20090122 arb telcon minutes

Architecture and Review Board Meeting Minutes January 22, 2009

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
Hammill, Dave	Yes	Guest	HL7 HQ	dhamill@HL7.org
Julian, Tony	Yes	ArB	Mayo Clinic	ajulian@mayo.edu
Koisch, John	Yes	ArB	NCI	koisch_john@bah.com
Loyd, Patrick	Y	ARB	Gordon point Informatics LTD.	patrick.loyd@gpinformatics.com
Lynch, Cecil	Yes	ArB	ontoreason LLC	clynch@ontoreason.com
Mead, Charlie	Yes	ArB	Booz Allen Hamilton	charlie.mead@booz.com
Nelson, Dale	Yes	Arb	II4SM	yogi@jellystonepark.gov
Parker, Ron	?	ArB	CA Infoway	rparker@eastlink.ca
Quinn, John	?	ArB	Health Level Seven, Inc.	jquinn@HL7.org
Shakir, Abdul-Malik	?	ArB	Shakir Consulting	ShakirConsulting@cs.com
Bear, Yogi	?	Guest	US Dept. Interior, Park Service	yogi@jellystonepark.gov

Call to order

The meeting was called to order at by chair <name> with <name> as scribe.

Agenda approval

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

• Call to order
• Roll Call
• Approval of agenda
• Approval of minutes of the Orlando Working Group Meetings
  • Orlando Thursday Q3-Q4 Minutes
  • Orlando Tuesday Q4 Minutes
  • Orlando Sunday Q1-Q2 WGM Minutes
• MOU with othere SDO;s
• State of the SAEAF
• State of the BF
  • Need for a project tracker
• The Grid
• Other business, and planning for next meeting
• Adjournment

Approval of minutes

MMS to approve the minutes of the <meeting> as posted to <posting site> by Jane/Cecil Vote:(7-0-1) Orlando Thursday Q3-Q4 Minutes Orlando Tuesday Q4 Minutes Orlando Sunday Q1-Q2 WGM Minutes

MOU with othere SDO;s

Tabled pending information from Abdul-Malik Shakir

State of the SAEAF

CM: After going through the slides for 2 tutorials, I am thinking that we decided in principle, the slide deck should be organized the same as the SAEAF. They should be two presentations of the same material. I am two hours from sending it out - sometime tomorrow. Will use the deck as an outline of the SAEAF - smoothing out - incorporating the Behavioral Framework(BF). We are reasonably close to having something. There is a desire to push the SAEAF to a larger audience. John will make sure that Charlie did not mess up the content. Should be out by Wednesday morning of next week. JC: The slide about the grid needs work, with commentary about the cells therein. CM: We talked about it, but did not get around to it. There will be one more round of critical changes. We need to clarify it. JC: If we dont get those right, the rest does not matter. CM: Maybe what Jane is saying is stronger - not release slide deck until it is reviewed, with time box, done NLT February 5, 2009. JC: Clearing my desk so I can concentrate on it. JK: There has been the usual screaming from the crowd with the dispositions. I have replied that they are all available. We need to post them again. TJ: We did, yesterday. CM: I sent Tony the matrix, which he posted. Somehow Jason Rock was bringing it up. He said analysis artifacts will not be required because the powerful people in HL7 wont let it happen. JK: We need to send out an e-mail to the foundation group, and the others where it has been posted. TJ: I sent it out this morning.

State of the BF

JK: I redid the behavioral framework. We felt it needed to be a separate document. (Wendell joined) W: What is the argument? JK: It includes all the pieces of the documents that has not been laid out before, therefore should be included in SAEAF. There are portions of the BF that need to be separate, e.g. patterns. The verbose models would be more palatable to othere domain groups. W: Does it have a different governance? What is the bottom line? JK: After the ARB delivers a good starting point, it needs to stop being a project of the ArB, and needs to be part of InM or MnM. W: If it has different goevenance it needs to be elsewhere. JC: The BF describes design that is different from the base content of the SAEAF. Core principles document explains to the point it does not need to be in SAEAF. BF needs to be imbeded in a methodology. As we move forward, finding where this stuff is to be talked about in greater detail. CM: All of these perspectives are right, but the discussion is premature. There is a lot of stuff beside the BF in SAEAF - all of these discussions will be important. JK: The rest of the update: all of the changes from last week, and the previous weeks, have been rolled in. We need a Gforge project tracker for the BF. CM: Congratulations, the BF has moved forward. JK: Close but no cigar? Alan said is is much closer than that. I will send out updated copy. CM: There are substantive issues as well as inconsistancies. JK: Boy is that true. A lot of those are getting take care of. JC: We have a new version of the consolidated SAEAF. Should we have a new peer review? CM: Yes, what is the harm? JC: None CM: To mollify those who think we are doing things behind closed doors. JC: People want a copy passed by them. JK: The SAEAF and BF with the expectation we are going to meet in April at Harmonization. Going ahead and having it out the next week, and calling for comments is a good thing, and taking the next steps going through a formal review process at the harmonization meeting is a good thing. JC: We need to identify the additional work that the ArB needs to do, and feed it into the next rollout planning phase, so everone knows the dates.

• Need for a GFORGE project tracker

Tony Julian will establish, and notify ArB of location.

• Need for a separate e-mail list
• Need for separate meetings at WGM

The Grid

SAEAF_Constraint_Pattern