20100415 arb minutes

Template:Arb minutes Architecture review Board Meeting Agenda

April 15, 2010

Agenda

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

April 1, 2010 March 25, 2010

• Review of action items

http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/project/saeaf/tracker/?action=TrackerItemBrowse&tracker_id=590

• Peer Review
• Soa Ontology media:SOA_Healthcare_Ontology_Project_Scope_Statement_2010-03-22.doc
• Review of Wiki Pages
• Other business and planning for next meeting
• Adjournment

Minutes

Attendance

Name	Present	Affiliation	E-mail address
Bond,Andy	?	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	?	II4SM	dale@zed-logic.com
Ocasio, Wendell	Yes	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
Koehn, Marc	Yes	Gordon point Informatics LTD	marc.koehn@gpinformatics.com
Laasko, Lynn	Yes	Health Level Seven International	lynn@hl7.org
McGaughey, Skip	Yes
Peres, Greg	Yes	CA Infoway	gperes@infoway-inforoute.ca
Robertson, Scott	yes	Kaiser Permanente</td?	scott.robertson@kp.org
Smith, Karen	Yes	HL7 Technical editor	karen@smithspot.com
Thompson, Cliff	Yes	OntoSolutions LLC	cliff@ontosolutions.com

Call to order

The meeting was called to order at 11:00am U.S. EST with Ron Parker as chair,and Tony Julian as scribe.

Approval of Agenda

Agenda approved by affirmation.

approval of Minutes

MMS to approve the minutes of the April 1, 2010 March 25, 2010 telcons (Tony/John K) (8-0-0)

Peer Review

Ron Parker: Documents with exception of GF are done. Jane needs to push GF.

Jane Curry: Having problems getting consistent answers, will have by monday.

Ron Parker: There will be a lot of dialog on this topic. We need to get it out the door. Lynn: My other problem is barely keeping my head above order. I need help getting the announcemen/notice put out. I presumed I would push to FTSD list, and push to general HL7.

Lynn Laasko: I can help with that Ron.

Ron Parker: Would like to do so this afternoon. This creates a problem - only 4 weeks to review. I need help on how to action that. We need to give four weeks.

Charlie Mead: Are you asking what we will do?

Ron Parker: We will not have time before the WGM to disposition the comments - and push back to commenters. We will have issues to discuss.

Charlie Mead: In the best of all worlds we need a finite period, then organize and disposition. Could we have a productive round based on the first two weeks.

Ron Parker: We should be prepared to dedicate 30 minutes on each call to the responses. We ask for speedy delivery of comments. Lets say that. No question - it is hard to say what the comments will be.

Jane Curry: TSC is meeting as well.

Ron Parker: We will divide and conquer. Tony - see if we can find a place to meet. We have time on Sunday to discuss the peer review - will determine on Sunday.

Ron Parker: We will go with what we have, and push the GF when it is done.

Karen Smith's Questions

Ron Parker:the WI document shows that SAIF is application of a framework. What we say is that set of specifications can be incorporated by other organizations - rather than roll there own. We have provided a framework - which allows WI with other enterprises. Purple boxes are not necessarily organizational.

Charlie Mead: My comment - the first graphic is confusing, but starts to make sense with the explanation. Purple boxes look like subsets, instead of enterprises - obscures the stairway to heaven. WI always requires work to secure interoperability. It also obscures the cloud picture.I think I understand the WI graphic. It is more specific than the cloud.

Ron Parker: It says that others may interoperate.

Charlie Mead: The simplified Triptic does help the pink/blue one to be more understandable.

Scott Robertson: I think I understand the coloring now, exists in a range of flavors, and defines interoperability. I think it works well.

Ron Parker: Triptyc should be in intro/executive overview. A lot of people are not operating in the model - how do we participate with the complex entities.

Charlie Mead: Cloud diagram depicts that. SAIF says that if you get to the bottom of the stairway-to-heaven you are ready to talk. It says nothing to enterprise - it is helpful go adopt SAIF to get one grammer.

Ron Parker: SAIF has a framework from which we generate WI specifications. Because the WI specs are created within the SAIF framework, you have understanding.

Greg Peres: Missing the lifecycle of feedback to SAIF.

Jane Curry: One of the themes in the governance framework.

Greg Peres: The problem with the simple diagram is that it does not show the lifecycle.

Ron Parker: We need to resolve it, simplify, not overly complicate, to allow the un-initiated to understand. My challenge is that it is difficult for one picture to solve all the nuances. I need feedback on the interitive nature - allows refinement.

Jane Curry: In simple put arrow from Interoperable products to SAIF with text 'Learns from'.

Ron Parker: Charlie?

Charlie Mead: Missing a couple of things. The iterative nature, and the simplicity of the cloud.Do we push it out and see if there are complaints. I am sending Ron a picture.

Tony Julian: We need to get it out

Charlie Mead: I agree -there is nothing wrong with that.

Ron Parker: EAS design does not belong in overview.

Cecil Lynch: CDAR3 shold be under Instances. What we are trying to get to is when any system takes a clump of data and writes to the database, they have to persist it somewhere - only if the application understands the model, and can query it out. The instances need to be produced semantically consistent. CDAR2 is not semantic with V3 - datatypes are constrained. What SAIF give you is extending it out to enterprise of any size. CDAR3 in instances.

Ron Parker: Will incorporate into graphic.

Soa Ontology

MMS to approve the Soa Ontology Scope Statement (Cecil/Charlie Mead) (8-0-0)

Cecil Lynch: We spent time with Security to align with SAIF, and less tie to implementations, and constrain the scope. What Ken Rubin did, looking at the traffic on the other ontologies, re-wrote this. Similar to Security and privacy, to create a taxonomy to classify SOA artifacts, and define business use cases.

Charlie Mead: Will communicate to TSC.

Lynn Laasko: Should we re-circulat to co-chairs for comment before TSC votes?

Charlie Mead: If reduced or clarified does it have to go back?

Lynn Laasko: If a scope is changed, it gets re-circulated. Puts it out another week.

Cecil Lynch: Which co-chairs does it go to?

Lynn Laasko: It goes to entire co-chairs as well as international.

Ron Parker: That means it goes on the agenda for the 26th.

UPDATE: 

Per e-mail from Lynn Laasko 201004151148 "To all parties of interest in the Health Interoperability Service Ontology project: Contrary to what I said in the ArB conference call today, I have already sent out the updated version of this document to the co-chairs and international admin lists, and so it has been added to the agenda to come for a vote at the TSC on Monday the 19th (it does not have to wait until the 26th). It is being tracked on the TSC Issues list at # 1435 - see http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/project/tsc/tracker/?action=TrackerItemEdit&tracker_item_id=1435."

Other business and planning for next meeting

• Call to order
• Approval of Agenda
• approval of Minutes
• Review of action items
• Review of Alpha Projects
• Peer Review
• Other business and planning for next meeting
• Adjournment

Adjournment

Meeting was adjourned at 12:00 U.S. EDT Tony Julian 16:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC)