This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here

20100624 arb minutes

From HL7Wiki
Revision as of 17:04, 24 June 2010 by Ajulian (talk | contribs)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Template:Arb minutes Architecture Board June 24, 2010 Early Call


Name PresentAffiliationE-mail address
Bond,Andy No
Curry, Jane Yes Health Information
Grieve, Grahame No Kestral
Julian, Tony Yes Mayo
Koisch, John Yes Guidewire Architecture
Loyd, Patrick No Gordon point Informatics LTD.
Lynch, Cecil No ontoreason
Mead, Charlie No National Cancer
Nelson, Dale No
Ocasio, Wendell Yes Agilex
Parker, Ron Yes CA
Quinn, John No Health Level Seven,
Shakir, Abdul-Malik No Shakir
Haddorff, Richard No Mayo
Hufnagel, Steve Yes U.S. Department of Defense, Military Health System
Koehn, Marc No Gordon point Informatics
Laakso, Lynn Yes Health Level Seven
McGaughey, Skip No
Peres, Greg No CA
Robertson, Scott Yes Kaiser Permanente</td?
Rospide, Eddy No Albany Medical Center
Smith, Karen Yes HL7 Technical
Thompson, Cliff Yes OntoSolutions
Thompson, Cliff Yes OntoSolutions
Wrightson, Ann No HL7


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

June 17, 2010 Minutes

  • Peer Review

Karen Smith: My goal is to have all of the comments reviewed into the DITA by Sept. 17. I will have probably stuff for you to re-write about 6 weeks before Sept. 17 so I will have time. Ron Parker: We dont have assignments for resolution.

  • Discussing the (latest)IF from Cecil
  • Discust the (latest) GF from Jane
  • Touchpoint on IG.
  • collaborate with SOA on managing expectations for CTS2
  • OHT pilot value proposition survey
  • Other business and planning for next meeting
  • Adjournment

Call to order

Meeting was called to order at 10:05 U.S. EST with Ron Parker as chair and Tony Julian as scribe.

Agenda Approval

The agenda was approved by affirmation.

Minute Aproval

MMS to approve June 17, 2010 Minutes Wendel/Scott (5-0-0)

Peer Review

Steve Hufnagel: Comments from McKenzie where philosphical - you could spend a lot of time.

Ron Parker: There were a lot of questions. We need to reframe the issue, so we can go forward to result. We cant engage in a philosophical discussion. We met with Lloyd, and belive that a lot of his comments will be addressed in the Implementation Guide(IG). Overall, part of out challenge, we were working the problem outloud in the documents, and it still comes across as that in the documents. There are some elements that should go to Intro - documents should provide reference, but interpretation in IG's.

Steve Hufnagel: Are you asking us to restate the issue?

Ron Parker: Yes, in some cases we will have to have a dialog. We look at the question, the document, and other comments. We re-frame them in the context of what it is. If you can do that it would be huge. It is clear to me that some of the narrative needs to be sorted.

Cliff Thompson: I worked mostly with Ann's stuff - it was clear.

Ron Parker: In an IG you would talk differently to the developer than you would the consumer. He is so involved in the problem space of generating product, but does not understand the perspective.

Tony Julian: There are comments where Lloyd thinks that the PSM is all that is needed.

Steve Hufnagel: One of those who thinks the code is the document.

Ron Parker: We need to determine how to do the work. We need the technical editor to supply the word document.

Tony Julian: The authors should not have to learn DITA - they are volunteers, and have limited time.

Steve Hufnagel: Is there worth to DITA?

Ron Parker: It provides a way to extract the documents at various complexity. We need to understand the nature of the changes.

Steve Hufnagel: Could mark up the PDF.

Tony Julian: What PDF markup tools?

Steve Hufnagel:Comes with the reader.

Scott Robertson: Have to publish the document with that function enabled.

Steve Hufnagel: You dont edit the internal content, but instead add comment blocks.

Ron Parker: Karen can generate Word or PDF.

Steve Hufnagel: In that case, I withdraw my comments - use Word.

Jane Curry: It goes into word only to add the line numbers.

Ron Parker: We need another pass through the comments, then set up a call, or an extra call to work through them, then come up with conclusions on how to proceed.

Jane Curry: Did you get the note about John updating the BF?

Ron Parker: Yes. Try to get throught the comments.

Jane Curry: I am not working on the GF until after July 1.

John Koisch: BF Update: I triaged all of the comments for the BF - the tedious ones were from Lloyd, with whom I have discussed the comments. Sent e-mail to Tony, Ron, Charlie.

Ron Parker: We can address these differently.

John Koisch: There are some where we are so far apart that we will not join. Will have to create a MIF model of the BF. That will take a number of the comments to ground.

Ron Parker: That will help us. Did you look at any of Ann's comments?

