20091217 arb minutes

Architecture Review Board

December 17, 2009

Back to Agenda-minutes

Attendance

Name	Present	With	Affiliation	E-mail address
Aneja, Paul	?	Guest
Bond, Andy	Yes	ArB
Curry, Jane	Yes	ArB	Health Information Strategies	janecurry@healthinfostrategies.com
Grieve, Grahame	?	ArB	Kestral Computing	grahame@kestral.com.au
Hufnagle, Steve	?	Guest
Julian, Tony	Yes	ArB	Mayo Clinic	ajulian@mayo.edu
Koehn, Marc	?	Guest
Koisch, John	Yes	ArB	NCI	koisch_john@bah.com
Loyd, Patrick	Yes	ARB	Gordon point Informatics LTD.	patrick.loyd@gpinformatics.com
Lynch, Cecil	?	ArB	ontoreason LLC	clynch@ontoreason.com
Mead, Charlie	?	ArB	Booz Allen Hamilton	charlie.mead@booz.com
Nelson, Dale	?	Arb	II4SM	dale@zed-logic.com
Ocasio, Wendell	?	ArB	Agilex Technologies	wendell.ocasio@agilex.com
Parker, Ron	yes	ArB	CA Infoway	rparker@eastlink.ca
Peres, Greg	?	Guest
Platt, Joe	?	Guest	Ekagra Software Technologies	jplatt@ekagrasoft.com
Quinn, John	?	ArB	Health Level Seven, Inc.	jquinn@HL7.org
Robertson, Scott	Yes	Guest	Kaiser Permanente	scott.m.robertson@kp.org
Shakir, Abdul-Malik	Yes	ArB	Shakir Consulting	ShakirConsulting@cs.com
Smith, Karen	Yes	Guest	Technical Editor	karen@smithspot.com
Thompson, Cliff	Yes	Guest	OntoSolutions LLC	cliff@ontosolutions.com
VanArsdall, Eddie	?	Guest

Agenda

• Call to Order
• Approval of Agenda
• Approval of Minutes December 10, 2009 Minutes
• Follow up on the web publishing requirements for SAEAF book and action plan.
• Review of the Behavioral Framework.
• Review of Karen's SAEAF Book work to-date.
• Review of ARB Membership Qualifications
• Other business and planning for next meeting
• Adjournment

Call to Order

The meeting was called to order at 6:00 PM U.S. Eastern by vice-chair Ron Parker with Tony Julian as scribe.

Approval of Agenda

The agenda for the meeting was approved by affirmation.

Approval of Minutes

MMS to approve the minutes of the December 10, 2009 Minutes <Tony/Jane> <9,0,0>

Follow up on the web publishing requirements for SAEAF book and action plan.

RP: Patrick got us on the agenda WED Q2 in Phoenix. It will take some time to get it posted. Karen expects that we will be able to test before making the link public.

JC: Marc Koehn would like the preview available to the alpha.

RP: Karen: Is it possible to produce an HTML rendering?

JC: We can do a zip html version into subversion.

KS: Yes. That would work for the #2.

RP: Very good - provide for electronic services, and have dialog.

RP: We dont need full representation of each group.

JC: We have to make sure issues are captured and shared.

PL: Agreed.

JC: Eddie is working on comparison of tools and costing, with evaluation ready early next week. NCI is aquiring tools a tht same time - make sure we are congruent with NCI choices, to leverage effort.

Review of the Behavioral Framework.

PL: Grahame produced a framing document. John Koisch added his comments. Patrick and Austin met collated, and sumarized. Produced outputs to Grahame and John, who just met. John, Grahame, Patrick, Austin have work. We will have prime form for WGM to do foundation.

JC: Coordinating with charlie

JK: Patrick talked about OO topic. Charlie and I have updated a bunch of stuff, Charlie will provide final edit. Will provide to ArB over the break. Vote on it second week of january, to take back to HL7. It will be a good framework. Still waiting for Charlie.

JC: Charlie is finalizing ECCF, and will work on BF today and tomorrow.

RP: Acton items? what are our expectations for the WGM.

JC: Governance is not to Karen - she is polishing ECCF and the DITA map for BF. I have a draft of the structure. I have to do major restructuring.

JK: Will spend a fair amount of time with OO to validate the V3 messages, as well as service specifications. The WED afternoon discussion may have BF implications.

RP: John you are doing tutorial?

JK: Thursday afternoon Q3, Q4.

TJ: ArB meets Thursday Q3, Q4.

JK: Look for me in the bar :-);

Review of Karen's SAEAF Book work to-date.

