Difference between revisions of "FTSD-ConCalls-20100223"
WoodyBeeler (talk | contribs) (Created page with '=FTSD - Foundation & Technology Steering Division= ==Conference Call February 23, 2010 Meeting Information== :'''Conference Call''' is sc…') |
MeadWalker (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
==Attendees== | ==Attendees== | ||
| + | Mead Walker, Anthony Julian, Mike Davis, Ken Rubin, Paul Knapp, Lyn Laakso, Beverly Knight, Russel Ham, Patrick Lloyd, Steve Connnoly, Sandra Stuart | ||
==Agenda== | ==Agenda== | ||
#''(05 min)'' Roll Call | #''(05 min)'' Roll Call | ||
#''(05 min)'' Approve [[FTSD-ConCalls-20100209 |Minutes from February 9]] & Accept Agenda | #''(05 min)'' Approve [[FTSD-ConCalls-20100209 |Minutes from February 9]] & Accept Agenda | ||
| − | #''( | + | #''(30 min)'' Address outstanding project scope statements |
| − | + | #''(5 min)'' Take notice of an updated Mission & Charter document from InM | |
| − | #''( | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
#''(5 min)'' '''Other Business''' | #''(5 min)'' '''Other Business''' | ||
| − | ===[[ | + | ===[[SOA Ontology Project scope]]=== |
| + | This items had been reviewed with the ARB, which wished to spend time with the work group to refine and clarify the intended scope of the work. Ken Rubin noted that SOA group was going to follow-up on this item, and he expected the statement to be ready to go onto the TSC in a couple of weeks. There was some discussion regarding whether or not the proposal should come back to the Steering Division before going to the TSC. The preponderance of the expressed opinion was that it should. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===[[Security and Confidentiality Ontology Project scope]]=== | ||
| + | The document had been reviewed by the Steering Division at its previous call, and was returned to the Work Group to address a couple of open issues. In addition, the document had been discussed by the ARB which also had suggestions/questions/concerns. Mike Davis noted that a) it was not clear that all the discussion was based on the proper version of the document, and b) the Work Group had considered the suggestions, and made changes. Mike also stated that the project was going to be based on the already developed Domain Analysis Models in the security and confidentiality areas, and that the goal was to address those areas in which vocabularies were needed to support coded values. The ontology would be a way of defining both the needed concept domains and value sets and of specifying the inter-dependencies between the concept domains and value sets. (In addition, the updated document does include the Vocabulary WG as a co-sponsor). Mead felt that, while this did constitute a worthy project, the statement did not directly state what was included in Mike's explanation. Mike agreed to add a sentence more clearly noting the role of the exisiting DAMs. A motion to approve forwarding the document, once updated, to the TSC was made, seconded, and unanimously passed. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===[[Batch Messaging Project scope]]=== | ||
| + | The InM group plans to forward material to support batch messaging in the May 2010 ballot, and submitted a project scope statement to this effect. This would be a resubmission of material that previously existed in a draft form. Tony Julian noted there was a need for normative material in this area in The Netherlands, and also to support adverse event reporting. A motion to approve forwarding the document to the TSC was made, seconded, and unanimously passed. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===[[MicroITS Project scope]]=== | ||
| + | The ITS group has been discussing the notion of a "microITS" and forwarded a project to develop this. The goal is to support "RESTful" transport, and to develop an ITS to delivery messages with smaller payloads. Paul Knapp noted that, during the course of the work, the group would speak to the question of how many ITSs did HL7 need, and whether multiplication of these would present problems. A motion to approve forwarding the document to the TSC was made, seconded, and unanimously passed. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===[[InM Updated Mission & Scope]]=== | ||
| + | Tony Julian noted that the work group has created an updated Mission & Scope statement and planned to forward it to the TSC. He was not clear whether such a document had to be first approved by the Steering Division. We were, in general, not sure of whether such approval was needed, and did not take a vote on the question. However, no objections or suggested changes to the document were raised, and the document was cleared to go to the TSC. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
