20100211 arb minutes

Template:Arb minutes Architecture review Board Meeting Minutes

February 11, 2010

Back to Agenda-minutes

Attendance

Name	Present	Affiliation	E-mail address
Bond,Andy	Yes	NEHTA	andy.bond@nehta.gov.au
Curry, Jane	Yes	Health Information Strategies	janecurry@healthinfostrategies.com
Grieve, Grahame	?	Kestral Computing	grahame@kestral.com.au
Julian, Tony	Yes	Mayo Clinic	ajulian@mayo.edu
Koisch, John	Yes	Guidewire Architecture	jkoisch@guidewirearchitecture.com
Loyd, Patrick	Yes	Gordon point Informatics LTD.	patrick.loyd@gpinformatics.com
Lynch, Cecil	Yes	ontoreason LLC	clynch@ontoreason.com
Mead, Charlie	Yes	National Cancer Institute	meadch@mail.nih.gov
Nelson, Dale	Yes	II4SM	dale@zed-logic.com
Ocasio, Wendell	?	Agilex Technologies	wendell.ocasio@agilex.com
Parker, Ron	Yes	CA Infoway	rparker@eastlink.ca
Quinn, John	?	Health Level Seven, Inc.	jquinn@HL7.org
Shakir, Abdul-Malik	?	Shakir Consulting	ShakirConsulting@cs.com
Guests
Robertson, Scott	Yes	Kaiser Permanente
Smith, Karen	Yes	HL7 Technical editor	karen@smithspot.com
Stevens, Helen	Yes	Gordon Point Informatics Ltd.	helen.stevens@shaw.ca
Wrightson, Ann	Yes

Agenda

• Call to order
• Review of Agenda
• Approval of Minutes

February 4, 2010 Minutes

• Peer Review with PIC/Helen Stevens
  • Review of proposed "required" reviewers for Peer Review
  • Review of proposed time line for Peer Review
• Review of OO project scope statement.
• Review of HL7 Project Scope Statement SOA Ontology R1.
• SAIF document review schedule.
• Other business and planning for next meeting
• Adjournment

Call to order

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

Review of Agenda

Approved by affirmation

Approval of Minutes

February 4, 2010 Minutes

 MMS to approve minutes as written Koisch/Loyd. (10-0-0)

Peer Review with PIC (Helen Stevens)

• Review of proposed "required" reviewers for Peer Review
• Review of proposed time line for Peer Review

Ron Parker: I did update to review document: (Presented on screen). Would expect FTSD work group to review. This will be an open call, but there is a required minimum list.

Helen Stevens: When you disposition you will give them equal weighting?

Ron Parker: Yes, it is just to be sure that FTSD has engaged. Strong element to make sure everyone that wants to can touch the material. Helen: You agree that six weeks is required.

Helen Stevens: Send out a general announcement at the end of this week, with the schedule. Send to HQ to include in newsletter.

Ron Parker: Charlie is doing a piece on SAIF. I will send out announcement tomorrow, and another when ready.

Helen Stevens: Make sure everyone is welcome, and every commenter will be recognized.

Ron Parker: What are our options? Do we need to host slots for people to come, or go to them.

Helen Stevens: You go through them and disposition - then you schedule quarters at WGM, publish as disposition schedule. At the WGM a lot of Work Groups block vote on the typos, then set agenda on contentious comments. You might find voter unable to attend, so you might discuss by phone.

Ron Parker: So all are aware of disposition, and have ability to discuss.

Helen Stevens: Since this is closed ballot pool, you will not have to do reconciliation ballot - if you cannot resolve with voter, escalate to the TSC through Ron or Charlie. Difficult to assess room needs. Need to know latitude

Helen Stevens: make sure you publish.

Jane Curry: Thought we would visit group Sessions at the WGM

Ron Parker: May not be able too - too many groups, not enough quarters.

Helen Stevens: If you are going to resolve MnM comments in joint with MnM, you need to publish to entire list of voters.

