20090114 arb minutes
January 14, 2009
|Curry, Jane||Yes||ArB||Health Information Strategiesfirstname.lastname@example.org|
|Grieve, Grahame||Yes||ArB||Kestral Computingemail@example.com|
|Julian, Tony||No||ArB||Mayo Clinicfirstname.lastname@example.org|
|Lynch, Cecil||Yes||ArB||ontoreason LLCemail@example.com|
|Mead, Charlie||No||ArB||Booz Allen Hamiltonfirstname.lastname@example.org|
|Parker, Ron||Yes||ArB||CA Infowayemail@example.com|
|Quinn, John||No||ArB||Health Level Seven, Inc.||jquinn@HL7.org|
|Shakir, Abdul-Malik||Yes||ArB||Shakir Consulting||ShakirConsulting@cs.com|
|Walker, Mead||No||ArB||Health Data and Interoperability Incfirstname.lastname@example.org|
|Yongjian, Bao||No||ArB||GE Healthcareemail@example.com|
|DeJong, Alex||Yes||Guest||Siemens Healthcarefirstname.lastname@example.org|
|Koehn, Marc||Yes||Guest||Gordon Point Informatics Ltd||Marc.Koehn@GPInformatics.com|
|Mckenzie, Lloyd||Yes||Guest||HL7 Canadaemail@example.com|
|Neel, Lyssa||Yes||Guest||HL7 Canada>||firstname.lastname@example.org|
Meeting was called to order at 3:30 by John Koisch with Grahame Grieve as scribe.
Meeting tomorrow is in Salon Q1 - Q4 Review of SAEAF with everyone as part of the Architectural Roll-Out On Thursday ArB will review mission statement
Central Lore of HL7
- Core Principles
MnM is committing to work on the HDF and core principles document, where SAEAF impacts on the MnM documents. MnM are revising their mission statement and scope. This raises wider issues about how architecture, methodology, and the various reference platforms are maintained.
OMG/HL7 ArB relationship
4 new touch points
- a healthcareInfrastructure email list shared between HL7 and OMG communities (and W3C) to discuss shared architectural/infrastructural issues. Email list to be announced when it's set up
- Possibility of a special joint meeting between OMG, HL7 and W3C communities to discuss shared architectural/infrastructural issues
- We discussed the possibility of holding an ArB out of cycle meeting co-located with an OMG meeting. This is something we should do if possible
- HSSP has offered for ArB to have a seat at the table for the EIS/RLUS finalisation task force. We are looking for someone to carry this role for us. Ron Parker to investigate whether he can source this effort.
AMS to follow up for the effect of all this and other OMG related relationship changes on the OMG/HL7 MoU
AMS's SAEAF concerns
- that we learn from HDF experience so that the project doesn't get stalled
- need to prevent proliferation of mis-information and mis-expectations
- Needs to be a roadmap with milestones for rolling out the SAEAF
- make sure the process is tolerant of divergant views without losing our directions
ArB adopted the concerns and Mark - who is acting as a project lead for one of the alpha projects - took note of them.
Worked with SOA on a RASCI chart in Q1 SOA worked on it more in Q2, and are planning to have a plan. ArB looks forward to further engagement with SOA on this matter. Possibility of some discussion on this in the grand 2 quarter meeting tomorrow.
PMO maintains project scope statement. Project scope statements have a new piece: will your project be creating artefacts that are not backwards compatible. Answers to yes trigger the PMO to look at the project more closely.
This requires a definition of what backwards compatibility is. Fortunately MnM has come up with a definition of what this means at http://wiki.hl7.org/index.php?title=Semantic_Backward_Compatibility
Motion: MnM has defined backwards compatibility for existing conformance points which MnM owns, and which ArB endorses. SAEAF proposes that we create new exit paths for standards associated with conformance points. ArB will need to work with appropriate committees to define backwards compatibility for each of these conformance points, and decide which committee is responsible for making backwards compatibility determinations. MnM is responsible for the determinations on the conformance points they currently own. For other existing conformance points ArB will work with other committees to ensure that proper backwards compatibility is defined.
We recommend that the PMO include space for yes/no/NA/comments below
Moved Grahame/Jane. Passed 5-0-1
Jane notes that we need to learn and bank our knowledge in this respect so that the same issues do not keep coming up again and again.
Action to be further discussed on telecon.
Motion To Adjourn (at 5:15!) Tony Julian