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

20080403 arb minutes

From HL7Wiki
Revision as of 21:27, 19 March 2010 by Ajulian (talk | contribs)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Architecture Board April 3, 2008


  • John Koisch
  • Tony Julian
  • Cecil Lynch
  • Jane Curry
  • Nancy Orvis
  • Mead Walker


  • Confirm D/T for WGM Meeting Schedule
  • Project Update
    • Ballot Q/A - initial spreadsheet attached. Seeking thoughts / feedback
    • Re-Org Project - Grahame Grieve
    • Dynamic Framework - John Koisch
    • Business Modeling - Very Brief update
  • Other Business


  • Meets Sunday Q1+Q2, Tuesday Q4, Wednesday Q4, Thursday Q3+Q4
  • Feedback on ballot QA
    • MW - Can questions be quantified and verified so that the answer is meaningful
    • MW - There needs to be a legend, column headings
    • CL - Needs another column for conformance method (review of ArB, comparison with style sheet, eg.)
      • Checklist should be explicit ... e.g., use the Chicago Style Guide
    • MW - Excel rows 34, 36 may not be consistent
    • JK - what is the scope of this document. There should be different sets of requirements per product type (WS transport ballot should not have a D-MIM, eg.) CL - there should be a way to specify by the product types. MW - this MUST be a list broken down by product types
    • MW - This list is too long. Validation should be simpler.
    • TJ - A lot of this could be done by tooling. So this needs to be harmonized with tooling requirements. JK - there are different levels of problems that need to surface from tooling-level quality checks, and you don't want to see errors that are problems with the tooling that are _not_ problems with the ballot per se. JC - there are opportunities for process improvement. The errors in the tooling need to be surfaced back to the committee. A broken link surfaces in the publication process, not the submission process.
    • CL - we need ot see the dependencies between the quality requirements. JK - one of the "levels of dependency could be explicit by naming the interoperability paradigm that is intended through the ballot
    • JC - is this only a "normative" level checklist? CL - are DSTU's evaluated differently? They shouldn't be... JK - is this a governance issue? JC - there is a governance issue regarding enforcing consistency within a particular tpoic, but can we hold people accountable for consistency across groups? CL - we should. JC - we recognize that this is a first phase quality checklist that is artifact-by-artifact specific. There needs to be another phase of work. ArB needs to establish a framework for consistency across balloted artifacts. This might need to surface the use case for sharing in the first place.
    • JC - per this specific list of QA items, has any consideration been given to identify what the traceability from the requirements in the DAMs to the corresponding elements / artifact? There needs to be traceability to the requirements for the ballot to begin with. JK - There needs to be a quantifiable requirement so that success can be measured. Tony Julian