20081218 arb minutes

Architecture and Review Board Meeting Minutes

December 18, 2008 Back to Agenda-minutes

Attendees

Name	Present	With	Affiliation	E-main address
Curry, Jane	Yes	ArB	Health Information Strategies	janecurry@healthinfostrategies.com
Grieve, Grahame	?	ArB	Kestral Computing	grahame@kestral.com.au
Hamill, Dave	Yes	Guest	HL7	dhamill@hl7.org
Julian, Tony	Yes	ArB	Mayo Clinic	ajulian@mayo.edu
Koisch, John	Yes	ArB	NCI	koisch_john@bah.com
Lynch, Cecil	Excused	ArB	ontoreason LLC	clynch@ontoreason.com
Mead, Charlie	Yes	ArB	Booz Allen Hamilton	charlie.mead@booz.com
Orvis, Nancy	?	ArB	DOD	nancy.orvis@tma.osd.mil
Parker, Ron	?	ArB	CA Infoway	rparker@eastlink.ca
Quinn, John	?	ArB	Health Level Seven, Inc.	jquinn@HL7.org
Rogers, Rich	Yes	Guest	IBM	rrogers@us.ibm.com
Shakir, Abdul-Malik	Yes	ArB	Shakir Consulting	ShakirConsulting@cs.com
Yongjian, Bao	Yes	ArB	GE Healthcare	yongjian.bao@med.ge.com

Call to order

The meeting was called to order at 3:05pm U.S Eastern by chair Charlie Mead with Tony Julian as scribe.

Agenda approval

MMS to approve the agend below <name/name> Vote:(0-0-0)

• Call to order
• Approval of agenda
• Approval of minutes of the November20 and December 11 meetings
  • 20081120_arb_minutes
  • 20081211_arb_minutes

• Review of Education slide deck discussion
• ARB should vote/comment on these things:

1. revisit the MOU between HL7 and OMG
2. ARB needs to make some kind of comment about Governance - HL7 standards need to be HL7 standards. If we adopt another standard, it becomes part of our governance structure.
3. the ArB needs to make some comment about the focus of the SOA WG with regard to HL7 business, as well as the way that it represents HL7 to the HSSP project. Regarding this latter, the issue is specifically making sure that HL7's interests are being met through the HSSP project's intersections with other SDOs like OMG and ASC X12.

• Orlando Detailed Agenda
• Other business, and planning for next meeting
• Adjournment

Approval of minutes

MMS to approve the minutes of the November 20 and December 12 as posted to <posting site> by <Jane/Abcul-Malik> Vote:(5-0-0)

ARB should vote/comment on these things:

1. HL7 should revisit the MOU between HL7 and the Object Management Group (OMG )

• The CDA document for OMG is not complete - yet that standard coming from OMG will move forward without HL7 input.
• OMG has offered that HL7 have a seat at OMG meetings - the details have not yet been worked out.
• What happens to HL7 materials after they move to OMG or X12

JC: This is part of the decision that will have to be made as there is collaboration is done between SDO's. None of the SDO's have the mechanism for a joint decision. There was a problem with IHTSDO - the expression language being promoted for public review of TERMINFO is dependent on it passing. We were recommending that it be given our notification that it was reviewed as OK. Does HL7 need to ballot, and what does the process look like? We have inadequate processes for joint decision making. We do not want to slow it up, but without any guidance of the board-level governance of any groups we will not have adequate, reliable, repeatable results. There will be more cases of doing our part, throwing it over the wall, and then someone else drops the ball.

JK: HL7 has not described the business processes - the Services Aware Enterprise Architecture Framework ( SAEAF ) does so. IF SAEAF gets adopted, the need to specify behavior will need to be done. Who does own the process? I think HL7 should.

JC: We have the opportunity to specify the traceability, and show at the implementation guide that it meets the requirements for the beginning. HL7 needs to own the specification of information structures. It should go into the MOU between HL7 and OMG.

JK: Right now the MOU states that HL7 describes technical specification that is handed to OMG. Is there a need for it to come back through the HL7 governance processes, so that an OMG specification gets blessed by HL7?

JC: The idea of it coming back for another cycle at HL7 will slow things down. There must be some particulars of the agreement about where the specifications are allowed to vary, with evidence of traceability. That is a more constructive approach, basically putting ourselves in their shoes. How would you like to be treated by another SDO? Should the development be done in a joint fashion? The formal spec. review process is owned by one or the other; members should be able to participate in the process.

JK: we need to pass a motion that there is a more formal agreement between HL7 and sister organizations that allows HL7 to participate.

JC: The traceability back to the business requirements needs to be addressed.

