Notes from the Concrete Implementation Workgroup

Status of Notes: DRAFT
Date: April 27, 2010
Time: 12pm-1pm
Attendees Arien Malec, Honora Burnett, Sean Nolan, Brian Behlendorf Steven Waldren, James Evans, Rob Wilmont, David Kibee, Vasil Peytchev, Mark Stine, Umesh Madan, Sean Nolan, Dan Kazzaz, Brett Peterson, Ron Hess, Lin Wan, David McCallie

Actions for this Week:
#
Date
Action
Status
Owner
Due Date
5
4/27/10
Brian and Sean will report to implementation group later in day to call for champions and call for broader participation
Open
Brian and Sean
5/4/10
6
4/27/10
Brian and Sean will publish timeline to wiki
Open
Brian and Sean
5/4/10
7
4/27/10
Brian will start a thread to continue conversation about “minimum threshold” criteria on Wiki, all WG members are expected to continue
Open
Brian & WG
5/4/10

Decisions for this Week:
#
Date
Action
2
4/27/10
Will use working code and concrete pieces
3
4/27/10
Will have a single concrete implementation for the pilot (SMTP or another)
4
4/27/10
We will create three concrete implementation pages and do calls for sign-up and participation for each.

Actions from Last Week:
#
Date
Action
Status
Owner
Due Date
1
4/20/10
David Kibbe will reach out to get a representative from AASP
Open
David Kibbe
4/27/10
2
4/20/10
Arien will reach out to SSA
Open
Arien
4/27/10
3
4/20/10
Vassil will get a statement from the Robust HIE WG– what is critical for an implementation to do to ensure the care about with current NHIN or IHE based transaction
Open
Vassil
4/27/10
4
4/20/10
Homework assignment:
· WG to read the three concrete implementations
· Catch up on Addressing Specification
· Catch up on Content Packaging Specification
· Catch up on Abstract Model
Open
Entire Group
4/27/10

Agenda

(Sean) Review last week’s discussion --- largely:
· Rough consensus, working code
· Agreement: we will ultimately recommend a single concrete implementation for the pilot
· (ROUNDTABLE – issues?)
Clarification from Mark Stine
§ Reference implementation software will be utilized for the pilet?
§ Proof of concept code will be first step
§ Wide variety of implementations
Clarification from David Kibbe
§ Are we dividing the proposals correctly?
§ CGC can do both!
§ Want to be able to get to the edge, but exchange structured data between HER, both complete and modular
§ More than one transport on the backbone
§ HISP has a single source
§ Latency of SMPT is a new thing to think about
§ Always going to have latency … as fast or as slow as the internet is based on where we are
§ Kick this back as a design assumption or user story issue

Comment from Steven Waldren
§ What is the intent?
§ This could be a user story issue
Comment from David Kibbe
§ Can SMTP deliver a structured Data File from server to server like REST?
§ People want to send messages & structured computable
§ Does this make a difference?
Comment from Vassil
§ Special SMTP
§ Packaging group is trying to determine the packaging format regardless of transport
o Is there one backbone protocol
o Does SMTP have to be a single protocol?
§ Edge protocol, there are certain requirements to meet with and we may have to provide reference implementation for more than one protocol
Comment from Dan Kazzaz
§ Single backbone and multiple protocols at the edge
Comment from Brett Peterson
§ Single backbone and multiple protocols at the edge
§ Focus on 2.x on Abstract Model for background
Comment from Lin Wan
§ What will be difference between NHIN Gateway?
§ Much will be dictated by security & trust
§ SMPT, IHE
Comment from David McCallie
§ SMTP model allows for a “freebee” at the end for POP of imap
Second part of discussion
§ How can we start to prove out both the core technical merits of various options and feel out applitite of community for picking this up (social & technical) really three main potential implementations:
o SMTP
o REST
o IHE
§ Call for champions & participants & drive towards the minimum threshold
§ Groups would run self driving and then at face-to-face to a heavy check in … see if any of them are establishing a critical mass … and also see if there are any we can eliminate
Comment from Vassil Peytchev
§ Understand how this will interact with the privacy & security group
Comment from Lin Wan
§ Time line and dependencies on other workgroups are disconcerning
§ Do we have a list of what we are trying to define?
§ Have the WG make a list of what they need this to do – committing development resources
Comment from Arien Malec
§ This is aggressive, but appropriately aggressive
Agreement: we will ultimately recommend a single concrete implementation for the pilot
(Sean) Propose plan and timeline for getting to recommendation
· Call for champions and participants to self-form groups creating three implementation proposals: SMTP, REST, IHE
· Groups work to create “minimum threshold” recommendations
· May 6 (in DC): group reports out status of all three groups, eliminates any not demonstrating critical mass
· If multiple options remain, two more weeks of development in groups
· May 18 (teleconference): final recommendation selected
· (ROUNDTABLE – overall plan)
· Decision: consensus on overall plan
· (ROUNDTABLE – call for champions)
· Action item: Brian will issue a call for champions via the discussion group, Arien will also post on the blog

(Brian) Flesh out “Minimum Threshold”
· Review wiki text
· (ROUNDTABLE – agreement?)
§ Are these the right three?
§ Are there more things we should add?
§ Call out to the WGs for additional things to add?
§ User experience … A minimal HER module
o Should this be a requirement for demonstration
o Minimal level of user experience
o Mapping User Stories to end product
§ Issue a call for IG later
§ Start with a blank page and say “form your own groups”
o SMTP: charged with creating “here is a picture of how NHIN Universe looks when the backbone is SMTP” and what are the preexisting bits?
o HIE
o REST
§ Brian will make a post to continue the “minimal threshold” conversation offline
§ All workgroup members are expected to comment on the thread
o Outside, next week on this call we will feel like we are close
o Everyone respond to a thread

§ Actions expected after meeting:
o Report to implementation group later in day, identify champions and call for broader participation
o Publish timeline to wiki
o Continue conversation about “minimum threshold” criteria on Wiki
o Agreeing on two points from last week:
§ 1) agreed to use working code and concrete pieces
§ 2) Single concrete implementation for the pilot (SMTP or another)