Implementation Group Meeting 2010-04-06
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Notes from Implementation Group Meeting
Status of Notes: DRAFT
Date: April 6, 2010
Time: 3pm-4:30pm
Agenda and Framing
· Review of last week’s action items
· Discussion
· Next Steps
Discussion
Followed the Implementation Group PowerPoint Presentation:
2010-04-06 IG Presentation FINAL.ppt
· Deliverables
o Specification & Service Descriptions
§ Formalized models (NIEM, service orchestration)
§ Core specifications and service descriptions
§ Conformance testing scripts and conformance service
§ Reference implementation guides for edge systems and routing systems (including sample code, testing and conformance documentation, legal and policy documentation, etc...)
§ Implementation guide for CONNECT users
o Policy
§ Recommendations on Federal role, states, etc...
§ Policy recommendations for trust enablement
o Process
§ Use of NHIN Direct as a model (positive or negative)
§ NIEM, modeling process recommendations
o Marketing
§ Core messaging
§ Placements in industry journals, key social media outlets, etc...
· WGs
o User Story Review WG: Provide consistent, vetted set of user stories available on the Wiki
o Content Packaging WG: Define a few workable alternatives, with pros/cons, for content packaging
o Security and Trust: Provide alternatives and highlight issues relating to security and trust enablement via technology (e.g., certificates and signatures)
o Robust HIE Interoperability WG: Define how to mix and match direct transactions and robust HIE/NHIN specifications and services (patient discovery and information access) capabilities at scale
o Individual Involvement WG: Clarify technology issues and policy implications for individual involvement in direct transport
o Addressing WG: Define an implementation neutral mechanism for addressing that enables provider/individual identification and enabling organization routing
o Abstract Model Review WG: Review and finalize a formal abstract model that all WGs can use to define common vocabulary
· User Story WG
o Peter DeVault is the WG lead
o Reviewed key stories, defined story style guide, fit all Must stories to story guide, and proposed Must/Should cut points.
· Content Packaging WG
o David McCallie is the WG lead
o Reviewed goals and objectives, discussed framing issues
· Security & Trust WG
o Jonathan Gershater is the WG lead
o Reviewed goals and objectives, discussed framing issues
o Renamed group to Security and Trust
o Defined Security and Trust policy assumption that we can assume pre-existing policy decision by data holder and transaction initiator that it is appropriate and legal to transmit data
o Will re-frame key issues for next meeting
· Robust HIE WG
o Vassil Peytchev is the WG lead
o Reviewed goals and objectives, discussed framing issues
o Will re-frame key issues for next meeting
· Individual Involvement WG
o Rich Elmore is the WG lead
o Discussed framing issues
o Next meeting is on Thursday
o Documented on Wiki
§ Three central framing issues:
· Meaningful User 2011 – Individual Involvement
· User Story Review
· Meet Patients where they are
· Addressing WG
o Wes Rishel is the WG lead
o Looking for abstract statement for what addressing can be mapped do
o Fundamentally identified the three components of an address as having two
§ Explicit
· End point Receiver
o Could be a person, could be a place, could be a thing, like an information system
· Domain Name
o Explicit, associated with employment
§ Implicit
· What operated the Domain Name
o Lots of forming, not a lot of storming
o Assigning the hard problems to other groups
o Proposal to represent such an address as XDN in an HL7 data type
o Needs little work, very close to finishing work
· Abstract Model WG
o Want to reach a call for consensus with the larger implementation group – hoping this can happen a week from today
o Abstract model goal: provide an implementation-agnostic expression of transactions between actors implied by user stories
o Action Items:
§ Message Status Support: Add transaction 1.3 to fully support the concept of message status
§ Language Cleanup: Clarify language for consistency/accuracy
o Next steps:
§ Finalize Abstract Model Language & Get WG Consensus
§ Bring to Implementation Group for Consensus
· Security & Trust WG
o PKI will be renamed Security & Trust
· Capacity is an issue
o We understand that conference capacity is an issue
· Will this presentation be available online?
o Is there this presentation will be available online and will it be emailed out
· What will we do at the May 6th Meeting
o We will Formalize/ratify deliverables
§ Abstract Model
§ Recommendations from Robust HIE about how these work/fit
§ Recommendations for how to trust enablement and security
§ Recommendations for groups we’ve yet to spin up
· REST
· IHE
· SMTP
· Question/Comment: What is the goal of the Addressing Group?
o Support internal routing at an organization
o Browse-able directories are not in scope for this group
o Spin up a Directories WG
o Addressing WG – directory services as part of this group?
o We didn’t need to take on the directories topic, add in a Directories WG subsequently
· Question/Comment: Can we consider these meeting dates as set in stone?
o Yes
· Question/Comment: Should the abstract model add an additional leg for “read-receipt”
o Strong demand from clients to have this User Story WG said this is a Could/Should, not a Must story
· Question/Comment: What is the scenario that the User Stories become final or locked down
o User Story WG will propose a finalized stories
o IG will reach consensus on whether this needs to be the final list
Status of Notes: DRAFT
Date: April 6, 2010
Time: 3pm-4:30pm
Agenda and Framing
· Review of last week’s action items
· Discussion
· Next Steps
Discussion
Followed the Implementation Group PowerPoint Presentation:
2010-04-06 IG Presentation FINAL.ppt
· Deliverables
o Specification & Service Descriptions
§ Formalized models (NIEM, service orchestration)
§ Core specifications and service descriptions
§ Conformance testing scripts and conformance service
§ Reference implementation guides for edge systems and routing systems (including sample code, testing and conformance documentation, legal and policy documentation, etc...)
