Difference between revisions of "T3SD WGM-200809"

From HL7 TSC
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 11: Line 11:
 
## '''Roll Call'''  
 
## '''Roll Call'''  
 
###  Helen Stevens Love,  Ken McCaslin, June Rosploch, Abdul Malik Shadir, Freida Hall, Klaus Veil, Tim Irelenad, Jim Leach, David Hamil, Wilfred Bonney,  Patrick Loyd, Woody Beeler.
 
###  Helen Stevens Love,  Ken McCaslin, June Rosploch, Abdul Malik Shadir, Freida Hall, Klaus Veil, Tim Irelenad, Jim Leach, David Hamil, Wilfred Bonney,  Patrick Loyd, Woody Beeler.
### Add to Agenda for discussion -
+
# '''AGENDA DISCUSSION ITEMS'''
#### Cross Committee Ballot procedure - Does this belong to this SD
+
## Cross Committee Ballot procedure - Does this belong to this SD
#### ArB report and work completed during jump start meetings (Helen to lead)
+
### Discussion as to if this issue belongs in this SD?  Consnsus is that Yes because it is pbulishing.
#####  AMS Reporting: (refer to deck) - Discussion started with "how does it fit with what we are currently doing?" - by 2nd meeting started looking at work of other groups, working on UML meta models for services, ROMDP as a framework for organizingt artefacts.  Started aligning current work products between services, messages and documents - but with different perspecit5ves.  Not the data, but the value being provided.  Static information struc tures very consistent.  Looked at lifecyle thorugh using the HDF.  By 3rd meeting, focused on set of artefacts unique to service3s - fitting into framework and started aplying idea of conformance and layers.    Some work (i.e. reference models) are at reference level; at analysis level we define constraints and apply conformance that can be tested.  Next is design level - that in turn conform to those at the analysis model - last level is the implementation level that conform to the de3sign level.    Much of the framework focused on the kinds of artefacts that fitted into the different levels.     
+
### Discussion as to the priority of this item - is it really still an issue and what is the value of solving this (against other priorities)?    This came up when ballots were delayed because secondary committee didn't get negative resolved etc.  Agreed to assign this to Publishing to investigate and bring back an ev aluation of the problem.
##### ArB has produced 63 slide deck that will be distributed (with the document) for a peer review forum.  Peer review will bne in next couple of weeks.  Peer review is just the first step of the review and application process.  The document provide3s extensive background and information ab out the proce3ss that the ArB used as well as their deliberations and conclusions and recommendations.
+
## ArB report and work completed during jump start meetings
#####  What is the strategy to bring 'key p-eople' to the table to participate in the peer review and to engage in vetting this work?  The document (ArB) does not address this - but the TSC is looking into this and has incorporated an Out of Cycle meeting bet5ween now and December to get focused review on the document proposal.  May schedule with the Harmonization meeting.  How/when do we 'socialize' this with the internal HL7 co-chairs and members.
+
###  AMS Reporting: (refer to deck) - Discussion started with "how does it fit with what we are currently doing?" - by 2nd meeting started looking at work of other groups, working on UML meta models for services, ROMDP as a framework for organizingt artefacts.  Started aligning current work products between services, messages and documents - but with different perspecit5ves.  Not the data, but the value being provided.  Static information struc tures very consistent.  Looked at lifecyle thorugh using the HDF.  By 3rd meeting, focused on set of artefacts unique to service3s - fitting into framework and started aplying idea of conformance and layers.    Some work (i.e. reference models) are at reference level; at analysis level we define constraints and apply conformance that can be tested.  Next is design level - that in turn conform to those at the analysis model - last level is the implementation level that conform to the de3sign level.    Much of the framework focused on the kinds of artefacts that fitted into the different levels.     
##### January 2009 will have 2 quarter joint meeting (Wednesday PM) with OO, M&M, inm, Struct Doct, ArB, SOA etc to focus on the broader implications of this proposal.  
+
### ArB has produced 63 slide deck that will be distributed (with the document) for a peer review forum.  Peer review will bne in next couple of weeks.  Peer review is just the first step of the review and application process.  The document provide3s extensive background and information ab out the proce3ss that the ArB used as well as their deliberations and conclusions and recommendations.
#####  ArB actually asked the TSC if they wanted to just pursue this as a "serv ice architecture" or as a "Unified Field Theory" that applies to Services, Documents and Messages (i.e. all HL7 products).  TSC strongly supported the UFT approach.
+
###  What is the strategy to bring 'key people' to the table to participate in the peer review and to engage in vetting this work?  The document (ArB) does not address this - but the TSC is looking into this and has incorporated an Out of Cycle meeting bet5ween now and December to get focused review on the document proposal.  May schedule with the Harmonization meeting.  How/when do we 'socialize' this with the internal HL7 co-chairs and members.
 