KS: Edited ECCF documents and updated the artwork. I want to add the intro to the Data page, and then chapter 6 right now. That is where I am at. After that, then I will start adding ECCF information with the DITA document.

RP: Any major challenges?

KS: A lot. I have to change a lot of the DITA.

RP: Any assistance needed let us know.

KS: OK, I will. Thanks for offering to help.

KS One more thing - I would like a long-term goal. I would like to see the artwork conform to SVG format because the message looks more sharp than the other artwork for what we are doing.

RP: Do we need to do the conversion?

KS: My husband is working with that.

RP: Better reproduction.

JC: What is SVG?

KS: SVG is a traditional factor art format.

PL: Scalable Vector Graphics

RP: Presents better in different resolutions.

JC: Do you do a save-as?

RP: Dont convert JPG to svg, use BMP

JC: What output should I use?

RP: Good question.

GG: Save as EMF Enhanced Metafile

PL: Visio will as well.

RP: Anything else for us?

KS: No.

Review of ARB Membership Qualifications

Review of document: RP: Applogize for the formatting. (displayed the comments)

AMS: number of committees appointed by the Board, ArB being one of them.

RP: Suggestion that Chair/Vice-chair be from different organizations. We should describe the merits of what we are trying to achieve in terms of balance.

RP: I am sensitive to the fact that I have not come up through the organization. Chair responsibility is to moderate, and get the members to provide the things needed.

AMS: Not all that concerned. It could create some challenges as people change organizations. Not an issue for me.

JK: Agree with AMS, for a different reason. I am not sure we should take the leadeship where we can find it, whether small or big organizations. Force the CTO to see where the ideas are coming from.

RP: Speak to the spirit of what we are trying to achieve. Only concern I have is that we expect the chairs to do the preponderance of the work - chairs should not be highly vested in the work.

JC: Positive - Membership of ArB as a whole is to provide perspectives of the golbal ineroperability community over a range of roles and participation.

RP: Charlie suggested a rotating appointment cycle, so we dont dump the whole thing.

JC: Current turn-over was for ability to serve - can be replace by someone else if TSC/CTO agree. We need to understand the terms. i would not like to see it less than one year.

RP: Should not sumarily dump and add resources. Declaration in advance, and declare renewals that allows people to offer, as well as resign 0- and allows the gorups to take into consideration. Should be declaration of intent.

JK: The reason a lot of these rules are is to avoid the concensus driven aspect - there is a feeling that you could not drive this through concensus. i would love to see some sort of validation/evaluation by TSC. How may initiatives has the ArB put through?

RP: CTO may appoint, but accountability is to the TSC. Asking for TSC to evaluate and assert to the CTO. Is the TSC opinion to be binding?

JK: Do'nt know the best way to achieve - just that it should be evalutate.

RP: Will provide evaluation criteria for re-appointment.

RP: Renewed terms NEED/NEED NOT reqire TSC approval - defer to the TSC.

AMS: Term should be two years, instead of one.

RP: Agree.

DN: Agree, anyone coming in new is six months to figure out what is being done.

JK: The 'r' in ArB is review - to train each other.

RP: Will change language with track changes, and circulate. John made it clear hw would like it to be resolved. I will send around in short order, and ask for replies on the listserv. If we have majority assent, I will take to TSC next monday.

GG: IF we wont be able to meet the requirement?

RP: Will fix 'B', and provide language as to balance from the various perspectives. Architects that dont knwo HL7 in a leaderstip roel would be a problem.

AMS: Essential that the chairs have BOTH requirements.

JC: Interoperability at a major level may be more than intra-enterprise - should be working in multi-orgaizational interoperability community we are targeting.

RP: is that limiting?

JC: Take someone from another industry who does not know HL7, that perspective would be valuable over a single organizational architecture.

RP: Problem I have is with CTO's appointment - that the TSC would ensure that the CTO does not appoint anyone who did not meet the qualifications. Resonable expectation on part of TSC.

AMS: Criteria should not be too stringent, because the future direction of HL7 is unknown.

RP: one or both of criteria at the discretion of the CTO. The other qualifications are capacity to serve.

JK: It is interesting to conceive of ArB to moving to governance instead of project structure. There is governance screaming to be dealt with, as well as projects, which HL7 nees to manage.

JC: Did we not say that TSC did governance, and we advised.

JK: There is a perception in the community that ArB will provide governance. The gulf needs to be filled.

RP: There are things that will fall to the ArB with a degree of goevenance that will be backed up by the TSC.

JC: organizational changes, or responsibility of work-groups would be TSC. Architectural artifacts and alignment should be approved at the ArB level.