Difference between revisions of "FTSD-ConCall-20120327"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m (→Attendees) |
m (→Attendees) |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
|colspan="2" align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|Quorum = 5 | |colspan="2" align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|Quorum = 5 | ||
|- | |- | ||
| − | |colspan="2"|Woody | + | |colspan="2"|Woody |
|colspan="2"|Tony | |colspan="2"|Tony | ||
| − | |colspan="2"|Yes | + | |colspan="2"|'''Yes''' |
|- | |- | ||
|colspan="2" align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|Implementable Technology Specifications (ITS) | |colspan="2" align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|Implementable Technology Specifications (ITS) | ||
| − | |colspan="2" align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|Implementation/ | + | |colspan="2" align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|Conformance & Guidance for Implementation/Testing |
|colspan="2" align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|Infrastructure and Messaging (InM) | |colspan="2" align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|Infrastructure and Messaging (InM) | ||
|- | |- | ||
| Line 80: | Line 80: | ||
|X||Rubin, Ken | |X||Rubin, Ken | ||
|.||Shafarman, Mark | |.||Shafarman, Mark | ||
| − | | | + | |X||Hausam, Rob |
|- | |- | ||
|.||Wrightson, Ann | |.||Wrightson, Ann | ||
| Line 114: | Line 114: | ||
#''(15 min)'' '''Item3''' | #''(15 min)'' '''Item3''' | ||
#''(5 min)'' '''Other Business''' | #''(5 min)'' '''Other Business''' | ||
| − | + | ==Minutes== | |
| + | #Agenda approved by Affirmation | ||
| + | #Approve [[FTSD-ConCall-20120228| Previous Minutes]] | ||
| + | ##'''Motion to approve'''(Sandy/Rob) | ||
| + | ##'''Vote''' (5-2-0) (paul,Ken, Kathleen abstain) | ||
| + | #Security PSS | ||
| + | ##Mike Davis:Slides on S&P Ontolgy: Presents scope of use | ||
| + | ##Woody: TSC position is if it is normative, there must be conformance and a method to express same. | ||
| + | ##Kathleen: You can pull in S&P Ontolgy for privacy and access control. The same vacabulary may mean the different things based on usage. The Ontology pulls the relationships forward. A flat vocabulary is not sufficient. WIll have logically consistent terms and conditions. | ||
| + | ##Woody: The slides explain that. | ||
| + | ##Kathleen: The point is that the PSS detailed the goals. | ||
| + | ##Woody: You need to tell people that you will state the expectation of conformance systems - that they will rely soley on the ontology as the definition of the terms and concepts that are necessary for security ontology. Local terms will need to be mapped to ontology, not to replace them. | ||
| + | ##Kathleen: We will develop the conformance statements and work with CGIT. | ||
| + | ##Woody: Use slide to summarize the set of rules. The security and Privacy Ontology will be the source of truth. | ||
| + | ##The Security and Privacy Ontology September 2012 Normative Ballot will include a set of conformance clauses based on the S&P Ontology Project Scope statement 646 such as: | ||
| + | ###A conformant privacy and security policy authoring system, including electronic forms management, must encode policies, including consent directives by invoking HL7 Privacy and Security Ontology terminology services | ||
| + | ###A conformant clinical data repository must apply privacy and security metadata in accordance with policy by invoking HL7 Privacy and Security Ontology terminology services | ||
| + | ###A conformant access control systems must invoke HL7 Privacy and Security Ontology terminology services to support policy decision and enforcement algorithms | ||
| + | ##Rob: You can not use OWL to determine compliance or integrity constraints. | ||
| + | ##Kathleen: The purpose of OWL is to create the vocabulary, but not used as the reasoner. | ||
| + | ##Mike: OWL is the tool of choice. | ||
| + | ##Rob: You cannot use any of the common reasoners to determine constraints - not for the validation step. | ||
| + | ##'''Motion''' The steering division affirms that this should be a normative based on the review of conformance expectations provided by Kathleen and Mike.(Ken/Mike) | ||
| + | ##'''Vote''' (7-0-0) | ||
| + | ##'''Motion''' To approve the PSS as ammended.(Mike/Sandy) | ||
| + | ##'''Vote''' (7-0-0) | ||
| + | #Other business | ||
| + | ##None | ||
| + | #Adjournment(Sandy/Tony) at 12:32 U.S. Eastern. | ||
| + | [[User:A julian|A julian]] 16:36, 27 March 2012 (UTC) | ||
===[[FTSD Agenda item list|Agenda items]]=== | ===[[FTSD Agenda item list|Agenda items]]=== | ||
===[[FTSD Action item list|Action Item List]]=== | ===[[FTSD Action item list|Action Item List]]=== | ||