+
### January 2009 will have 2 quarter joint meeting (Wednesday PM) with OO, M&M, inm, Struct Doct, ArB, SOA etc to focus on the broader implications of this proposal.  
##### Concern expressed over the impact on resources already streatched by current processes and how they are going to be impa cted by this (especially if extra/duplicate ballots are required).   
+
###  ArB actually asked the TSC if they wanted to just pursue this as a "serv ice architecture" or as a "Unified Field Theory" that applies to Services, Documents and Messages (i.e. all HL7 products).  TSC strongly supported the UFT approach.
#####  Concern over how "open" the ArB OOC meetings actually were because there was confused messaging about fullness of meeting, allowance of non-ArB members to speak and funding or partial funding to attendees.  AMS made it clear that this was [[NOT]] the intent - but there was some poor/confused messaging about attendance at the meeting.
+
### Concern expressed over the impact on resources already streatched by current processes and how they are going to be impa cted by this (especially if extra/duplicate ballots are required).   
 +
###  Concern over how "open" the ArB OOC meetings actually were because there was confused messaging about fullness of meeting, allowance of non-ArB members to speak and funding or partial funding to attendees.  AMS made it clear that this was [[NOT]] the intent - but there was some poor/confused messaging about attendance at the meeting.
 
* '''ACTION:'''  Ken to take this as an issue back to TSC to ensure that future ArB OOC meetings are truely open to members.
 
* '''ACTION:'''  Ken to take this as an issue back to TSC to ensure that future ArB OOC meetings are truely open to members.
 
* '''ACTION:'''  Ken to ensure that Charlie socializes the Jan 09 Wednesday PM joint meeting to all affected committees this week.  
 
* '''ACTION:'''  Ken to ensure that Charlie socializes the Jan 09 Wednesday PM joint meeting to all affected committees this week.  
 
* '''ACTION:'''  AMS to verify that the dynamic model is not limited to services but that includes messaging, documents and everything we do.
 
* '''ACTION:'''  AMS to verify that the dynamic model is not limited to services but that includes messaging, documents and everything we do.
 +
*
 +
## Committees statistics regarding Work being documented
 +
## Other SDs have created a worksheet to track 'activity' of a work group including a number of meetings, list activity, minutes posted, projects, conference calls etc.  TSC wants to use this to track inactive working groups or working groups that are not documenting their work for the membership.  TSC needs to assess the "health" of committees.
  
#### Committees statistics regarding work being documented
 
#### Matrix on WG - Published by SD
 
 
##### What Matrix will be reported
 
##### What Matrix will be reported
 
### Resource needs
 
### Resource needs

Revision as of 02:58, 16 September 2008

Back to Agendas and minutes

Logistics

2nd and 4th Thursday, at 11:00 AM Eastern Daylight Time:
Click for GoToMeeting (ID:647-296-076) Support
Use HL7 Conference Call service
Phone Number: 770-657-9270
Participant Passcode: 226122#