John Koisch: No.

Ron Parker: Next week's call is on Canada Day.

Steve Hufnagle: It is imperative to get it done.

Ron Parker: So Tony will handle the call. The agenda will be working through comments. The goal for the next meeting is to have a plan. Karen needs it done by six weeks before Sept 17.

Karen Smith: My deadline is September 17, three weeks before the meeting in October. I can work on it in pieces.

Janne Curry: We need to have the content/disposition ready by the end of July. The wordsmithing ones are not as onerous, but if the BF is major, it is another iteration.

Ron Parker: What I sense is not a radical restructure, but rather a MIF guide. We would separate concerns.

John Koisch: The feeling is that if Lloyd could see what we are doing he would understand - but he needs to see the implementation guide. I discussed a lot of the material with him in Traverse City, Atlanta, Phoenix. He recanted when he read the document. His problems are systematic of other people - they are looking for the concrete.

Ron Parker: I agree - concreteness is part of the issue. The Framework is reference material for the inplementation guide - context on how it hangs together.

John Koisch: Lloyd things that the BF should not be seen by the general HL7 population. Most dont want to see the framework, they need to see I need to do x, y, z, and this is what it means to me. The IG will not be enough. The grid only makes sense to those who have been there.

Ron Parker: There is a lot to that. Call next week will be resolving. Karen: part of the problem is that the figures have text associated that does not match the text in the document.

Karen Smith: You can give me your comments, and I can do that.

Ron Parker: At the end of next week.

IF Update

Cecil was not present.

GF Update

Jane Curry: I have put it down until July. We have two IG's:

  1. HL7 one is covered in the GOM, other in project services. We will have to put quality criteria back.
  1. How does one outside of HL7 consider their governance?

Touchpoint onIG

We need two classes of guides. Charlie was planning on having IG's derived from the stuff coming out of the NCI

ROn Parker: John - any idea of when?

Jane Curry: Is that part of what Steve is doing?

John Koisch: It will be October to November timeframe for polished format.

Steve Hufnagel: We are targeting for October meeting socialization.

Ron Parker: Difficult to produce new product by October, but should be ready for January.

Jane Curry: People are taking to concrete level. We could include more authors on IG's. We had volunteers from Project Services. We need core principles and MIF ballot reconcillation. IT would be good to consider them for the BF and IF. We should schedule, not only resolution of SAIF comments, as well as who should be involved in IG work, other than ArB.

karen Smith: How many different IG's will they be? In the SAIF book or separate?

Jane Curry: Cant make that decision at this time. Need proposal for October WGM - what and who should be involved.

Karen Smith: That proposal would help me with my architecture - design of the SAIF book.

Jane Curry: The SAIF book dita structure.

Karen Smith: How many?

Ron Parker: at least 8.

Jane Curry: We are still learning.

karen Smith: See your proposal in October, I will see what to do with it, there are many ways.

Ron Parker: We will talk about later.

collaborate with SOA on managing expectations for CTS2

Ron Parker: There was activity with SOA on CTS2. Any responses? I was looking for feedback.

John Koisch: Cecil was involved. We had proposed to vocab that when the initial drafts came from OMG they needed vocab review -seems to require formal review facilitated by the Arb. It would be a good thing.

Ron Parker: We will pick up later.

OHT pilot value proposition survey

Jane Curry: The OHT board meeting is next week. The draft value proposition will be finalized two weeks from now. We need to have ArB as well as tooling weigh in with a unified response, issues as well as HL7

s response. The most important is clarity. We need comittment to respond when the request goes out - no later than two weeks on clairity.

Ron Parker: So look at it.

Jane Curry: If we dont respond we loose credibility.

Karen Smith: I have an announcement. We have three licenses for Oxygen and I have one thing that Jane wants to use for July we are going to try to see if we can get in the GF experience so we will have one or two licenses finalized if anyone wants to use it for authoring. Later on I will take the time to train people so you can learn the DA. I have a different way - it is fun.

Ron Parker: We will need to determine who needs to access it.

Other business and planning for next meeting

  • Call to order
  • Approval of Agenda
  • Review of Minutes
  • June 24, 2010 Minutes
  • Peer Review
  • Other business and planning for next meeting
  • Adjournment

Second meeting in July

  • Call to order
  • Approval of agenda
  • Approval of Minutes
  • July 1, 2010 Minutes
  • GF Concept Map - Jane Curry
  • IF - Cecil Lynch
  • Touchpoint on IG.
  • collaborate with SOA on managing expectations for CTS2
  • OHT pilot value proposition survey
  • Other business and planning for next meeting
  • Adjournment


The meeting was adjourned at 12:00 U.S. EST. Tony Julian 17:04, 24 June 2010 (UTC)