20080605 arb minutes

Attendees:

Charlie Mead John Koisch(early part) Tony Julian Yongjian Bao Jane Curry Mead Walker Ron Parker(latter part) Rich Rogers David Hamill

Charlie Mead-chair; Jane Curry – scribe

Agenda:

• Attendance (ArB members+ observers)
• Protocol for meeting (who talks when)
• Scope for first meeting as well as trajectory to September
• Physical logistics for all three meetings

Minutes:

• Revised Elements of the EA
  • BAM (CM) with the TSC
  • 'To Be' BAM, EA ArB Principles
  • Ballot Quality Requirements (Keith Boone)
  • Core Principles (ArB) In process
  • WG Re-Org Project (GG) GGrieve
  • HDF, HDF Errata, MDF (JC) Evaluation underway; will emerge from the other activities of this ArB
  • Standards Synchronization - ISO, OMG, W3C, IHE
  • Dynamic Model (JK) In process
  • Portfolio of Products / Product (Project) Lifecycle (JC) Jane Curry
  • Insure that anything that we put into the architecture be validated by The Governance and Operations Manual (HL7 HQ)
  • Top-down framework

• AMS Need to be very clear about our decision making process is clear. We need to distribute these. JC - need to make sure that we are clear about the constituency of the ArB, and this is slightly different than membership within other working groups. For example, motions should only come from the members, and voting should only include members. Anyone can participate in the meeting and in the discussions. Roberts Rules of Order? Can call for straw votes .... Need minutes, agendas, etc. Whoever is presiding does not vote except to break a tie. AMS - this is no different than HL7 Harmonization meetings re: MnM.

• Logistics assignments:
  • AMS - take the DMP document and modify it for ArB's use
  • JK - Project Plan and Deliverables, Goal statement and vision statement
  • Waiting on the scope (of the June Meeting) document

• Proposed Schedule

     Day 1:
         Q1 - Level Setting based on Logistics documents
         Q2:  

Agreement on initial scope definition, 3-meeting goal statement , policies and procedures, etc. (it would be nice if we could bring a candidate paragraph to the meeting for discussion) including specific deliverables, e.g ‘blue-sky BAM, SOA-HDF, proposed dynamic model, etc.’

         1-4:  Inventory of available artifacts including those from OASIS, HL7, Infoway, VA/DoD, etc.
         4-5:  Candidate task list for days 2-3 including possible parallelism for artifact building
     Day 2:
         9-12:  Deep dive review of OASIS SOAspec
         1-3:  Deep dive review of Infoway spec
         3-5:  Deep dive review of DoD spec
     Day 3:
         9-12:  ???
         1-4:  ???

Action Items

Agenda:

CM indicated that HL7 would only underwrite costs for ArB members. On that note, since JC had been an active participant of the ArB since before January, and after discussion with John Quinn and Charlie McCay, Jane Curry was added as a formal member of the ArB.

Logistics for June meeting & forward: • 10 observers, which is the limit • 7 ArB members attending in June • Only ArB members can vote – • Observers can’t go over previously plowed ground, only discuss on topic • CM proposes fixed length QA every so often – say every 2 hours, 15-30 minutes interaction o JK, friendly amendment last 30 minutes of each quarter be the interaction • Consensus was 3-hours work, 1 hour interaction; 1hr lunch; repeat – at least for the first 2 days, last day spend the pm in wrap-up mode • Dates July 15-17, Aug. 19-21 • HL7 cost is the primary decision criteria and since Rockville offers meeting space at no cost to HL7 and at least 2 members not requiring funding if meeting there, then the consensus was to stick with Rockville. • 7 anticipated in July – Rockville - NCI • 5 anticipated in Aug – Rockville – NCI Primary focus for initial architecture work is for Services, because it is the least understood – and we don’t want to spend all our time doing the overarching EA and not achieve a Services context draft by September. But if we can do the whole thing – all the better. • MW expressed concern that the perception of not respecting current messaging and document paradigm was a risk that must be managed • RP indicated that his experience showed that the 3 paradigms were compatible in that explicit models were the key exchange mechanism in all 3 cases • The sticking space is how you define messages – payload is static information expressed in a model in any case, but how you deal with externalized messages versus internalized interfaces is a distinction. • Dynamic model comes into play so we really will need to tackle this; • HL7 has traditionally stayed out of application design, where Services has something to say. Point was made that V3 may not address application design but did start specifying application behaviour by definingas receiver responsibilities The main objective for next meeting is to firm up the agenda for June • The first 3 hours in June will be spent on scoping activities to consider an internal HL7 architecture from a SOA perspective, including what other standards material would be considered, what elements of RMODP would be expressed and what level of detail/precision would be output.