20080716 ARB Jump Start
20080716 July out-of-cycle Day 2
The meeting was called to order at 8:30am by John Koisch with Tony Julian as the scribe.
|Curry, Jane||ArB||Health Information Strategiesemail@example.com|
|Julian, Tony||ArB||Mayo Clinicfirstname.lastname@example.org|
|Shakir, Abdul-Malik||ArB||Shakir Consulting||ShakirConsulting@cs.com|
|Walker, Mead||ArB||Mead Walker Consultingemail@example.com|
8-10 - Conformance and Compliance, Conformance Models
- Discussion was held concerning the caBIG ENterprise Integration Conformance and Compliance_016 document.
- An enterprise can be depicted as a cloud, with exposed and unexposed services.
- Multiple enterprises may overlap, with the exposed services being the intersection points.
- Enterprise diagram-
- WE know how to do this with the Internet/Intranet, and the boundaries.
- WE do NOT know how to do this via systems or services.
- Enterprise diagram-
10-11 – Review of 2bBAM Modeling
- Discussion was held concerning the role of the ARB in this endeavor. There is an understanding that this is the right group since the expertise is at the table.
11-1 – HL7 Enterperise Architecture Framework (HEAF)
(SOA Development Framework) Who are HL7's customers?
- Anyone who benefits from or contributes to our interoperability specifications.
- Indirect customers are
- everyone who contributes to healthcare, keeping in mind that the definition of healthcare varies between jurisdictions.
- Those who benefit by our production.
- Direct customers are the people who contribute, either financially or otherwise.
What are HL7's "customers" asking ?
- How to "govern" the specifications
- How do I promote reuse
- Means to reduce barriers to interoperability
- Technical strategies
- V2 vs V3
- Messages vs Services vs CDA
- Technical solutions
- Something that can be implemented DSTU?
- Sample content
- Technical strategies
- Stability in the work products
What do "we" (HL7) think our customers need?
- Computable semantec interoperability(CSI)
- We have not connected the dots between the benefits and work to get there.
- We can achieve incremental benefit by reducing barriers to CSI
- CSI is a goal that can be achieved
- CSI is 'plug and play'
- Can I translate V2 to V3?
- Implementation guides
- Are you ready?
- Do you need an interface engine?
- Solutions that they can implement directly
- Criteria for conformance
- Flexibilty and stability
What of our customer needs are we willing, able, and prepared to provide(today)
- We are not ready to provide implementable solutions
- We may partner with others e.g. OMG
What preparations need to be made to enable us to meet customer needs and expectations as desired.(Future)
- articulation of a service specification
- conformance criteria /processes at the various levels
- How do we express adherence
- How do we assert adherence
- How do we demonstrate adherence
- Dynamic model
- Orchestration or choreography
- Leverage to business needs
- Application roles
- Specialized for specific use cases?
- Should application roles be equivalent to services?
- Receiver responsibilities (Contract?)
We should plan to evangelize to a list of groups, and seek their input.
- Foundation Steering Division
- Technical Services Division
- Work groups as needed
1- 1:45 – lunch
2- 3 – Service Specifications, Conformance
- Ed Larsen presented his suggestion to HITSP that HITSP adope a Services Based ENterprise Architectue to augment or replace its existing framework.
- HITSP does not develop standards
- Policy makers and industry create a use/modification request
- Interpoerability Specification
- Transaction package - set of transactions
- Transaction components or standards
- Component translates to payload
- all derived from base standards.
- Some have come into the Framework sideways, picking and choosing
- Need to move framework into architecture
- Need to define how far down the stack the conformance testing goes
- HL7, CEN, and Eclipse are developing Services based architectures
- Ed walked us through the IS01 HITSP spec (laboratory to EHR).
3-4 – 2bBAM modeling
John walked us through the Conceptual Functioal Service Specification (CFSS) Protocol Abstraction Document. It defines things that should be defined in lower services. The document itself is implementation neutral. John discussed via e-mail the ArB Deliverables for september. We will wait until after the TSC call the see what John Q. expects.
4-5 – open discussion with Observers
The meeting was adjourned at 5:00pm US. EDT Tony 20:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)