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

20080131 arb minutes

From HL7Wiki
Revision as of 09:34, 22 May 2008 by GrahameGrieve (talk | contribs)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Agenda 20080131

Attendees John Koisch Grahame Grieve Jane Curry Mead Walker Abdul Malik Shakir John Quinn Charlie Mead Anthony Julian


  • Welcome and Rollcall
  • CTO/TSC Update
  • Koisch update on Infrastructure
  • Discussion of Scope and Mission
  • Grahame: Presentation on re-org project charter
  • Mead / Koisch: Requirements for the Dynamic Model
  • Curry: ArB's role in tooling
  • Resolution regarding v2 Back door issue
  • Task assignments
  • Other issues


  • JQ gave the TSC update for the ArB. There is no feedback one way or the other. There is pushback re: the tooling platform and the intersection between the OpenEHR, OHT, OHF, and the SNOMED tooling initiatives. There needs to be an algorithm to get from requirements to actual tooling
  • JK gave update on Infrastructure.
  • Scope and Mission: Everyone needs to deal with the scope and mission statements so that we can get to a vote. JC noted that we might have two scopes: the architecture of HL7, and the architecture of health systems in the industry. AMS noted that there is also the dissonance between should be vs as is. A lot of HL7 architecture is *undocumented*. Perhaps we need an inventory of 'as is.' JK noted that looking backwards could become delf-defeating. MW wants to focus on aspects of the forward-looking view and deal with those appropriately. Tooling and the ballot process suggest themselves.
  • GG gave an 'update' on the re-org project charter. Tabled for next week.
  • JK gave an intro to the efforts within HL7 to remediate the dynamic model, including the SOA efforts and the Interoperability Paradigm issues. MW raised the concern that we *really* don't know what it is that we are intended to build. His thoughts are on the DM page. Defines DM as "Who sends message," "When / why send message", "what are the interactions", and "what happens when someone gets the message"? GG reencapsulated it as "Who says what when?" JC added that it is the context in which the information that we identify is shared. GG asked "whether this is worth exploring? perhaps people need us to stay out of their business?" MW stated that the intersection of these is the dynamic model. JK said that these are the requirements, not the model itself. RGP said that the requirement is for predictable behavior. GG short term focus: "when do you use the HL7 dynamic model that is published? and how would they like to use it?" RGP - 'EHR messaging implies interactions in the way that this is modeled. You have to infer correctly what it is that the message is intended to support. It is difficult to nail down the quality req't - "am i using the message well?" some aspect of the interaction pattern needs to be expressed and / or nailed down to get to the answer to this question.'
  • JC wants to clarify the ArB taking the responsibility for stating which tools and the responsibility for defining the architecture that will be created. Because we don't have an understanding of architecture, this question cannot be answered. JC has captured what a lot of the expectations from the users of the tools. MW - ArB should care about what we were getting tools for, rather than what the tool is and how it is constructed. JC sees one of her roles in participating here as providing calarity wrt these issues.