HSSP SOA Service Ontology Statement

Charlie Mead: Several people think this should come from SOA, not HSSP. Ann has agreed. Other issue is the scope - ontology was thought to be taxonomy. Concern by TSC that ArB was not listed in the document. Also, the TSC wondered why the ArB wasn't listed as an Interested Party or somehow more involved. Given that it appears that the project is an attempt by some of the signed up members (not you, certainly) to offload service definition to "the real software people" in OMG, the TSC is concerned about the management and control of the project.

John Koisch: Any problem with defining a governance model. - statement to that fact in scope statement. Far Reaching. . .

Charlie Mead: It is large, says they will provide everything there is to know about services.

Ann Wrightson: Charlie is right - there is a multiplicity of direction. I have had a good look through the documents. I think it is wrong to be bureaucratic. We need to give space on what needs to be done, without complicated with complexity. One of the ways to tackle, would be to approve ontology. There are several views for modeling. Togaf/SOA ontology was preferred by some - OMG SOA need to agree on modeling. Lets focus on the ontology - I found three different ideas of governance.

Charlie Mead: TSC issue was it was brought forth as an HL7 project, and once that happens, they will operate under HL7 Standards - there are i's to dot, t's to cross. One of the problems with HSSP is separating SOA WG from HSSP. There needs to be a clearer boundary within HL7.

Ann Wrightson: It would be helpful to come back to SOAWG with not so extreme statements. It does not help to imply that there is not HSSP, and there should be a distinction between HSSP and SOA WG.

Charlie Mead: TSC thinks relationship between HL7 and OMG is good idea. Only negative language is from one person who says HL7 should give this to OMG.

Ann Wrightson: One person single issue campaigning should not be a focus point. ArB recommendation should be for a collaborative approach. Recommendation so far is to pick up TOGAF and the OASIS model. Cecil Lynch: objectives and deliverables ignores services-specific ontology's.

Ann Wrightson: There are more documents behind this one.

John Koisch: What was unclear is the desired outcome. The scope is broad - is this normative, HL7, Outreach model, Framework? There are a lot of flavors of this.

Ann Wrightson: There is not a unity of vision on that. Their plan has three steps - taxonomy, ontology, governance. We need to focus on ontology. Provide guidance on reference ontology.

Ron Parker: ArB should work with SOA to refine.

Charlie Mead: The ArB vote that the current scope statement NOT be approved as is and that the group work with the ArB to author a more bounded, clearly stated, and achievable scope for TSC approval. This work may involve -- but not be limited to -- the creation of a series of more clearly bounded projects according to the group's (apparently) overarching plan not published in the scope statement." Charlie Mead/Andy Bond (10-0-0)

Charlie Mead: I will convey to TSC.

SAIF document review schedule.(Karen Smith)

Karen Smith: Peer review would start with paperwork as is, and would like a second review on July 12, 2010. That would give five weeks.

Ron Parker: Based on peer review, we expect changes in DITA, will need to review the refined material in July-August time-frame.

Jane Curry: Will have to reconcile the comments.

Karen Smith: Hoping that by July we will finish up the behavior framework

Ron Parker: Hoped to have reconciliation done by end of spring WG meeting. Was not expecting a re-review, presumed that at that point it is good. Will have information framework, and Implementation guide by fall. How do we feel?Ron read schedule to Helen Stevens. Ron Parker: Believe we need six week of review. We can get the material out by end of week, material to required reviewers end of next week. Do we expect Karen to update for spring meeting?

Jane Curry: Commit to name change, and snapshot available for spring meeting.

Karen Smith: I can do that and work by July 12 for second review.

 MMS to accept the schedule as proposed Jane/Patrick. (10-0-0)

Other business and planning for next meeting

Next week:

• Review of OO project scope statement.
• Task force statement
• Action Items:

Adjournment

Meeting was adjourned at 7:00pm U.S. Eastern Tony Julian