[[Foundation_%26_Technology_Meeting_Minutes_and_Agendas|Back to Meetings]] | [[Foundation_%26_Technology_Meeting_Minutes_and_Agendas|Back to Meetings]] | ||
Latest revision as of 16:38, 27 March 2012
Fndn&Tech Steering Divn - Conference Call (date above)
Meeting Information
- Conference Call is scheduled for 0.5 hour,
- Tuesday 12:00 PM to be repeated every other week
- Please consult http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock for your 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)
Steering Division Members:
- Application Integration & Design (AID)
- Implementable Technology Specifications (ITS)
- Conformance & Guidance for Implementation/Testing(CGIT)
- Infrastructure & Messaging (InM)
- Modeling & Methodology (MnM)
- Security
- Service Oriented Architecture (SOA)
- Templates
- Vocabulary
Attendees
| Facilitator | Note taker | Quorum = 5 | |||
| Woody | Tony | Yes | |||
| Implementable Technology Specifications (ITS) | Conformance & Guidance for Implementation/Testing | Infrastructure and Messaging (InM) | |||
| X | Knapp, Paul | X | Huang, Wendy | X | Julian, Tony |
| . | Nelson, Dale | . | Oemig, Frank | . | Loyd, Patrick |
| . | Stechishin, Andy | . | Peters, Melva | . | Shaver, Dave |
| . | Snelick, Robert | X | Stuart, Sandy | ||
| Modeling & Methodology (MnM) | RIM-Based Application Architecture (RIMBAA) | Security | |||
| . | Beeler, Woody | . | Hendler MD, Peter | . | Blobel PhD, Bernd |
| . | Duteau, Jean | . | Shabo PhD, Amnon | X | Davis, Mike |
| . | Grieve, Grahame | . | Spronk, Rene | Moehrke, John | |
| . | McKenzie, Lloyd | ||||
| . | Natarajan , Ravi | ||||
| Service Oriented Architecture (SOA) | Templates | Vocabulary | |||
| . | Jorgenson, Don | . | Baird, Douglas | . | Case, James |
| . | Mulrooney, Galen | . | Roberts , John | . | Grain, Heather |
| X | Rubin, Ken | . | Shafarman, Mark | X | Hausam, Rob |
| . | Wrightson, Ann | . | Klein, William Ted | ||
| . | Knight, Beverly | ||||
| . | |||||
| Guests | |||||
| . | Laakso, Lynn | X | Connor, Kathleen | ||
| . | .=Absent, X=Present | ||||
Agenda
- (05 min) Roll Call
- (05 min) Approve Previous Minutes & Accept Agenda
- (15 min) Security and privacy Ontology Project Scope
- (15 min) Item2
- (15 min) Item3
- (5 min) Other Business
Minutes
- Agenda approved by Affirmation
- Approve Previous Minutes
- Motion to approve(Sandy/Rob)
- Vote (5-2-0) (paul,Ken, Kathleen abstain)
- Security PSS
- Mike Davis:Slides on S&P Ontolgy: Presents scope of use
- Woody: TSC position is if it is normative, there must be conformance and a method to express same.
- Kathleen: You can pull in S&P Ontolgy for privacy and access control. The same vacabulary may mean the different things based on usage. The Ontology pulls the relationships forward. A flat vocabulary is not sufficient. WIll have logically consistent terms and conditions.
- Woody: The slides explain that.
- Kathleen: The point is that the PSS detailed the goals.
- Woody: You need to tell people that you will state the expectation of conformance systems - that they will rely soley on the ontology as the definition of the terms and concepts that are necessary for security ontology. Local terms will need to be mapped to ontology, not to replace them.
- Kathleen: We will develop the conformance statements and work with CGIT.
- Woody: Use slide to summarize the set of rules. The security and Privacy Ontology will be the source of truth.
- The Security and Privacy Ontology September 2012 Normative Ballot will include a set of conformance clauses based on the S&P Ontology Project Scope statement 646 such as:
- A conformant privacy and security policy authoring system, including electronic forms management, must encode policies, including consent directives by invoking HL7 Privacy and Security Ontology terminology services
- A conformant clinical data repository must apply privacy and security metadata in accordance with policy by invoking HL7 Privacy and Security Ontology terminology services
- A conformant access control systems must invoke HL7 Privacy and Security Ontology terminology services to support policy decision and enforcement algorithms
- Rob: You can not use OWL to determine compliance or integrity constraints.
- Kathleen: The purpose of OWL is to create the vocabulary, but not used as the reasoner.
- Mike: OWL is the tool of choice.
- Rob: You cannot use any of the common reasoners to determine constraints - not for the validation step.
- Motion The steering division affirms that this should be a normative based on the review of conformance expectations provided by Kathleen and Mike.(Ken/Mike)
- Vote (7-0-0)
- Motion To approve the PSS as ammended.(Mike/Sandy)
- Vote (7-0-0)
- Other business
- None
- Adjournment(Sandy/Tony) at 12:32 U.S. Eastern.
A julian 16:36, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
