20090129 arb telcon minutes
- 1 Architecture and Review Board Meeting Minutes
- 1.1 Attendance
- 1.2 Call to order
- 1.3 Roll Call
- 1.4 Agenda
- 1.5 Approval of agenda
- 1.6 Approval of minutes
- 1.7 Agenda for Las Vegas
- 1.8 Update on project tracker for Behavioral Framework
- 1.9 Are there other projects that need trackers?
- 1.10 Update on Behavioral Framework
- 1.11 Update on SAEAF
- 1.12 The Grid ...
- 1.13 Other topics ....
Architecture and Review Board Meeting Minutes
January 29, 2009
- Call info:
- DTM: Thu Jan 29, 2009 03:00 PM (US Eastern Time, GMT -5)
- Phone Number: 770-657-9270
- Participant Passcode: 854126
|Curry, Jane||Yes||ArB||Health Information Strategiesfirstname.lastname@example.org|
|Grieve, Grahame||Yes||ArB||Kestral Computingemail@example.com|
|Julian, Tony||Yes||ArB||Mayo Clinicfirstname.lastname@example.org|
|Loyd, Patrick||Yes||ARB||Gordon point Informatics LTD.||email@example.com|
|Lynch, Cecil||Yes||ArB||ontoreason LLCfirstname.lastname@example.org|
|Mead, Charlie||?||ArB||Booz Allen Hamiltonemail@example.com|
|Ocasio, Wendell||Yes||ArB||Agilex Technologiesfirstname.lastname@example.org|
|Parker, Ron||?||ArB||CA Infowayemail@example.com|
|Quinn, John||?||ArB||Health Level Seven, Inc.||jquinn@HL7.org|
|Shakir, Abdul-Malik||Yes||ArB||Shakir Consulting||ShakirConsulting@cs.com|
|Bear, Yogi(template)||?||Guest||US Dept. Interior, Park Servicefirstname.lastname@example.org|
Call to order
The meeting was called to order at 3:02 U.S. Eastern by chair John Koisch with <name> as scribe.
See Attendance for a list of participants
- Approval of agenda
- Approval of minutes January 22, 2009 Telcon
- Agenda for Las Vegas
20090415_arb_OOC_agenda JK: Do we have the high level topics? This is the draft agenda submitted to JQ:. There are quite a few that need financial support. JQ: has everything he needs, and we should hear by Monday for final approval. JC: This falls right at the point where the TSC's project for the SAEAF rollout - are we going to engage with anyone on that project. JK: One of the things we will request, Mark ? from Infoway is approved. We will ask him to join the ArB weekly to make sure we are in sync. The other part of the answer is that the bits from the grid dicussion, educational materials, and SAEAF re-write. We should add a section on the agenda, with other points for interaction. JC: We have a track of work that is dependent on that. April 15 is in fromt of the Kyoto WGM, and we should have what will be done. JK: You are right Jane, we need to be responsive to the TSC.
- Update on project tracker for Behavioral Framework
TJ: Wilfred Bonney, HL7 HQ reports that the tracker will be available on Friday, January 30, 2009. Tony will notify the ArB mailing list and other interested parties. JK: I will send a list of access. JC: Anybody on the ArB should have an account on project homebase. JK: Any other projects that need trackers?
- Are there other projects that need trackers?
JK: Any other projects that need trackers? TJ: The tracker is for the SAEAF. JK: We will need to organize it into parts: Behavioral Framework and other parts. JC: Administrator can categorize. JK: If overarching project is SAEAF we are good.
- Update on Behavioral Framework
JK: Alan Honey and I put together a last release version of the BF based on the version I sent out last friday. It is stable enough to move forward. The BF project , JK: is collection the input to put on a tracker. He has sent to Charlie.
- Update on SAEAF
JK: Charlie has sent to the list the introduction and introductory slide deck. He has turned it into multiple topics that we can track. His due date is Feb-9-2009. Once it is published we will call for peer reivew comments, and other issues. We will adjudicate those in april. JC: Should people do their comments through the tracker? JK: Good idea. JC: Minimizes the hassle factor for reconcillation. JK: Specially given it is now six documents. He has finished the first section, and is working on the rest. Send comments to Charlie, or hold off until it gets published. JC: IS the update of the grid getting back to it? JK: Yes.
- The Grid ...
