This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here
Difference between revisions of "June 2nd 2009 CBCC Conference Call"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(8 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown) | |||
Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
(expected) | (expected) | ||
− | + | # [mailto:sconnolly@apelon.com Steven Connolly] | |
− | + | # [mailto:gonzaleswebs@saic.com Suzanne Gonzales-Webb] CBCC Co-chair | |
− | + | # [mailto:richard.thoreson@samhsa.hhs.gov Richard Thoreson] CBCC Co-chair | |
− | + | # [mailto:ioana@eversolve.com Ioana Singureanu] | |
− | + | # [mailto:Kathleen.Connor@microsoft.com Kathleen Connor] | |
− | + | # [mailto:ppyette@perimind.com Pat Pyette] | |
− | + | # Milan Petkovic | |
==Agenda== | ==Agenda== | ||
#''(05 min)'' Roll Call | #''(05 min)'' Roll Call | ||
− | #''(05 min)'' Approve [[May 26th 2009 CBCC Conference Call |Minutes ]] & Accept Agenda | + | #''(05 min)'' Approve [[May 26th 2009 CBCC Conference Call |Minutes ]] unanimous & Accept Agenda - unanimous |
+ | #''(20 min)'' '''Object identifier''' Are we considering the interest of the client in the way we identify the objects in the extended RBAC catalog. Initially SNOMED-CT was considered, now the EHRS Functional Model is evaluated for gaps with the Permission Catalog and Constraint Catalog. | ||
+ | ##* How do we bundle the object identifiers into categories useful for privacy policy or consent? | ||
+ | ##* Security has been evaluating the object vocabulary without any consideration for confidentiality or data sensitivity. | ||
+ | ##* The client has control over some of the objects listed in the object vocabulary according to specific policies. | ||
+ | ##* The main object is coverage/completion of the object vocabulary for a representative value set. | ||
+ | ##* The object value set will not be exhaustive but representative; it will be a specific level of granularity that is appropriate. | ||
+ | ##* '''Action item:''' Richard/Ioana to document the issue regarding the level of abstraction and the use of the object value set. | ||
#''(15 min)'' '''XACML example mapping''' | #''(15 min)'' '''XACML example mapping''' | ||
− | |||
− | |||
#''(5 min)'' '''Other Business''' | #''(5 min)'' '''Other Business''' | ||
[[Community-Based_Collaborative_Care|Back to Meetings]] | [[Community-Based_Collaborative_Care|Back to Meetings]] |
Latest revision as of 19:30, 16 June 2009
Contents
Community-Based Collaborative Care Working Group Meeting
V3 Privacy Policy to XAML mapping example
Meeting Information
Attendees
(expected)
- Steven Connolly
- Suzanne Gonzales-Webb CBCC Co-chair
- Richard Thoreson CBCC Co-chair
- Ioana Singureanu
- Kathleen Connor
- Pat Pyette
- Milan Petkovic
Agenda
- (05 min) Roll Call
- (05 min) Approve Minutes unanimous & Accept Agenda - unanimous
- (20 min) Object identifier Are we considering the interest of the client in the way we identify the objects in the extended RBAC catalog. Initially SNOMED-CT was considered, now the EHRS Functional Model is evaluated for gaps with the Permission Catalog and Constraint Catalog.
- How do we bundle the object identifiers into categories useful for privacy policy or consent?
- Security has been evaluating the object vocabulary without any consideration for confidentiality or data sensitivity.
- The client has control over some of the objects listed in the object vocabulary according to specific policies.
- The main object is coverage/completion of the object vocabulary for a representative value set.
- The object value set will not be exhaustive but representative; it will be a specific level of granularity that is appropriate.
- Action item: Richard/Ioana to document the issue regarding the level of abstraction and the use of the object value set.
- (15 min) XACML example mapping
- (5 min) Other Business