This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here
Difference between revisions of "20120115 arb WGM SanAntonio minutes"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m (→Minutes) |
m (→Minutes) |
||
Line 200: | Line 200: | ||
##Substantivity: | ##Substantivity: | ||
###This comes up because there is no substantive(ity) definition for non-wire format documents: Possibilities: | ###This comes up because there is no substantive(ity) definition for non-wire format documents: Possibilities: | ||
− | |||
###'A substantive change is one that changes the semantics of a given specification, i.e. representational changes should <<not>> be considered substantive in the context of the source specification itself <<unless>> such representational changes could semantically change down-stream derivative products of the specification, including either/both derivative semantics and/or derivative serializations or other wire-format-sensitive constructs.' | ###'A substantive change is one that changes the semantics of a given specification, i.e. representational changes should <<not>> be considered substantive in the context of the source specification itself <<unless>> such representational changes could semantically change down-stream derivative products of the specification, including either/both derivative semantics and/or derivative serializations or other wire-format-sensitive constructs.' | ||
+ | ###'''Motion''' To accept the definition of substantive change to be presented to the TSC. (Cecil/Steven) | ||
+ | ####A substantive change is one that changes the semantics of a given artifact; this applies to both normative and non-normative artifacts. | ||
+ | ####For artifacts that are normative, or are intended to be normative (ie: specifications) any change that affects conformity is substantive. By definition, normative means the artifact has conformity statement(s). If there is an extension to a normative artifact, it is substantive only if it adds or changes existing conformance statements. | ||
+ | ####For non-normative artifacts, any change that adds new content, or affects a derivative work is substantive. Editorial change or clarification of original content or semantics is not substantive. | ||
+ | ###'''Vote'''(8-0-0) | ||
+ | ###Tony will pick up the thread of resolving our negatives from that ballot and re-balloting this. | ||
+ | ###We speculate HL7 has never before balloted an item with only 4 paragraphs. | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
###The definition needs to be static, not dynamic. | ###The definition needs to be static, not dynamic. | ||
###We need to provide for specification that provide for implementation, as well as those that provide for compliance. | ###We need to provide for specification that provide for implementation, as well as those that provide for compliance. | ||
##Next Steps | ##Next Steps | ||
##Revisit Role | ##Revisit Role | ||
− | |||
##V3 Substantive changes | ##V3 Substantive changes | ||
##TBD | ##TBD | ||
Line 222: | Line 229: | ||
##Agenda for future Telcons, etc. | ##Agenda for future Telcons, etc. | ||
− | [[User:Ajulian|Tony Julian]] | + | [[User:Ajulian|Tony Julian]] 21:10, 15 January 2012 (UTC) |
[[Category:Arb Minutes]] | [[Category:Arb Minutes]] |
Revision as of 21:10, 15 January 2012
DRAFT
ArB Minutes
Detailed Agenda
Click here for meeting-at-a-glance
- Sunday Q1
- Call to order
- Agenda and Minute approval
- Saif Canonical Ballot Reconcillation
- 19 comments
- 2 persuasive with mod
- 1 Persuasive
- 1 Considered- No action required
- 14 not related - an incorrect spreadsheet was uploaded by an affirmative balloter.
- Membership changes
- Glossary
- Next Steps
- Revisit Role
- Architecture Project
- FIM co-sponsorship
- OO project and Implications
- SOA representation
- Message representation
- Sunday Q2
- Call to order
- Substantivity:
- This comes up because there is no substantive(ity) definition for non-wire format documents
- A substantive change is one that changes the semantics of a given specification, i.e. representational changes should <<not>> be considered substantive in the context of the source specification itself <<unless>> such representational changes could substantively change down-stream derivative products of the specification, including either/both derivative semantics and/or derivative serializations or other wire-format-sensitive constructs.
- Sunday Q3
- Call to order
- V3 Substantive changes
- TBD
- Tuesday Q4
- Call to order
- TBD
- Wednesday Q1
- - Joint with SOA at SOA
- Thursday Q3
- Call to order
- TBD
- Thursday Q4
- Call to order
- Wrap up
- Agenda for future Telcons, etc.
Meeting Information
HL7 ArB Work Group Meeting Minutes Location: San Antonio, Texas, USA |
Date: 20120115 Time: 9:00Am U.S. Eastern | |||||
Facilitator | Ron Parker | Note taker(s) | Julian, Tony | |||
Attendee | Name | Affiliation | ||||
X | Bond,Andy | NEHTA | ||||
X | Curry, Jane | Health Information Strategies | ||||
X | Constable, Lorraine | Constable Consulting Inc. | ||||
X | Hufnagel, Steve | U.S. Department of Defense, Military Health System | ||||
X | Julian, Tony | Mayo Clinic | ||||
X | Dagnall, Bo | HP | ||||
X | Loyd, Patrick | ICode Solutions | ||||
X | Lynch, Cecil | Accenture | ||||
. | Mead, Charlie | National Cancer Institute | ||||
X | Milosevic, Zoran | NEHTA | ||||
. | Ocasio, Wendell | Agilex Technologies | ||||
X | Parker, Ron | CA Infoway | ||||
. | Quinn, John | Health Level Seven, Inc. | ||||
. | Guests | |||||
. | Laskso, Lynn | HL7 Staff | ||||
. | Legend | |||||
X | Present | |||||
. | Absent | |||||
Quorum Requirements Met: Yes |
Minutes
- Sunday Q1
- Call to order
- Agenda approval
- Motion Approve the agenda(Patrick/Jane)
- Vote (7-0-0)
- Saif Canonical Ballot Reconcillation
- 19 comments
- 2 persuasive with mod
- 1 Persuasive
- 1 Considered- No action required
- 14 not related - an incorrect spreadsheet was uploaded by an affirmative balloter.
