Meeting Minutes from Discussion
|Management||Minute Approval||Accepted via general consent|
|Methodology||HSRA Project Update|
Stefano presents project updates.
The structure is near completion. Goal is to have a complete model for Sydney and first ballot in 2020May.
The modeling language is the OMG UAF (Unified Architecture Framework) which covers the representation of complex architectures. UAF supports the needs of the commercial sector as well as the military, including the DOD, UK Ministry of Defence, and NATO.
UAF supports a single artifact approach to support maintainability and navigability of HSRA. The model is comprised of levels including high level business functions, composite services, enabling services, supporting functionality, resource information, data source systems, and infrastructure systems. Reviewed each layer in the strategic structure.
Zoran asks about the motivation behind this project. Stefano states it's to support large scale projects as well as FHIR projects. The idea is to link the business problem with specification. Zoran states they have done a lot of similar stuff a few years ago in the context of SOA healthcare ontology. There is a lot of similarity. Is this driven by the new framework called UAF? Stefano: Yes, there is a link with the other project. UAF is meant to simplify. Stefano will make reference in the final document to the previous work referenced by Zoran.
Lorraine asks Stefano to send links to the presentation so people can review. Discussion over publishing as the materials are not yet hosted by HL7. It is currently in Magic Draw and won't be editable by anyone but Stefano, which needs to be addressed.
Lorraine notes that the services are at different states of maturity. Perhaps there should be color coding to indicate how far along they are in maturity. Stefano agrees that standards vs. emergent standards will be clearly distinguished.
Zoran: An issue in the past is how to link services with policies. One issue in FHIR is Consent. Is this link with this aspect of FHIR in the scope of what you are doing? Stefano says not currently, but the model can be extended.
|Methodology||Errata/Technical Correction Definitions|
Last week we discussed substantive changes to normative ballots and whether or not all of them have to go back to ballot. Karen stated that if a reconciled ballot comment did not get applied before publication, it can be applied as errata; same with a broken link.
MOTION to forward this definition to SGB and TSC for review:
Reviewed PSS and the linked material. Lorraine doesn't think it's actually external content.
MOTION that this does not need ARB review:
Paul notes that three CIMI projects with external content came to FMG yesterday. Will have to determine how we'll review.