Agenda

  1. (5 min) Meeting Admin
    1. Roll Call
      1. Helen Stevens Love, Ken McCaslin, June Rosploch, Abdul Malik Shadir, Freida Hall, Klaus Veil, Tim Irelenad, Jim Leach, David Hamil, Wilfred Bonney, Patrick Loyd, Woody Beeler.
  2. AGENDA DISCUSSION ITEMS
    1. Cross Committee Ballot procedure - Does this belong to this SD
      1. Discussion as to if this issue belongs in this SD? Consnsus is that Yes because it is pbulishing.
      2. Discussion as to the priority of this item - is it really still an issue and what is the value of solving this (against other priorities)? This came up when ballots were delayed because secondary committee didn't get negative resolved etc. Agreed to assign this to Publishing to investigate and bring back an ev aluation of the problem.
    2. ArB report and work completed during jump start meetings
      1. AMS Reporting: (refer to deck) - Discussion started with "how does it fit with what we are currently doing?" - by 2nd meeting started looking at work of other groups, working on UML meta models for services, ROMDP as a framework for organizingt artefacts. Started aligning current work products between services, messages and documents - but with different perspecit5ves. Not the data, but the value being provided. Static information struc tures very consistent. Looked at lifecyle thorugh using the HDF. By 3rd meeting, focused on set of artefacts unique to service3s - fitting into framework and started aplying idea of conformance and layers. Some work (i.e. reference models) are at reference level; at analysis level we define constraints and apply conformance that can be tested. Next is design level - that in turn conform to those at the analysis model - last level is the implementation level that conform to the de3sign level. Much of the framework focused on the kinds of artefacts that fitted into the different levels.
      2. ArB has produced 63 slide deck that will be distributed (with the document) for a peer review forum. Peer review will bne in next couple of weeks. Peer review is just the first step of the review and application process. The document provide3s extensive background and information ab out the proce3ss that the ArB used as well as their deliberations and conclusions and recommendations.
      3. What is the strategy to bring 'key people' to the table to participate in the peer review and to engage in vetting this work? The document (ArB) does not address this - but the TSC is looking into this and has incorporated an Out of Cycle meeting bet5ween now and December to get focused review on the document proposal. May schedule with the Harmonization meeting. How/when do we 'socialize' this with the internal HL7 co-chairs and members.
      4. January 2009 will have 2 quarter joint meeting (Wednesday PM) with OO, M&M, inm, Struct Doct, ArB, SOA etc to focus on the broader implications of this proposal.
      5. ArB actually asked the TSC if they wanted to just pursue this as a "serv ice architecture" or as a "Unified Field Theory" that applies to Services, Documents and Messages (i.e. all HL7 products). TSC strongly supported the UFT approach.
      6. Concern expressed over the impact on resources already streatched by current processes and how they are going to be impa cted by this (especially if extra/duplicate ballots are required).
      7. Concern over how "open" the ArB OOC meetings actually were because there was confused messaging about fullness of meeting, allowance of non-ArB members to speak and funding or partial funding to attendees. AMS made it clear that this was NOT the intent - but there was some poor/confused messaging about attendance at the meeting.
  • ACTION: Ken to take this as an issue back to TSC to ensure that future ArB OOC meetings are truely open to members.
  • ACTION: Ken to ensure that Charlie socializes the Jan 09 Wednesday PM joint meeting to all affected committees this week.
  • ACTION: AMS to verify that the dynamic model is not limited to services but that includes messaging, documents and everything we do.
    1. Committees statistics regarding Work being documented
    2. Other SDs have created a worksheet to track 'activity' of a work group including a number of meetings, list activity, minutes posted, projects, conference calls etc. TSC wants to use this to track inactive working groups or working groups that are not documenting their work for the membership. TSC needs to assess the "health" of committees.
          1. What Matrix will be reported
      1. Resource needs
        1. White paper on policy for use of wiki's and how to instruct WG on sharing of how to get to their wiki's
          1. Provide template statement for WG site for directions to wiki
  1. Schedule of SD Conference Calls
    1. Proposal on Date: suggest that the meeting be every other week rather than twice a month on 2nd and 4th Thursday.
    2. Proposal on Time: that the meeting should be moved to 11:30am ET
      1. Agreed to meet every 2 weeks starting Oct 2nd at 1pm EST.
  1. Develop SD Roadmap consistent with TSC Roadmap
  2. Develop SD Strategy
  3. Develop SD SWOT
  4. (10 min) New Business

Apologies

Attendees

  • TBD

Meeting Minutes