§ Implementation guide for CONNECT users
o Policy
§ Recommendations on Federal role, states, etc...
§ Policy recommendations for trust enablement
o Process
§ Use of NHIN Direct as a model (positive or negative)
§ NIEM, modeling process recommendations
o Marketing
§ Core messaging
§ Placements in industry journals, key social media outlets, etc...
· WGs
o User Story Review WG: Provide consistent, vetted set of user stories available on the Wiki
o Content Packaging WG: Define a few workable alternatives, with pros/cons, for content packaging
o Security and Trust: Provide alternatives and highlight issues relating to security and trust enablement via technology (e.g., certificates and signatures)
o Robust HIE Interoperability WG: Define how to mix and match direct transactions and robust HIE/NHIN specifications and services (patient discovery and information access) capabilities at scale
o Individual Involvement WG: Clarify technology issues and policy implications for individual involvement in direct transport
o Addressing WG: Define an implementation neutral mechanism for addressing that enables provider/individual identification and enabling organization routing
o Abstract Model Review WG: Review and finalize a formal abstract model that all WGs can use to define common vocabulary
· User Story WG
o Peter DeVault is the WG lead
o Reviewed key stories, defined story style guide, fit all Must stories to story guide, and proposed Must/Should cut points.
· Content Packaging WG
o David McCallie is the WG lead
o Reviewed goals and objectives, discussed framing issues
· Security & Trust WG
o Jonathan Gershater is the WG lead
o Reviewed goals and objectives, discussed framing issues
o Renamed group to Security and Trust
o Defined Security and Trust policy assumption that we can assume pre-existing policy decision by data holder and transaction initiator that it is appropriate and legal to transmit data
o Will re-frame key issues for next meeting
· Robust HIE WG
o Vassil Peytchev is the WG lead
o Reviewed goals and objectives, discussed framing issues
o Will re-frame key issues for next meeting
· Individual Involvement WG
o Rich Elmore is the WG lead
o Discussed framing issues
o Next meeting is on Thursday
o Documented on Wiki
§ Three central framing issues:
· Meaningful User 2011 – Individual Involvement
· User Story Review
· Meet Patients where they are
· Addressing WG
o Wes Rishel is the WG lead
o Looking for abstract statement for what addressing can be mapped do
o Fundamentally identified the three components of an address as having two
§ Explicit
· End point Receiver
o Could be a person, could be a place, could be a thing, like an information system
· Domain Name
o Explicit, associated with employment
§ Implicit
· What operated the Domain Name
o Lots of forming, not a lot of storming
o Assigning the hard problems to other groups
o Proposal to represent such an address as XDN in an HL7 data type
o Needs little work, very close to finishing work
· Abstract Model WG
o Want to reach a call for consensus with the larger implementation group – hoping this can happen a week from today
o Abstract model goal: provide an implementation-agnostic expression of transactions between actors implied by user stories
o Action Items:
§ Message Status Support: Add transaction 1.3 to fully support the concept of message status
§ Language Cleanup: Clarify language for consistency/accuracy
o Next steps:
§ Finalize Abstract Model Language & Get WG Consensus
§ Bring to Implementation Group for Consensus
· Security & Trust WG
o PKI will be renamed Security & Trust
· Capacity is an issue
o We understand that conference capacity is an issue
· Will this presentation be available online?
o Is there this presentation will be available online and will it be emailed out
· What will we do at the May 6th Meeting
o We will Formalize/ratify deliverables
§ Abstract Model
§ Recommendations from Robust HIE about how these work/fit
§ Recommendations for how to trust enablement and security
§ Recommendations for groups we’ve yet to spin up
· REST
· IHE
· SMTP
· Question/Comment: What is the goal of the Addressing Group?
o Support internal routing at an organization
o Browse-able directories are not in scope for this group
o Spin up a Directories WG
o Addressing WG – directory services as part of this group?
o We didn’t need to take on the directories topic, add in a Directories WG subsequently
· Question/Comment: Can we consider these meeting dates as set in stone?
o Yes
· Question/Comment: Should the abstract model add an additional leg for “read-receipt”
o Strong demand from clients to have this User Story WG said this is a Could/Should, not a Must story
· Question/Comment: What is the scenario that the User Stories become final or locked down
o User Story WG will propose a finalized stories
o IG will reach consensus on whether this needs to be the final list