20080715 ARB Jump StartMinutes

Minutes:

Back to minutes page Agenda_Minutes

8-9 - organization, procedures, etc.

The meeting was called to order at 8:30am by John Koisch with Tony Julian as the scribe.

• • Attendees: Mead Walker, John Koisch, Tony Julian, Abdul-Malik Shakir, Jane Curry
  • Visitors: Alex DeJong, Dave Torok, Ed Larsen
• The agenda July2008OutOfCycleMeeting posted to the wiki was approved AMS/Tony.

9-10 - Review of Work in June and additional topics for this session:

• John discussed the HL7 Enterprise Architecture slide deck as ammended during the June Jump-start meeting.
  • John introduced the HL7 EA diagram as part of the discussion.
    • John Quinn and the TSC as directed by the HL7 Board is being pushed to create conformance specifications for HITSP, CEN, and others including SOA.
    • It was discussed that the Work Group is a type of Internal Policy Maker.
  • The goal of the EA is to define the levels of the architecture.(page 3).
  • Mead volunteered to work on a glossary of terms.
    • Integration
    • Intefaceing
    • Interoperability
  • <question><EA slide 6>How do we discrimitate between domain solutions and use case solutions.
  • Alex question: We decided to use RM-ODP to provide the framework for our deliverable. Each viewpoint can create a core specification, so that when you put them together you get a full specification.

• • Slides 8&9
    • There was significant discussion of the meanings of the terms Domain and Use Case. E.G. the Dynamic model is at the Reference level, while and instance of a Dynamic model is at the Use Case level.
    • It is implicit that a large portion of the HL7 work will be at the Use Case level.
  • Slide 8
    • Reference was made optional at the Business, Information, and Computation viewpoints.
    • Should Business and Information be required at the Domain level. It was decided that the Informationi is optional at the Domain level.
    • EHR Functional model has the computational aspect without the otheres.
    • The three qualifiers were change to Typical, Rare, and never.

• Governance
• 2bBAM
• Conformance Class Model
  • Dynamic Framework
• Service Specification Methodology, including sample artifacts roster

10-11 – Top Down Framework

• • Organizational Structure
    • What workgroups we have
      • What their responsibilities and dependencies
    • What processed are required
      • what tools support
    • What artifacts the work groups produce
      • What tools support
    • How governance works
• Ring 4
  • Domains
  • Dependencies
  • What product lines are and how they relate to domains?
  • how far dow the stack the domains go& what exit points
  • Helps customers map between their needs and our specifications
• The group was trying to define the notional categorization of specifications against which HL7 users want to assert conformance

Category	Domain	Topic
Conceptual(Domain)	CTS2,Templates,CMET, EIS	tbdam, EIS, Rlus,Immunzation dam
Logical (Use case)	ccow,LEXBIG	immunization administration,EIS.PA
Platform(Implementation)	ccow, javqa ,wsimplguide, MLLP,lexgrid	mt?

• John presented the CABIG Enterprise Integration Conformance and Compliance_016 document.
  • • The term Business Interfaces refers to the list of business functions and their interface to the model Model.
    • Assertion: You must specify the version of the RIM and other basic building blocks before you assert conformance.

• • Trading Partner Agreements,
  • review and development of ‘bull’s eye’ view of services in an HL7 context, including consequences on the outer rings of the Bulls Eye, including improved presentation that is updated with more current concepts
  • Include Discussion of Deliverables in September (Expectations, Table of Contents, etc.)

1-3 – review of SOA TC Dynamic Model proposal and current DM work

Resumed after lunch discussing Example_model_1_for_new_dynamic_model_cdl.

NOTE: Discussion of reasons CDL was used will be held later. John displayed the CDL output (in xml). Discussion was held on the level to which trigger-events should be modeled.

3-4 – Discussion of Service Contracts, UPMS

Jim Amsden joined by phone to present the OMG Services Oriented Architecture Profile(SOA_Pro)UML Profile and Metamodel for Services(UPMS).

• IBM EA method morphed to TOGAF: This starts looking at the business motivation and strategy.
  • What are the business goals and objectives that are causing the business to change?
  • What are the value properties and risks and rewards? "Do the right things right."
  • Next step is to look at the business architecture building blocks necessary to realize the strategy, including

Roles, responsibilities, collaberations, existing architecture, business processes.

• • Next step is to look at the building blocks to see if some subset of them might be automated by using

business dependent (services modeling) information systems.

• • Technology building blocks are business independent platform specific solutions.

• UPMS:
  • Upms can be used a visual-wsdl, or BPEL.
  • The more common usage is to extend UML in a first class morph oriented way.
  • A lighter weight way is using an UML Profile.
  • The profile tooling in modern UML blurs the differences between UML and Extended UML.(Rational tools).
  • Will go for vote in 2008.

Services Oriented Architecture Profile(SOA_Pro)UML Profile and Metamodel for Services(UPMS)

Jim presented the UPMS Status-ADTF.ppt deck.

Wrapup

The remainder of the time was spent discussing the dynamic model. Between now and September Grahame, John, and Steve are to present an acceptable model for people to argue about. It was suggested that we leverage it from UPMS. We need to review the dynamic model MIF package. UK and INFOWAY are using this.

Optional Topic - Entity, State, Acts, and Services

Tony 15:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)