be updated from the SAIF-CD. I favor this because they will require dialog.
    2. Jane: I added my comments to the discussion page.
    3. Ron: We can address at a meeting soon. Steve had asserted that anything in the index as key comments needs a glossary definition. We said they may come out of the index. It would require we get these done, and added to the glossary.
    4. Tony: the "-saif' was used as a disambuguator because of duplicate terms on the wiki.
    5. Ron: For the next call we need to walk through the discussion tabs and discuss on the next call.
    6. Ron: Charlie, the glossary is not an insubstantial piece. I found a number of terms that hand no explanation in the SAIF, which points to the glossary.
    7. Steve: We need to update the SAIF CD.
    8. Charlie: We need to add the compliant criteria. Ron, are you saying the definition in the text, or in the glossary.
    9. Ron: The glossary is sufficient. I like to pull the glossary up next to me while I am reading the document. There are a few core concepts that need to be in SAIF, but not all. As others review, we may need to add concepts to the SAIF. We need to go through the discussion tabs reviewed next week.
    10. Action: Look for concepts missing from the glossary

ECCF

  1. ACTION: Andy to add a 4th bullet to SAIF Implementation Guide for ECCF Matrix
    1. Ron: Do you have any updates to the conformity document?
    2. Andy: Not this week, but early next week.
    3. Jane: Is the point about traceability down through the layers - sometimes it is not an artifact to artifact, instead a range of conformance statements. At a minimum we should state in the CD how we should express those.
    4. Andy: The ECCF is designed to be one of the frameworks in the IG that has the strongest relationship of the conformity assertions.
    5. Jane: Does that mean that we need to have explicit language in the CD around how to show that conformance assertions in one layer need to be satisfied in another layer? I am doing this for HL7.
    6. Charlie: it is not a categoric statement that a conformance statement at one level be traceable to another level. There are conformance statements at the conceptual level that may not be traceable at the other levels. If you have a FIT metric that a trained user can do this in such a time with such errors. It is hard to trace this through the logical model.
    7. Jane: thats fair.
    8. Charlie: It must be testable.
    9. Jane: We need to understand the potential for traceability.
    10. Andy: We need to describe in CD the traceability,and not the content in the IG.
    11. Charlie: i did not understand why the ECCF needs to be a part of conformity?
  2. Other business and planning for next meeting
  3. Adjournment
    1. Adjourned at 6:00pm U.S. Eastern Daylight

Tony Julian 21:02, 13 October 2011 (UTC) http://wiki.hl7.org/index.php?title=Arb_meeting_schedule#Teleconferences

Retrieved from "https://wiki.hl7.org/w/index.php?title=20111013_arb_minutes&oldid=55298"