This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here

20081113 ArB Out of cycle

From HL7Wiki
Revision as of 14:20, 14 November 2008 by Ajulian (talk | contribs) (Undo revision 20540 by Ajulian (Talk))
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Architecture and Review Board Meeting Minutes

November 13, 2008 

Back to Agenda-minutes


Beeler, WoodyGuestNoBeeler
Curry, Jane ArB YesHealth Information
Duteau, Jean-HenriGuestNoHL7
Grieve, GrahameArB?Kestral
Julian, Tony ArB YesMayo
Klein, TedGuestNoKlein Consulting,
Koisch, John ArB
Lynch, Cecil ArB Yesontoreason
McKenzie, LloydGuestYesHL7
Mead, Charlie ArB NoBooz Allen
Ocasio, WendellGuestYesDOD/
Orvis, Nancy ArB?
Parker, Ron ArB YesCA
Quinn, John ArBYesHealth Level Seven,
Shakir, Abdul-Malik ArB YesShakir
Walker, MeadArBYesHealth Data and Interoperability
Yongjian, Bao ArB NoGE
Bear, Yogi(template)GuestNoUS Dept. Interior, National Park

8:00 Welcome

The meeting was called to order at 8:15am U.S. EST by John Koisch with Tony Julian as scribe.

Approval of Agenda

The following agenda was approved:

  • 0800 - 0830 -- Welcome, Approval of Agenda, Review of Wednesday's Meeting
    • Welcome
    • Approval of Agenda
    • Review of November 12 meeting
  • SAEAF Collaborative Governance with other SDOs
    • Discuss HITSP and NHIN
    • OHT
  • ??0830 - 1000 -- SAEAF Comment Dispositions and Revisions
  • 1000 - 1015 -- Break
  • 1015 - 1130 -- The Timeline for Implementation of the SAEAF
  • 1130 - 1230 -- Communication Plan
    • Education items and the SAEAF
    • Discuss times for the December Co-chair call and plan
    • Including the December Co-Chair Conference Calls and the January Free Education Session
  • 1230 - 1330 -- Lunch
  • 1330 - 1500 -- Review of past topics OR Conformance Testing and the SAEAF (cont'd)
  • 1500 - 1530 -- Break
  • 1530 - 1700 -- Review of past topics OR Impact Compilation, Next Steps, Review
    • HSSP Service Specification

Approval of minutes of november 12, 2008 meeting

Moved: That the minutes of the November 12, 2008 meeting be approved as posted/amendedBy/SecondTally

8:30 SAEAF Internal Governance

LM: DAM is not reference.

JK: DAM IS reference.

JC: End product has to be executable specification? All other are subset?

LM: Domain is part of the reference.

JC: EHR-functional profile is in analysis.

JK: Domain specific belongs in analysis.

LM:Within EHR-FM they are creating a reference artifact for other groups. Reference is external upon which you will base your analysis.

JK: EHR-FM is a reference artifact for most groups.

RP: The group creating an artifact creates an artifact which is reference for others.

JK: SAEAF is reference artifact for everyone except ArB.

AMS: Placement of artifacts is workgroup specific?

CL: We need a column called context.

JK: What Jane said is that you can use anything and squeeze it down to provide traceability. You can build your DAMs, RIMS, whatever, what brings it down to concrete is the determination of what is needed for this business case.

JC: I would like to see a matrix looking at it from the bottom up - at implementation stage, what are the artifacts and who is responsible, and where is the traceability.

JK: From the HL7 perspective this is part of the governance.

JC: Producer is workspace, for others it is reference. Take the business viewpoint all the way down, at Implementation stage they have to state all of the items in the conceptual and analysis, and they have to be able to sign up to that. You dont have a service until it is stated.

JK: All of this is in the engineering viewpoint/implementable design.

EL:THere are two things I am having trouble with:

  1. The viewpoints of RM-ODP do have a relationship, even if they are independent.
  2. The use of analysis: one is requirements analysis, but I would see it as conceptual design.

JK: Lets spend some time re-building the grid. We have to be able to produce a series of impact statements for other work groups.

JC: The impact is other HL7 WGs.

JK: The end-stage is governance, when WGs and other SDOs are making this implementable, that is enacted governance. We have to come up with a timeline and statements of impact.

JC:N/A in implementable design is wrong.

JK: Conformace at any lower level assumes conformance at the level(s) above it.

JC:We must collaberate at the Impl/Design level.

JK:You might make a statement here that if you are going to do this, do it this way . . .

