20110512 arb minutes

ArB Agenda/Minutes

Agenda

1. Call to order
2. Approval of Agenda
3. approval of Minutes of April 28 (Tony/)
4. Discussion of Ballot Reconcillation and Orlando Agenda
6. Other business and planning for next meeting
7. 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

1. Agenda approved by concensus
2. Minutes of April 28 meeting approved (Tony/John)
3. Documents
   1. Reconcillation spreadsheet
   2. Canonical SAIF document
4. Reconcillation Discussion
   1. Ron Parker: Ballot Comments - Majority of comments address an IG, and the requirements thereof.
   2. 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.
   3. 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.
   4. 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.
   5. Wendell Ocasio: It is clear what a Information spec would be, but not what a behavior spec would be.
   6. John Koisch: We should work around the model.
   7. Wendell Ocasio: What is missing is the next steps - describing the specification, how you describe one.
   8. John Koisch: The foundation is there to have the discussion. It is not pure computational - there is a series of interrlated correspondences.
   9. Ron Parker: we can frame an approach - perceptions? Objectives of sunday are who do we need to meet with.
   10. Charlie Mead: TSC would expect us to re-ballot.
   11. Ron Parker: We need to also do other things. We need to map responsibilities.
   12. 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.
   13. John Koisch: Add as outcome of Sunday.
   14. Charlie Mead: Sumarize thought on Sunday about that. We can take to TSC on Sunday night.
   15. 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.
   16. Charlie Mead: The TSC Sunday evening is from ARb, not discussed on Saturday. We made choices, and they are robust enough.
   17. John Koisch: Where that impacts is in the IF: He layed the groundwork to re-categorize some traditonal HL7 things.
   18. 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.
   19. 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.
   20. 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.
   21. 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.
   22. 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.
5. Adjourn at 16:41

Tony Julian 20:55, 12 May 2011 (UTC)