Difference between revisions of "20100117 arb minutes"
|Line 1:||Line 1:|
Revision as of 17:54, 17 January 2010
Architecture Review Board
January 14, 2010
DRAFT -expect final by 17:00 U. S. PDT.
|Curry, Jane||Yes||ArB||Health Information Strategiesemail@example.com|
|Grieve, Grahame||Yes||ArB||Kestral Computingfirstname.lastname@example.org|
|Julian, Tony||Yes||ArB||Mayo Clinicemail@example.com|
|Koehn, Marc||Yes||Guest||Gordon point Informatics LTD.||firstname.lastname@example.org|
|Koisch, John||Yes||ArB||Guidewire Architectureemail@example.com|
|Loyd, Patrick||Yes||ARB||Gordon point Informatics LTD.||firstname.lastname@example.org|
|Lynch, Cecil||No||ArB||ontoreason LLCemail@example.com|
|Ocasio, Wendell||Yes||ArB||Agilex Technologiesfirstname.lastname@example.org|
|Parker, Ron||Yes||ArB||CA Infowayemail@example.com|
|Platt, Joe||No||Guest||Ekagra Software Technologiesfirstname.lastname@example.org|
|Quinn, John||No||ArB||Health Level Seven, Inc.||jquinn@HL7.org|
|Robertson, Scott||No||Guest||Kaiser Permanenteemail@example.com|
|Shakir, Abdul-Malik||No||ArB||Shakir Consulting||ShakirConsulting@cs.com|
|Smith, Karen||No||Guest||Technical Editorfirstname.lastname@example.org|
|Thompson, Cliff||No||Guest||OntoSolutions LLCemail@example.com|
Call to order at 9:00am U. S. Eastern
- Sunday Q1
- Call to order
- Approval of Agenda for Sunday
- Approval of Agenda for WGM
- Approval of Minutes
- Review of Decision Making Practices
- TSC update (Ron Parker)
CM: We (arb)submitted and voted on membership criteria. TSC made non-substantive changes, which was published. TSC voted on and passed. Changes were TSC control over membership: preponderance of membership and perception of competance.
Tony sent an e-mail to Lynn to obtain.
CM: TSC was active and productive for ARB and SAEAF. Discussion over the course of day about governance, and how it will happen. Issues about timing of SAEAF. ArB is not doing a good job of disseminating the SAEAF. To adopt takes top-down, and to implement takes governance. We need to do Architectural Harmonization.
CM: NCI believes that SAEAF is intellectual property of HL7. Multiple organizations will have implementation guides. HL7 needs to worry about it's knowledge, and the HDF. NCI will support the tools to manage, and share the tooling to manage the SAEAF-derived semantic comtent, which they will share with the larger community.
CM: We need governance: What we need to do is to go back to TSC with concrete notion of a architectural harmomnization would look like. How do we capture, and manage it.
Discussion was held about the aspects of SAEAF and TOGAF.
WO: There are a significant numbr of items in the stack that are addressed in both.
CM: There is no real need to even do a formal alignment. The excercise is to make sure your framework is covered by both.
JK: What does TOGAF say about conformance? SAEAF is an instance of TOGAF that focuses on interoperability - for a given community.
AB: SAEAF is not an instance of TOGAF. We need to enable the instances to exist, and interoperate.
RP: Challanging for us to maintain SAEAF as an alternative or form of enterprise architecture - it is risky. Produce aretifacts that will export to HL7, to be used to build architecture.
(Insert rons drawing 1)
CM: Focus on interoperability. TSC discussed the name again.
RP: Causes me angst - having to change the name to convey the meaning. People are desparate for coherent strategy for interoperability. We are grossly over-selling this - we need to tone down the rhetoric.
CM: Closing the gap between rhetoric and reality.
RP: We need to discuss communication strategy: Enterprises do not need to build saeaf - they need to rely on a robust SAEAF expression of working interoperability(WI) to achieve it.
AB: Do not use SAEAF and enterprise architecture in the same breath.
AW: Whitepaper on SAEAF vs TOGAF would be useful.
RB: My experience with TOGAF will not change SAEAF.
JC: SAEAF is a filter.
RB: Zachman is about business architecture. TOGAF will not solve the problems SAEAF addresses - and vice-versa. SAEAF is to deliver interoperablity.
AW: COnclustion that it offers a toolkit, that will produce something like SAEAF.
RP: Premise is that I have a project, and I need to use achieve WI. Not Radically different, we are discussing the WI. There are huge implications of the understanding - business needs to be able to determine where it fits in the SAEAF.
RP: How does HL7 show derivation from the SAEAF? Is XYZ in the requiremenst? Where in the SPec?
JK: At NCI have undertaken to understand HITSP interoperability spec( not core). A lot of alignment to the Behavioral Framework. Heart of it is traceability. Must be generally expressed in terms of EHR-FM, and how do you express in services? Work is maturing. Will share with ArB when ready.
CM: Goal is to get SAEAF into the federal health mindset.
- Behavioral Framework (John Koisch)
JK: document is not ready.
JC: How mature is it?
CM: Not a question of content shifting, concern over unclear specifications.
WO: What level of specificity is needed?
JK: What are you trying to establish with a BF? HL7 has been focused on information exchange. My question to Charlie is, given people misunderstanding, what are we trying to get out of doing the BF?
CM: People will say it is too general, insufficient. Woody is vehement about why it is not being used today.
