20130508 HL7 PLA Meeting

HL7 Product Line Architecture – 2013-01-15 Meeting

Return to HL7 Product Line Architecture Wiki Home Page<br\> Return to HL7 Product Line Architecture Meeting Minutes and Agendas

Attendees: Austin, Rick Haddorff, Lynn

Meeting Logistics

• Dates: Wednesday Q3 of the Working Group Meeting
• Time: 13:45 - 15:00 Eastern Time
• Room: Georgia 7

Q3 Agenda for HL7 Product Line Architecture

1. Roll Call
2. Agenda Review
3. BAM Overview (15 min) (Parker)
   • BAM landing - review scope document.
4. Identify candidates for Product Families and Product Lines (so far we have FHIR)
5. How to take an existing set of products and make it into a Product Family/Product Line (e.g. CDA)
6. Next WGM Needs

Minutes

• Ron is not available - they are not as far along as they thought they would be on the BAM
• We're not ready to offer sufficient guidance to SDWG in standing up CDA IGs as product family
• ArB is re-evaluating product family/line definition or approach
• Product Family candidate suggestions based on methodologies and how they are produced.
  • V2
  • V2.x IG
  • Arden Syntax
  • EHR FPs
  • EHR
  • V3
  • CDA IGs
  • SOA
• Current focus is on product family and not devoted to definition of product lines at this time.
  • Cross-paradigm project done by Alean is an excellent example of analysis for product line across interoperability paradigms.
  • Austin sees a product line forming around the CCDA effort with CCDA-related products including the base CCDA itself. They have related use cases, and foundation of the CCDA header and the U.S. market segment.
  • Other Meaningful Use product line requirements are forming around V2 IGs such as LRI, LOI, ELR-PH, eDOS set of products. CDS MU support may be included with Infobutton. QRDA, eMeasure, HQMF evolving.
  • May need to develop a form to describe and propose a product line from an existing set of products.
  • With establishment of a product family we need some assignment of governance, management, and methodology with SAIF-CD precepts.
  • S&I Framework might have held interest for U.S. Affiliate but has lost financial support. only 90 international attendees would not support separation of an U.S. Affiliate. Identification of realm interest on agenda templates might alleviate the problem. Allowing a quarter to focus on CDA in EpSOS, for example. This accommodates a GOM requirement as well.
• Ron arrives
• further analysis of product line development will be conducted in Q4 with SAIF AP review of the Cross-paradigm immunization project.
  • diagram reviewed for how UV interests can divide into U.S. realm discussions as well as non-U.S. discussions and then coalesce back to UV realm product. You need methodologists that can span the U.S. realm and other realm participants. If all sessions are US realm it will alienate some participation by other affiliates. There may be discussions on methodological issues that need to be removed from the US Realm discussion e.g. vocabulary bindings and so on to a UV realm discussion. In that way you can declare US Realm discussions are in response to legislative or regulatory requirements and profiling associated with those.
  • if new administration reduces support and activity with MU what will happen to the HL7 overall community
  • ACTION ITEM: Need to speak to this at the TSC

• Ron describes the ArB's a-ha moment
  • Churn on Jane/Ron entering into BAM spreadsheet. need new steps to stand up a product family/line. We've done it for Gello, V3, now FHIR. What is that process? The 'enterprise' is a collection of parts flying in loose formation - how to get more coherence. WGs need to define requirements and approach and then go away and just do it. How do we establish the purpose of the effort to deliver to the community?
  • Since V2/V3 the developers and users were at the WGMs and could get support verbally. Now with free IP it's out there for anyone to use and how do they learn how to use it? What are the roles of individuals in the organization?
  • Spreadsheet could not represent many-to-many relationships as they needed.
  • now Bo takes this away and designs a simpler spreadsheet they reviewed Tuesday morning. From this a diagram was devised.
  • product family can not refer to a scale of an IG as compared to V3. Needed characteristics to differentiate.
  • three axes of product platform as a paradigm (technology binding/context); product line as a business domain (Function), and product family as a methodology (Form)
  • around these three axes we can arrange Steering Divisions. what are the implications on realm, membership, etc. Realm considerations are generally limited to the business domain/product line axis.
  • Austin asks what it would mean if we make paradigm an attribute of the product family. Ron would like to speak with Cecil further about that. Ron suggests that you might have an attribute of a product family intersection that is platform specific.
  • Austin asks if we are re-constructing the SAIF ECCF ISM Matrix here. We need to evaluate how this provides the connective tissue between the layers of the ECCF ISM. Ron will take back to the ArB and ensure we're not restating what we've already generated.

Adjourned 3:05 PM