August 20, 2013 Security WG Conference Call
Security Working Group Meeting
- Bill Braithwaite
- Kathleen Connor - Yes
- Mike Davis Security Co-chair - Yes
- Reed Gelzer - Yes
- Suzanne Gonzales-Webb CBCC Co-chair
- Adrianne James
- Don Jorgenson
- Jim Kretz
- John Moehrke Security Co-chair
- Diana Proud-Madruga - Yes
- Richard Thoreson CBCC Co-chair
- Tony Weida - Yes
- Trish Williams
- (05 min) Roll Call, Approve Minutes & Accept Agenda
- (25 min) RMES - Reed Gelzer
- (25 min) Privacy Ontology Policy and Decision Examples Presentation - Tony Weida
- (05 min) Other Business
Roll Call, Approve Minutes & Accept Agenda There was no agenda posted prior to the meeting.
RMES - Reed Gelzer Reed – Proposed topic for work group meeting that he will sum up in an email and send out to everyone. Where they’ve been focusing in record management and evidentiary support is on the descriptive elements and functional model of release 2, describing what constitutes a record entry. They think a statement that points to the necessity of some kind of support element for HCS belongs there. Wants to validate this with the Security work group. Wanted to give a heads up that they will be sending this proposal out.
Mike asked where Rick envisions the support elements being included in HCS? One idea, in the functional model there is expansive case but there are overarching criteria that are incentives for the requirements of the many use derived profiles of the functional model. Their preliminary reading of the life cycle model that is rolled into the functional model had information for the actual creation of a record entity. It would seem that there are a number of different options for how and when and where a a security classification label be applied so it seems that is the record entity subsection of the record infrastructure that’s intended to speak to what the system actually does. Mike pointed out that there are some of the security and privacy labels that are inherent and driven by clinical or medical sensitivities, but a lot of them are evaluated against policy rules that are established at one time that are part of the overall structure, they’re not really recorded in the EHR they are like the security services somewhat distinct. Kathleen pointed out some different implementation possibilities for the logical model that Reed is proposing.
Kathleen suggested that we set aside time for Rick’s issue at the next meeting and that we talk about the next working group meeting agenda. Kathleen asked about the possibility of a demonstration of FIRE. Mike mentions that the demonstration on FIRE will happen at HL7 but only on the weekend.
Mike mentioned that conversation of the WG meeting agenda will happen next week. Given the number of ballots the Security group has, he thinks the agenda will be fairly simple: ballot reconciliation.
Presentation - Tony Weida (time permitting) Tony presented HL7 Sec and Privacy Ontology Policy and Decision Examples PPT
Other Business No other business discussed.