AMS: The MOU specifies how each organization participates in the work of each other. Right now the MOU states that each member can attend at member rates, but to have voting rights you must have to be a member of the organization. We are suggesting that HL7 become a member of OMG.

JK: That is what was recommended by Richard Soley. There should be some flavor of it. The board would have to decide who would appoint the members. For w3c or OMG the members should be appointed by ARB, but ISO by the board.

AMS: Any member of OMG could attend HL7 at membership rates.

JK: Or could you specify that certain members attend.

AMS: Who is HL7? Not the members- if HL7 joins OMG, who is joining staff?

JK: Appointed by HL7.

AMS: HL7 only has two employees.

RR: The employer is not significant, they could have a role.

JK: There is a feeling that HL7 interests are not represented at OMG.

AMS: A person can be appointed, but they must represent HL7, not their employer, and cast their vote accordingly, regardless if it is counter to the employer’s desires.

JK: Should an organization have veto rights?

JC: It is reasonable to say that HL7 does not consider the resulting specification conformant to the business requirements should we discover it.

JK: Back to traceability.

JC: The critical requirement is to maintain traceability right to the end. We need to emphasize this, since it may seem to be threatening.

JK: This needs to be a motion to recommend to the TSC.

Motion:

ARB makes a series of recommendations to the TSC to revisit the MOU between HL7 and OMG in light of the discussion. Jane Curry/  Abdul-Malik Shakir.  (6-0-0)

AMS: Who on the board is the keeper of MOU's? It used to be me; I was also on committee relations.

JC: I think it is Chuck Meyer. Most MOU's are drafted in consultation with the organization.

JK: HL7 need to decide how to do MOU's, in particular this one.

JC: If Chuck is not, then he will do it.

AMS will follow up on this.

JK: What is your timeline?

AMS: January 8, 2009

JK: Could you circulate something to the ARB prior to January 8, 2008 so we can discuss it before the WGM?

AMS: Is January 6, 2009 ok? I will want to talk to someone in HL7, as well as Richard Soley.

Recommendation that ARB issue series of topics for SOA

JK: SOA workgroup wants a more concrete set. Last week I put together a straw man proposal for things the SOA workgroup should potentially discuss. I think that Galen was willing to re-visit the agenda.

RR: SOA discussed the items during the Telcon this week: SOA workgroup has revised the agenda. There were only a couple of questions of being in scope.

JK: The really big issue is that those issues should be picked up. None of those things are things that the ARB should do, except the Behavioral Framework. We are trying to find a home for some of the issues - if they do not belong to ARB they should be handled by SOA or INM. The issue for the ARB is that if the list is not sufficient, the additional items should be submitted to the list and SOA.

JK: Any other SOA workgroup Items.

SAEAF

JK: the slide deck latest version will be updated this evening.

CM: I hope to have a re-tooling of the deck based on giving it to a live audience before Christmas.

JK: We can have a sidebar call afterword.

CM: My experience is that most of the material is good, but there are a few overt errors. There is some inconsistency in the layering of the information. The ordering is not right. Slide 12 or so needs to be in the front, but starting at current slide 1 is confusing.

CM: There are some ordering problems.

JK: halfway through the deck we get into the user case - how integration proceeds, the 'stairway to heaven'. Having that up front, right after the history, may be a helpful thing - it frames how the rest of it lays out. We are not that far away. The education session has over 40 signups.

AMS: It is because of whom is giving it.

JC: Timing - those working in a multi-organizational environment are interested on what this represents. One other suggestion right around stairway to heaven, to point out that people have to go through these stages.

JK: There is a sentence about short cutting the lead time for development.

Orlando Agenda

JK:

• WGM Saturday Q1 is joint meeting with the TSC to work out.
• Are there things I missed in the straw proposal? (No answer)

JK: I left Thursday open.

TJ: The agenda is posted to the WIKI: Orlando Agenda

JK: TSC will run a session with everyone invited to discuss the SAEAF. Other discussions will include the project manager for the SAEAF implementation. ARB needs to be there to support and answer questions. The impacts will be discussed there, I do not know if they will be brought up.

TJ: Agenda has been updated to account for meeting both Q3 and Q4 wednesday.

JK: If there are updates to the agenda, it is getting more concrete.

JC: Can someone send me the current information so I can define tooling requirements.

JK: I will send you a copy as soon as I can, before Christmas.

JC: So I will have half a chance to integrating it into my database. The current publishing database is on the plate to be revised.

JK: No meeting next week, or the following week. We can call sidebars if we need them.

JC: A critical success factor should be to nominate Tony for volunteer of the year.

CM: I concur.

JK: I agree.

Adjournment

The meeting was adjourned at 4:03pm U.S. Eastern.