20120816 arb minutes
Jump to navigation Jump to search
ARB - Meeting (Date in Title)
- Call to order
- Roll Call
- Approval of Agenda
- Approval of Minutes
- Report from BAM tiger team
- Report from Architecture Project
- Review of Schedule
- Other business and planning
|HL7 ArB Work Group Meeting Minutes
Time: 4:00pm U.S. Eastern
|Facilitator||Charlie Mead||Note taker(s)||Julian, Tony|
|.||Constable, Lorraine||Constable Consulting Inc.|
|X||Curry, Jane||Health Information Strategies|
|X||Dagnall, Bo||HP Enterprise Services|
|.||Grieve, Grahame||Health Intersections Pty Ltd|
|X||Hufnagel, Steve||U.S. Department of Defense, Military Health System|
|X||Julian, Tony||Mayo Clinic|
|X||Loyd, Patrick||ICode Solutions|
|X||Mead, Charlie||National Cancer Institute|
|X||Ocasio, Wendell||Agilex Technologies|
|R||Parker, Ron||CA Infoway|
|.||Quinn, John||Health Level Seven, Inc.|
|X||Kreisler, Austin||HL7 TSC Chair|
|Quorum Requirements Met: Yes|
- Agenda and Minute approval
- MOTION to approve minutes and agenda(Jane/Tony)
- Report from BAM tiger team - Wendells comments
- Charlie: Wendells comments are relevant. The ARB is supposed to bring to the project formal approaches to business modeling. This is not heavyweight from day one. The project is defined to be the 2B model, not document the current. We are supposed to produce something by the week before Baltimore is a high-level concept-map instantiation of the basic constructs, if focused around product lines, separating Management from Governance from Methodology. This will be a topic at the TSC meeting on Sunday night. TSC meets all day Saturday, and with the ArB on Sunday night.
- Charlie: We will present the lightweight model, and they will align the ArB with the people who are needed to fill out the details. Wendell: does that addres your concerns.
- Wendell: It makes a lot of sense.
- Charlie: There is more information in the document than what is needed. The notion is to choose just enough methodology and model to make sense. TSC needs to see the machinery applied to HL7.
- Wendell: The document should not talk about the meta-model.
- Charlie: The DAM will not have it, except maybe as an appendix.
- Austin: I am going to be monitoring you guys to help you stay on that course.
- Charlie: There was confusion in the document between the risks of the project, and risks for HL7.
- Jane: My homework was to review the inputs and outputs and find what is relevant. What I did not do, was the implementation strategy, which should include the risks.
- Charlie: The implementation falls under the architecture project?
- Austin: In conjunction with the ARB.
- Cecil: A plan for the implementation is different from the implementation. You must define the things needed in the model.
- Austin: Thats why you can not do this in isolation.
- Jane: Does not change the outputs.
- Bo: I wanted to comment on Wendells comments. I dont agree with the meta-model fully in the appendix. There is a handoff from the ARB to the project. We expect the implementation to reflect the associations in the meta-model.
- Charlie: The majority in HL7 will not have to understand the Meta-model.
- Wendell: What is the architecture group?
- Charlie: The ARB will define the architecture, the architecture group will operationalize it.
- Bo: The BAM itself will have a Table of contents linked to the meta-model, and will use the syntax in the meta-model.
- Wendell: The final users will find it too complicated.
- Bo: The diagrams in the operationalization should match the meta-model.
- Jane: The inputs/outputs map to the meta-model. The relationships are inherent. The tool may assist in verifying appropriate relationships. I trimmed down to a subset.
- BA Methods with Cecils comments
- Jane: I identifed Imputs, rationale, process, rationale, outputs, rationale, assumptions. I indicated inputs. Cecils comment are in red.
- NOTE Scribe wil not try to re-type the document here.
- Jane walked the group through the document.