- Motion to accept (Patrick/Jane)
- Vote 7-0-0
- Membership changes
- Patrick: Suggest addition of Lorraine Constable as she is involved in the OO project.
- Motion To add Lorraine (Patrick/Jane) (subject to approval by TSC).
- Vote (7-0-0)(Lorraine is not yet member)
- Patrick: Wish to remain on the ArB. Participation has been better.
- Grahame and John are not participating, and will step down.
- Current Membership: Patrick, Tony , Ron, Charlie, Andy, Zoran, Cecil, Jane, Steve, Lorraine, Bo Dagnal, Wendell
- Wiki profile page updates
- Logon to wiki
- Go to Special:ActiveUsers
- Find your name, and edit your user page
- Save!
- OO project and Implications
- SOA representation
- Message representation
- Add SAIF-AP update to weekly agenda.
- Glossary
- Glossary is incomplete.
- Cecil: Owl would provide representation for terminologies and glossaries.
- Tony: Definitions should be co-ordinated between WG's.
- Ron: ISO terms are well defined. HL7 needs tooling to provide a way to manage this. To architect a solution, all ballot content would spit out a list that would map against a glossary - managed in a semantic, such as OWL.
- Jane: Sounds like harmonization stuff, which has gone from Vocab to Rim to Patterns.
- Ron: Not on the publishing facilitators. TSC has reported that virtual harmonization has not worked well. This is an item for dedicated tooling.
- Patrick: The organization has not made the value proposition for virtual harmonization.
- Ron: Propose that we build a PSS around creating an HL7 Glossary.
- Motion To create a PSS for establishment of business and technical architecture to support active Glossary management. (Patrick/Jane)
- Volunteers - Ron, Jane, Cecil will take first class.
- Use SAIF to frame it -
- Business architecture
- Use Cases
- Processes affected
- Tooling required and intersection with current tooling
- Inputs
- Ballots
- Implementation Guides
- GOM
- Governance Implications
- Timeliness
- Vote(9-0-0)(Lorraine & Bo are now members)
Tony - Update the page to include Lorraine and Bo
- Sunday Q2
- Call to order
- Architecture Project
- FIM co-sponsorship
- Steve Hufnafel: EHR workgroup has been working on EHR-S FM since 2006. The Project scope statement is for release 2.1 to add core information models for each of the system functions. It is straight-forward to build Information Model.
- Make EHR-S FM easier to user for analysts and engineers
- Verify and validate EHR-S FM Release 2.0
- Motion To approve ArB as co-sponsor as the PSS.(Steve/Patrick)
- ARB role - to review and clarify definitional items
- Help with alignment and mapping
- Test and potentially edit SAIF-CD
- Make Recommendations to TSC where conflict arises between content and other work groups.
- Vote (9-0-0)
- Sunday Q3
- Call to order
- Substantivity:
- This comes up because there is no substantive(ity) definition for non-wire format documents: Possibilities:
- 'A substantive change is one that changes the semantics of a given specification, i.e. representational changes should <<not>> be considered substantive in the context of the source specification itself <<unless>> such representational changes could semantically change down-stream derivative products of the specification, including either/both derivative semantics and/or derivative serializations or other wire-format-sensitive constructs.'
- Motion To accept the definition of substantive change to be presented to the TSC. (Cecil/Steven)
- A substantive change is one that changes the semantics of a given artifact; this applies to both normative and non-normative artifacts.
- For artifacts that are normative, or are intended to be normative (ie: specifications) any change that affects conformity is substantive. By definition, normative means the artifact has conformity statement(s). If there is an extension to a normative artifact, it is substantive only if it adds or changes existing conformance statements.
- For non-normative artifacts, any change that adds new content, or affects a derivative work is substantive. Editorial change or clarification of original content or semantics is not substantive.
- Vote(8-0-0)
- Tony will pick up the thread of resolving our negatives from that ballot and re-balloting this.
- We speculate HL7 has never before balloted an item with only 4 paragraphs.
- The definition needs to be static, not dynamic.
- We need to provide for specification that provide for implementation, as well as those that provide for compliance.
- Next Steps
- Revisit Role
- V3 Substantive changes
- TBD
- Tuesday Q4
- Call to order
- TBD
- Wednesday Q1
- Joint with SOA at SOA
- Thursday Q3
- Call to order
- TBD
- Thursday Q4
- Call to order
- Wrap up
- Agenda for future Telcons, etc.
Tony Julian 21:10, 15 January 2012 (UTC)