PL: We have methodology at a 10,000 foot view, but not at the lower levels.
JK: Woody wants to see the schema to go in the mif.
AW: People in the UK want a short, lucid presentation of what is in it. The simple version should have been written first.
PL: we need to define a slice of artifacts, going to several groups, and one group must coordinate. We have three facilitators on OO. We agree that the whole list is invited to discuss.
AW: When will we see the ballot?
JK: Today, the BF was comissioned for the ArB to do. I was trying to get vote from ArB - content has not moved in 9 months. The BF is suitable for having the same discussion, of how enterprise a and B support busines process. Does not mean it supports a MIF schema. The BF is not ballotable - it is generic - and is like looking at TOGAF.
RP: NOt a normative artifact.
PL: Need to ballot the framework in some form. At the same time we will need to ballot the architecture. MIF: I with ron and lloyds help defined requirements for model.
JK: We also have AMS models.
PL: I modeled the requirements.
JK: what the BF is right now, vote on whethere it expreses how HL7 needs to define conformance on interoperability. SAEAF - ITS expression, and MIF schema - should be compliant. We have not covered how we will ballot a service?
PL: What are the pieces?
JK: We have an ontology.
RP: Question - What constitutes sufficient evidence that we can declare due diligence. The content is stable - the problem is how to land the spec, with how it can be achieved. There are others ready to consume the BF without HL7 spec. Question is this:(BF is not in DITA yet).
RP: What constitutes due diligence?
GG: I dont think you will like my answer. We need a normative ballot using it. Until we have done that, we may have to re-visit the framework.
RP: It worries me. In Canada we had gaps between the spec and the anticipation. We need to get it out.
GG: Clearly the process requires a process. You cant get there until you do it.
JK: What do we ballot?
MC: Once you have done that, I suggest that we are worried about reaction, but what I am hearing is that we have a clear idea which we have not communicated. Today it is at this stage - and has three more steps to go through. Every one of the three chapters will go through say three steps to validate, and we have not written it down.
JC: We have committed to go DSTU before we go normative.
CM: We are conflating two issues - communication, and the notion of needing ballot. Having been 4 months of ECCF documentation, with edits, it is not perfect. I am 150% in favor of getting it out. The first round of comments, and did edits. Why would we vote on the BF?
PL: There is a high level view, and a down to earth view, what do we vote on?
RP: Vote on language and notion on use, with the evolution explained.
JK: We vote on the document to agree on how it is represented. It will move a bit. Vote as a governance step - that the path of a framework is the path of a framework.
RP: Will not commit unless they have sense of stability. What do you (arb) members need to verify the stability.
JK: BF is the part of SAEAF that communcates the computational framework. Maybe we dont need to vote on it.
RP: When can we put it in the DITA. THis meeting we will notify publishing of the content.
CM: You are conflating what we decide and what publishing decides. Karen does not want to put something in DITA if there are substantive changes. We can agree, but if there are 50 unanswered question, Karen will not put it in.
JC: DITA is focused on topics - if we are still re-organizing, then putting it in DITA will drive you nuts. Once the topics are mapped, we can wordsmith the items under the topics.
JK: IMHO the questions out there are not valid - we need a release so we can go further.
RP: Are there question that the ArB has?
JC: There are comments we need to review. The process has been to go back to the questioners to see if the re-wording is acceptable. One reviewer is seeing inconsistancies. I cant tell if the questions have been addressed. I would ask Charlie and John, can we get a version with all of the questions resolved? The structure re-work is a huge effort.
CM: John has a few figures to fix, and the comments from the 5 reviewers have been addressed.
JC: Need EA to save as svg. Can use EMF. AMS has a set of models, that needs to be expressed in EMF.
JK: Model has been exported as HTML.
WO: DITA needs vector graphics.
JK: Load up the tools, so you can get at the EAP file.
JC: Karen does not have tools.
JK: I will do it. If there is a image format issue, the consumer should solve it. You want people to work with the elemental things.
WO: I dont need to have visio to look at the RIM models, what is the diffence.
RP: What is the source of truth. If we have to regen for each change, John would rather regen the core files, and the consumer will change to the view they need. This is a publishing excercise.
JK: I will send it to Karen.
JC: As raw graphics, so they can be added as appropriate.
RP: We need a business process on methodology on content change and expression.
JK: You understand my concern.
JC: We just need to understand the toolkit. We need to make changes in diagrams.
RP: Need to understand fit between SAEAF and TOGAF.
- Call to order
- Blueprint2015 Alpha Project (Ron Parker)
- Stan Huff's Product Strategy work
- SAEAF XHTML Review
- Governance Review and Discussion (Jane Curry)
- Call to order
- Governance Review and Discussion(Jane Curry)
- Tuesday Q4
- Call to order
- Approval of Agenda for Quarter
- Review of Membership Criteria
- Discussion on Alpha Presentations to date(Alpha Facilitators)
- Wednesday Q4 - Alpha Projects JAM session
- Thursday Q3
- Call to order
- Approval of Agenda for Quarter/Day
- SAEAF and RIMBA (Michael)
- Results of meeting w/technical services( Ron Parker)
- Items brought up this meeting
- Call to order
- Approval of Agenda for Quarter
- Schedule for SAEAF document Publishing
- Other business and planning
- Telcon Schedule
- Next WGM meeting schedule (day/quarter)