Difference between revisions of "20100204 arb minutes"
|(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)|
|Line 1:||Line 1:|
'''Architecture review Board Meeting Minutes'''
'''Architecture review Board Meeting Minutes'''
|Line 113:||Line 114:|
Latest revision as of 18:55, 18 March 2010
Template:Arb minutes Architecture review Board Meeting Minutes
February 4, 2010
|Curry, Jane||Yes||ArB||Health Information Strategiesfirstname.lastname@example.org|
|Grieve, Grahame||?||ArB||Kestral Computingemail@example.com|
|Julian, Tony||Yes||ArB||Mayo Clinicfirstname.lastname@example.org|
|Koisch, John||?||ArB||Guidewire Architectureemail@example.com|
|Loyd, Patrick||Yes||ARB||Gordon point Informatics LTD.||firstname.lastname@example.org|
|Lynch, Cecil||Yes||ArB||ontoreason LLCemail@example.com|
|Mead, Charlie||?||ArB||National Cancer Institutefirstname.lastname@example.org|
|Ocasio, Wendell||?||ArB||Agilex Technologiesemail@example.com|
|Parker, Ron||Yes||ArB||CA Infowayfirstname.lastname@example.org|
|Quinn, John||?||ArB||Health Level Seven, Inc.||jquinn@HL7.org|
|Shakir, Abdul-Malik||?||ArB||Shakir Consulting||ShakirConsulting@cs.com|
|Smith, Karen||Yes||Guest||HL7 Technical email@example.com|
|Thompson, Cliff||Yes||Guest||OntoSolutions LLCfirstname.lastname@example.org|
- Call to Order
- Approval of Agenda
- Approval of minutes
- TSC results
- Action Items
- Other business and planning for next meeting
Call to order
The meeting was called to order at 10:05 with Ron as Chair and Tony as Scribe. Quorum was achieved.
Approval of Agenda
The agenda was approved by affirmation
First rough draft of governance framework(GF) - Jane
Jane Curry: Looking for extra set of eyes to review. Figure when ready for peer review I can close this action item. Jane presented the current structure of the GF. Did not do much formatting. Thanks to Cliff for producing a concept map. Added sections on how to apply, and align the framework with specifications. What does it take to collaborate across organization, as well as tooling.
- Jan Curry: Want to snime on the Undertanding the Governance Framework Map.
- Ron Parker: I see terms from the ECCF and BF.
- Jane Curry: Had to connect provenance and traceability.
- Ron Parker: I suspect an effect on BF and ECCF.
- Jane Curry: I found a couple of places where slight tweaks were necessary. YTou have a share purpose, that requires interoperability.
- Ron Parker: Continue with walkthrough.
- Ron Parker: You say you had to stop - what is problematic?
- Jane Curry: We are talking about adoption communities, and the work to become part of one. I did not discuss how standards are set, and tooling is built.
- Ron Parker: Great stuff - I dont see enough narrative - service contract template needs to be addressed.
- Jane Curry: There are elements, but not in the template format.
- Ron Parker: Needs to speak to where the concepts land. Not before pushing to listserv. If Jane provides context, is it a good idea to push to listserv? Sanity Check time!
- Jane Curry: Not ready for peer review.
- Jane Curry: need guidance on connection to other documents, and where expansion needs to take place.
- From the TSC meeting today.... Turns out TSC still wants us to do all the work.
- That 3rd item on harmonization meetings... that could be a very interesting discussion on the part of the group. Maybe I will throw a little deck together. Or better, ping Grahame and John on what they think it should look like.
- Name has been changed to SAIF. ArB is responsible for communications plan. I will write a short article for the HL7 news letter updating the community on the SAIF Book, name change, EA-IP, etc.
- TSC approved - expects us to communicate the name change.
- Jane Curry: Get on newsletter, BLOG, something short and catchy. It will mean that we will have to re-work documentation from SAEAF to SAIF.
- Ron Parker: Wait until we get comment back until we change the documents? Will it be confusing if we provide the new name, then produce materials under the old name.
- Jane Curry: We need to provide banner telling reviewer to read SAEAF as SAIF.
- Peer review process will be discussed in detail next week. However, the TSC endorses it and will at least partially sponsor it.