JC: We were concentrating on inside the automation boundary, and have assumptions on what is outside the boundary, that somewhere need to be articulated. When you get it down to a service role there must be instructions. We need to look at it from the bottom up. What HL7 has not expressed is the criteria an implementor needs.

JK:XML flavored V3 is so hard.

RP:This is a business oriented look using XML.

Further documentation will captured in the slide The SAEAF( Part 4.1) The implementable Specification Stack - From the point of view of downstream specification consumers ROI vs Cost of development diagram

10:00 Break

10:30 SAEAF Internal Governance (Cont)

Discussions continued polishing the SAEAF Executive Overview deck.

Diagram SAEAF (Part 4) [[Image:SAEAF_Page9b.JPG | SAEAF (Part 4) JK: The entry point for a project team is at the Analysis layer.

JC:STRUCDOC is doing CDA R3.

JK:They are confusing the CDA functional profiles with CDA.

RP:Where does it land?

JC:What happens to the legacy ?

JK: The HL7 Development diagram:

HL7 cycle.jpg

MW:There would be a common definition based in the RIM.

RP:These RIM conformant thingies are harmonized RIM contact. The value proposition of participating in HL7 has to come back to some form of reference model.

JC:The specifications we produce are at the reference level, or derived from clinical/domain groups bringing the need, and formulating the specifications to meet the requirements.

JK:RIM and CDA are frameworks, that get cobbled together to meet a business purpose. HL7 produces frameworks, implementable things, or HL7 builds business stuff.

MW:As long as we dont allow people to use other information models. We only have one framework for information model.

JK:The business stuff is incorporated in the Conceptual Design and the Implementable Design. Harmonization is that new requirements are being applied to the framework.

JC:Either actual use exposes missing or incorrect pieces that you need to add clarity or fill in the gap. Actual use also identifies unused components that need to be withdrawn.

JK:The other bit on this slide is that to build the Conceptual Design and Implementable Design you need cross-functional teams in the analysis and reference spaces.

JK draws on pad: Two Lines of Business

  1. Application of Reference Frameworks

May include development of Reference Frameworks. A double swim lane of RM-ODP viewpoints. Function of Arb (structure) , MnM (execution) Arb Application of Reference FrameworksV1.jpg

    1. Build, borrow, or align
  1. "The business of Healthcare/Life Sciences/Regulatory Monitoring"

12:30 Lunch

13:40 Review of past topics OR Conformance Testing and the SAEAF (cont'd)

Continued refining diagrams for SAEAF Application of Reference Frameworks.jpg The business of Healthcare.jpg

15:00 Break

  1. Success Criteria
  2. Cost/Benefit Analysis
  3. Maturity Model
    1. Gap Analysis
    2. Strategy, Tactics, Priorities
    3. Recommendations and Timelines

16:00 Impacts

  • Some
    • Templates, Models, Pattern
    • Including project management documents
    • Checklist of artifacts?
  • Methodology for WG
    • RPF/EPF for modeling (can be extracted)
  • HDF needs to align with SAEAF
    • Refinement at the requirements level
    • Stronger than "recommended best practice"
    • Refinement of "produce specification" step
    • Decomposed and some replaced
  • SAEAF needs to be evolved along themes
    • Conformance/Compliance
    • 4 types of Governance
    • Constaint patterns expressed
      • Information
      • vocab
    • Transition to new formalisms
      • Business
      • computation
      • Information

ballot publication

    • Fold BF into SAEAF - or pull it out

  • Education
  • Tooling
  • Organizational Implications
  • Need for dedicated support to early implementors
  • 1-3 alpha projects
    • Criteria
    • Crosses two or more WorkGroups but less than 15
      • Not already under way - initiated but not started (in inception phase)
      • Crisply defined scope - no fuzzyness
      • Dedicated resources
      • Not about the foundational or structural
      • Meets a fully functional requirement
      • ISRS or behavioral specification
      • End-to-End business case with implementers ready to do it
      • Hit as much of the SAEAF framework as possible.
      • Could be a subcomponent of Mind map of Publishing

This is hard Oh shit Get over it

  • Adapatation of Infrastructure


Parking Lot
  • What is the dependency matrix of a spec? Regisry of implemented HL7 specs with version numbers
ACTION ITEM: what is the minimum requirements to publish?
ACTION ITEM: Require that implementations register.  If you dont register, we dont know to contact you if something changes.  Compliance certification (?) requires version.
  • 1-2Alpha Pilots
    • Criteria
    • Crosses two or more WorkGroups

15:30 Review of past topics OR Impact Compilation, Next Steps, Review

  • HSSP Service Specification
  • Next Steps
  • Review

17:00 Adjournment

The meeting was adjourned at