SAEAF_Constraint_Pattern JC: I do want to go there. Take a hard look at it. I looked at which cells are signed up. JK: I signed up for two as author. Everybody can sign up as a reviewer on at least one section. JC: Cells are named for their intersection at the conformance level, with the intent of the cell and candidate artifacts. As of this morning, no one had changed. I think we should identify which ones have missing authors. I would like to get some sense. CL: I am having trouble getting in to edit a cell. It cannot retrieve my e-mail - keeps failing. PL: Contact email@example.com to work out the issues. JC: I put my name down for the full enterprise viewpoint, so I can see how the refinements and transformations work. i added the cells at the implemental level. CL: I am signing for conceptual design. DL: Can we sign up? JK: It is on the wiki. JC: Reference Business is me. Italics name means they are responsible. Any disagreement? JC: Analysis Business: I will elaborate if there is agreement. Any Disagreement? WO: SOme aspects are more specific to the behavior of an application. JC: Conceptual design: I will take silence as agreement. JC: Implementable design: Some of the rules, E.G. Arden syntax,GELLO belong appropriately here. CL: Whye is it the conceptual? JC: Should be implementable. WO: What cell would bind to business rules. JC: we need to have the conversation on the transformations/binding between cells, to reflect it in the grid. WO: Do we expect that there is traceability down for all the cells? JC: yes WO: what does the business rules trace to at the conceptual levels? JC: business context AMS: business roles JC: There are other artifacts at the design - the policy engine for business rules. These are candidate, but not exhaustive. WO: At least a starting set of candidates. We should have a sense of traceability. I wanted to walk through it - feel free to add artifacts. CL: What i am hearing is that there is some tyope of poster child to walk through it. WO: I am new, and am trying to understand. For the bottom cells, there needs to be traceability to those above. CL: You can trace a GELLO rule. It walks through from the business model, everything down to writing the rule. JC: It strikes me that GELLO and Arden are references that belong in this viewpoint. CL: I agree. the specification and implementation is in the lowest level. JC: I agree. I mad sure that everything in the previous version gets here - I moved and added stuff. I did not add GELLO or Arden at that viewpoint. JK: Five Minutes. AMS: Ten Minutes?/ JC: Who will take ownership, and is the intent correct? JL: I think so. JC: Reference - Informational. AMS: The line that says bridge model should be DAM. JC: One level down. The domain is very broad. Bridge is not a RIM-based model. CL: It is a rim based model. JC: It is a rim-derived model. JC: There are levels in each cell we need to document. I would be happy to put it in as a DAM. CL: A lot could go in a number of different squares. We almost need a context column. If you think of building a DAM in HL7, the RIM is at a higher level. JC: DOmain alaalysis model can be expressed w/o the RIM. CL: It must be agnostic depending on your viewpoint. JC: Agree with description of Anlysis-informational. AMS: I will take this cell, and bridge should be removed from reference to analysis. JC: Agree AMS: anything can be used as a reference, but that does not make it a reference. JC: Look at conceptual design-informational JK: Dams are ballotable? JC: this is constrained to the RIM at HL7. AMS: DIM used to be a DMIM. JC: Design informational model? I found wording that confused the DIM with the DAM with the DMIM. AMS: DIM works fine. CL: AMS - where do you see the DIM feeding from or to? Into or our of domain analysis. AMS: DIM conforms to domain analysis. CL: Abstractly, this is from concept mapping, the first thing I do is a conceptual model JK: Rename that stratta? AMS: we ballot this JK: Logical at that level AMS: if we make that change, we will modify material. JK: Charlie will be chaning. MMS AMS/CL to change conceptual design to logical. (8-0-0) AMS: drop the work design. JC: Good to have Wendell review. JK: Dale and Patrick and Wendell please sign up as reviewer. WO: Give me what is left. JK: Add notification to the technical newsletter as well. TJ: Will add.
- SOa workgroups practical guide
- Technical newsletter
- Status of MOU's
AMS: Discussed with Richard and Chuck. The section to be revisited
- Other topics ....
Approval of agenda
MMS to approve the agend below <PL:/JC:> Vote:(8-0-0)
Approval of minutes
MMS to approve the minutes of the January 22, 2009 Telcon by JC:/DN: Vote (8-0-0)
Agenda for Las Vegas
Update on project tracker for Behavioral Framework
- Wilfred Bonney, HL7 HQ reports that the tracker will be available on Friday, January 30, 2009. Tony will notify the ArB mailing list and other interested parties.
Are there other projects that need trackers?
Update on Behavioral Framework
Update on SAEAF
The Grid ...
Other topics ....
- The following will be posted by e-mail to ALL of HL7 thursday:
Services Aware Enterprise Architecture Framework (SAEAF) Version 200902
"The HL7 Architecture Review Board(ArB) has finished the first peer review of the Services Aware Enterprise Architecture Framework (SAEAF) document. The disposition of the comments may be found at
The next release of the SAEAF document will be posted on or about February 6, 2009. Interested parties may obtain a copy of the SAEAF document as well as the peer review form with submission instructions at
All peer review forms are due to the ArB by March 9, 2009. The Arb will review the peer review April, 15-17, 2009 in conjunction with the Harmonization meeting. "