- TSC wants a concrete proposal for initiating RIM-style harmonization meetings – which they favor conceptually – including sample harmonization materials. Discussion is postponed until the ArB can provide materials for discussion
- Ron Parker: Asked Charlie can TSC provide elaboration? TSC wants US to think about what it would look like - from a process perspective. Implications of SAIF. What are inputs, and outcomes? How might this look and feel? What is the nature of the participation? When?
- Jane Curry: We need to finish the framework before we can harmonize - probably after the fall meeting. In Rio we will be dealing with changes from peer review. Implementation guidance will get engagement from work groups - everyone must be on with it. The IG is HL7 Enterprise Architecture specification for specification development. The IG defines the artifacts, relationships. We have not clarified artifacts. As we excercise it, harmonization will address the challenges. Governance if the right people are in the room will address.
- Jane Curry: The spec stack started with the references, but we moved out. References have to be congruent across artifacts. We have to do alignment between EHR-FM and the RIM. Moreso true to aligning the BF. We need to have core concept around what are the elements we need to address. Where are the governence in the health systems enter in? Need to drive into methodology, and artifacts.
- Ron Parker:Patrick - Does this resonate?
- Patrick Loyd: Yes
- Ron Parker: We need to surface what we believe harmonization is - at the spring WGM.
- Patrick Loyd: We need to justify what it means to them.
- Ron Parker: We need to address why we are doing this - not answer "Because John Quinn said so". We need to declare that it should start in the fall, that it is working, and effective. We need to say so soon. We dont need answer, just publish the intentions. We have made effort to communicate. On a subsequent agenda, we should use minutes, and create an outline, for TSC.
- Jane Curry: I ran into in on GF. I started from end-vision. Industry is requiring coherence. Maybe a discussion paper that needs to be surfaced.
- Ron Parker: I feel that the moment would be before we have finalized the IG - draft of the IG would kick off the discussion. What are artifacts? workflow?
- TSC wants to know if the Orders and Observations SAIF project charter was approved by the ArB. Answer?
- Ron Parker: Did we approve OO project?
- Jane Curry: We approved, but did not look at project scope statement.
- Patrick Loyd: Dont know.
- Jane Curry: I know we did CDA-R3,
- Ron Parker: ArB was keen for this.
- Patrick Loyd: I will go through it, send out to ArB, and we can review on the next meeting.
- Jane Curry: In August we agreed to a list of projects, and assigned liasons.
- Ron Parker: If Patrick wants to restate it, it will appease TSC. Thanks Patrick.
- Who has done what
- 1411 - not done anything
- Ron Parker: 1414 - attended FTSD, informed that we are doing a peer review, PIC process was updated. Asked FTSD , the PIC says you have to target mandatory reviewers. FTSD agreed that the groups involved are required, declared InM for ECCF, MnM for Governance. After that is it open? Absolutely. I asked for list of those who have to review - if other groups choose not to respond, that is ok.
- Ron Parker: We will need to turn on line numbering before the review. I tested with FTSD that will review, and consolidate comments, provide disposition 3weeks before the WGM. We would expect people to invite us to their meeting to address resolution.
- Jane Curry: It is a logistics problem.
- Ron Parker: We would take standing agenda time to do it.
- Jane Curry: It is an implicit reward - if they address as a group, we will give them a reward by attending.
- Ron Parker: They can adjust their agenda. The flip side is that we manage their expectations that the framework parts that are missing.
- Ron Parker: Charlie McCay noted that there is not a SAEAF tutorial. I dont think it is the make or break, specially since we are doing peer reviews, and are not ready to teach Governance.
- Patrick Loyd: It is a marketing problem - even though we have provided the information in the past, it is a perception issue, we need to do everything we can to fight the perception that the SAEAF is not out there. The common complaint is that people cannot find the information. We need to repeat, since many co-chairs have not been able to attend. We need to provide that outreach.
- Jane Curry: Could we mitigate by providing the tutorial deck with multiple links. Maybe we could do it in the newletter.
- Ron Parker:We need to get the information now.
- Jane Curry: Would co-chairs attend?
- Patrick Loyd: At the last meeting there were co-chairs present.
- Ron Parker: It would be useful for a different presenter. I will talk to Lynn. We need ECCF and BF again, since both have the intro. By that point we would have feedback. The deck is too hard to read.
Other business and planning for next meeting
- Call to order
- Review of Agenda
- Approval of Minutes
- Review of Action Items
- Review of GF
- Review of OO project scope statement.
- Other business and planning for next meeting
Tony Julian 15:44, 18 March 2010 (UTC)