===[[FTSD Action item list|Action Item List]]=== | ===[[FTSD Action item list|Action Item List]]=== | ||
| + | No items for this list were suggested. | ||
[[Foundation_%26_Technology_Meeting_Minutes_and_Agendas|Back to Meetings]] | [[Foundation_%26_Technology_Meeting_Minutes_and_Agendas|Back to Meetings]] | ||
Revision as of 15:16, 26 February 2010
FTSD - Foundation & Technology Steering Division
Conference Call February 23, 2010 Meeting Information
- Conference Call is scheduled for 0.5 hour
- 12:00 PM (consult http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock for local times)
- HL7 Conference Call Service
- Phone Number: +1 770-657-9270 (Passcode: 943627)
- Online Meeting Service - GoToMeeting
- https://www2.gotomeeting.com/join/385800034 (GoToMeeting ID: 385-800-034)
Members:
- Implementable Technology Specifications (ITS)
- Implementation/Conformance
- Infrastructure & Messaging (InM)
- RIM-Based Application Architecture (RIMBAA)
- Modeling & Methodology (MnM)
- Security
- Service Oriented Architecture (SOA)
- Templates
- Vocabulary
Attendees
Mead Walker, Anthony Julian, Mike Davis, Ken Rubin, Paul Knapp, Lyn Laakso, Beverly Knight, Russel Ham, Patrick Lloyd, Steve Connnoly, Sandra Stuart
Agenda
- (05 min) Roll Call
- (05 min) Approve Minutes from February 9 & Accept Agenda
- (30 min) Address outstanding project scope statements
- (5 min) Take notice of an updated Mission & Charter document from InM
- (5 min) Other Business
SOA Ontology Project scope
This items had been reviewed with the ARB, which wished to spend time with the work group to refine and clarify the intended scope of the work. Ken Rubin noted that SOA group was going to follow-up on this item, and he expected the statement to be ready to go onto the TSC in a couple of weeks. There was some discussion regarding whether or not the proposal should come back to the Steering Division before going to the TSC. The preponderance of the expressed opinion was that it should.
Security and Confidentiality Ontology Project scope
The document had been reviewed by the Steering Division at its previous call, and was returned to the Work Group to address a couple of open issues. In addition, the document had been discussed by the ARB which also had suggestions/questions/concerns. Mike Davis noted that a) it was not clear that all the discussion was based on the proper version of the document, and b) the Work Group had considered the suggestions, and made changes. Mike also stated that the project was going to be based on the already developed Domain Analysis Models in the security and confidentiality areas, and that the goal was to address those areas in which vocabularies were needed to support coded values. The ontology would be a way of defining both the needed concept domains and value sets and of specifying the inter-dependencies between the concept domains and value sets. (In addition, the updated document does include the Vocabulary WG as a co-sponsor). Mead felt that, while this did constitute a worthy project, the statement did not directly state what was included in Mike's explanation. Mike agreed to add a sentence more clearly noting the role of the exisiting DAMs. A motion to approve forwarding the document, once updated, to the TSC was made, seconded, and unanimously passed.
Batch Messaging Project scope
The InM group plans to forward material to support batch messaging in the May 2010 ballot, and submitted a project scope statement to this effect. This would be a resubmission of material that previously existed in a draft form. Tony Julian noted there was a need for normative material in this area in The Netherlands, and also to support adverse event reporting. A motion to approve forwarding the document to the TSC was made, seconded, and unanimously passed.
MicroITS Project scope
The ITS group has been discussing the notion of a "microITS" and forwarded a project to develop this. The goal is to support "RESTful" transport, and to develop an ITS to delivery messages with smaller payloads. Paul Knapp noted that, during the course of the work, the group would speak to the question of how many ITSs did HL7 need, and whether multiplication of these would present problems. A motion to approve forwarding the document to the TSC was made, seconded, and unanimously passed.
InM Updated Mission & Scope
Tony Julian noted that the work group has created an updated Mission & Scope statement and planned to forward it to the TSC. He was not clear whether such a document had to be first approved by the Steering Division. We were, in general, not sure of whether such approval was needed, and did not take a vote on the question. However, no objections or suggested changes to the document were raised, and the document was cleared to go to the TSC.
Action Item List
No items for this list were suggested.
