This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here
20080617 arbJumpStartMinutes
Minutes of the 20080617 June out-of-cycle Day 2
Attendance
| Name | Role | Affiliation | ||
| B | G | guest | ? | ? |
| Charlie, Mead | ArB | Booz Allen Hamilton | charlie.mead@booz.com | |
| Curry, Jane | ArB | Health Information Strategies | janecurry@healthinfostrategies.com | |
| Julian, Tony | ArB | Mayo Clinic | ajulian@mayo.edu | |
| Koisch, John | ArB | Boz | koisch_john@bah.com | |
| Larsen, Ed | guest | HITSP | erlarsen@erlinc.com | |
| Mulrooney, Galen | guest | VHA | galen.mulrooney@med.va.gov | |
| Orvis, Nancy | ArB | DOD | nancy.orvis@tma.osd.mil | |
| Quinn, John | ArB | Health Level Seven, Inc. | jquinn@HL7.org | |
| Rogers, Rich | guest | IBM | rrogers@us.ibm.com | |
| Robertson, Scott | guest</td< | Kaiser Permanente | scott.robertson@kp.com | |
| Shakir, Abdul-Malik | ArB | Shakir Consulting | ShakirConsulting@cs.com |
Agenda
- 8-9 - review of OASIS, CBDI work
- 9-11 – tbBAM modeling
- 11-12 – open discussion with Observers
- 12-1 – lunch
- 1-2 – review of relevant NCI work
- 2-3 – review of relevant DoD work
- 3-4 – review of relevant Infoway work
- 4-5 – open discussion with Observers
Minutes
- Oasis Service Description Model
- NCI Service Taxonomy
- CBDI Taxonomy of Services
- Discussion of the HITSP / NHIN services, and the use cases for architecture itself. JC - the problem is not a system architecture, it is enterprise in scope and we need enterprise architecture. JK - discussed the NCI service taxonomy's assumption as a way to get buy in from organizations (using use cases, and describing dependencies for those use cases that are specified as services). EL - HITSP / NHIN really needs the architecture offerings from the HL7 ArB, including principles, taxonomy, service offerings, contract specifications.
- Principles
- Initial cut at principles:
- Virtualization
- Aggregation / Composition
- Unity of Purpose
- Technology Independence
- Service Specification should support a Layered Conformance Policy
- Each Service Specification (each service has many service specifications) must belong to a conformance layer. Each conformance layer must have rules associated with it.
- each service should also belong to the HL7 taxonomy
- use Should Shall May
- We should follow the Oasis Format (Statement, Rationale, Implications)
- Additional Principles (from other sources - Oasis)
- Separation of Concerns should be added
- Parsimony should be added to unity of purpose
- RR suggested looking at soaprinciples.com
- AMS - This architecture is not a replacement for or an alternative to XXX - it encompasses, supports, and facilitates the stuff that we already have. The Health Domain Enterprise domain needs services in conjunction with the other components, and HL7 needs to take a leadership position. There is an aculturation issue.
- Initial cut at principles:
- Lunch
- Conformance and Compliance - A profile is a set of constrained assertions that force a yes | no answer to the question "are you compliant to ..." Conformance Assertions that are present in the services specs are equivalent to the conformance profile (HL7). Each viewpoint makes a set of assertions as part of its specifications. Conformance statements historically further constrain the conformance assrtions to demonstrate the degree of compliance of an implementation.
| Assertions Per Viewpoint | |||||
| - | Business | Information | Computation | Engineering | Technology |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reference | / | / | / | / | / |
| Domain | + | + | + | - | / |
| Use Case | + | + | + | - | / |
| Implementation Spec | - | - | + | + | - |
| Key: +: Required -: Optional /: Not Allowed | |||||
- NO: DoD SOA Architecture
