ITI Planning 3Dec07 Notes: Difference between revisions

From IHE Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Mnusbaum (talk | contribs)
1,220 edits
New page: ==IHE IT Infrastructure Joint Meeting of Planning and Technical Committees December 3rd, 2007 • 9:00-11:00am Central== '''Purpose:''' Response to ITI Planning Committee from ITI Techn...
 
 
(7 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
==IHE
==IHE IT Infrastructure ==
IT Infrastructure
===Joint Meeting of Planning and Technical Committees===
Joint Meeting of Planning and Technical Committees
'''December 3rd, 2007 • 9:00-11:00am Central'''
December 3rd, 2007 • 9:00-11:00am Central==




'''Purpose:'''
'''Purpose:'''
''Response to ITI Planning Committee from ITI Technical Committee – November 2007''


Response to ITI Planning Committee from ITI Technical Committee – November 2007


==1. Attendance:  December 3, 2007 ==


1. Attendance:
[[http://wiki.ihe.net/index.php?title=Minutes_Nov_2007_-_Sep_2008#Attendees_List_Dec_3 Attendance]]


==2. Scope of work for 2007/2008:==


2. Scope of work for 2007/2008:
'''Challenges [Charles Parisot]:''' 
:*Have made great progress on RHIO’s, and there are approximately 10 profiles in trial implementation from several years’ development work.  Lots of uptake, as illustrated by published references, Connectathon, etc.  There are 15-20 projects worldwide using the new ITI profiles in 2008.
:*ITI Domain will need to take this backlog into final text profiles and merge to technical framework (likely 4-6 profiles out of the 10 in trial implementation). This will require significant maintenance effort.
:*The ITI Domain, despite it's success, is running into problems mobilizing ITI committees to ensure quality of the profiles.  It is suggested that a broader review on profiles under development will go a long way towards ensuring quality.
:*Proposed that 5 new profiles for 2007/2008 will compromise quality.


Challenges:
'''Discussion:'''
1. Have made great progress on RHIO’s, and 9-11 profiles in trial implementation, from several years’ development work.  Lots of uptake through references, Connectathon, etc.
2. Will need to take backlog into final text profiles and merge to technical framework (likely 4-6 profiles out of the 9-11 in trial implementation).  This will require maintenance work.
3. There are 15-20 projects worldwide using the new ITI profiles in 2008.
4. Problems mobilizing ITI committees to ensure quality of the profiles.  Need a broader review on profiles under development to ensure quality.  Need to cast the net wider, outside of our usual ITI group.


Suggest that 5 new profiles will compromise quality.  Discussion:
:*Rob Horn:  Indicated that Bill Majurski had already raised the issue that there was a very large maintenance backlog.
:*Charles Parisot:  Suggested that, for 2008, a reasonable load might be 4 profiles, plus 2 white papers, plus maintenance.
:*Didi Davis:  Take into account size of development effort, to ensure a reasonable balance.
:*Vassil Peytchev: Some of this work is designed to '''assist''' getting other profiles from trial implementation to final text (ie. Asynch XDS.b, Referral Request), and therefore should be maintained.
:*Rob Horn:  Disagreed, regarding Referral Request.


1. Rob Horn: also raised by Bill Majurski that there was a very large maintenance backlog.
'''Proposed Actions:'''
2. Charles Parisot:  suggest 4 might be a reasonable load for 2008, plus 2 white papers, plus maintenance.
3. Didi Davis:  Take into account size of development effort, to ensure a reasonable balance.
4. Vassil:  Some of this work is designed to assist getting other profiles from trial implementation to final text (ie. Asynch XDS.b, Referral Request), should be maintained.
5. Rob Horn:  Referral Request not necessary to complete profiles in trial implementation.


Actions:
:*Trim one profile.  ITI Tech saw lowest priority as Referral Request, however it was pointed out that this was around technical considerations only.  ITI Planning needs to assess from a perspective of importance from an implementation perspective.
1. Trim one profile.  ITI Tech saw lowest priority as Referral Request.  ITI Planning needs to assess from a perspective of importance from an implementation perspective.
:*Webex Polling was used to cast votes on the top 3 profiles for 2008.  The intent was to select the top 4 of 5. Votes were registered as follows:
2. Suggest everyone votes on the top 3 for maintaining.
::*Emergency Contact Registry Query (ECON) '''5 yes, 6 no, 5 novote'''
• Emergency Contact Registry Query (ECON) 5 yes, 6 no, 5 ab
::*Sharing Value Sets (scoped from original) '''10 yes, 2 no, 4 novote'''
• Sharing Value Sets (scoped from original) 10 yes, 2 no, 4 ab
::*Asynchronous XDS.b (scoped from original)  '''8 yes, 2 no, 6 novote'''
• Asynchronous XDS.b (scoped from original)  8 yes, 2 no, 6 ab
::*Referral Request (scoped from original)  '''7 yes, 5 no, 4 novote'''
• Referral Request (scoped from original)  7 yes, 5 no, 4 ab
::*Extended PDQ  '''7 yes, 4 no, 5 novote'''
• Extended PDQ  7 yes, 4 no, 5 ab


Propose ECON to be dropped.
'''''Proposal: Based on the results of the polling vote, ECON Profile to be dropped for this year.'''''


[Larry Williams] ECON is at a disadvantage to other profiles, re likelihood of implementation.  Support behind and need for ECON is very high.  Rated at the top before this vote.   
'''Discussion:'''
[Lori F]:  Recognize that we have a different kind of uptake from industry vendors outside of our traditional domain.
:*[Larry Williams] ECON is at a disadvantage to other profiles, re: likelihood of implementation.  There is extensive support and established need for ECON.  "Rated at the top" before this vote.   
[Karen W]:  ECON was very high at ITI Tech.
:*[Lori Fourquet]:  Recognize that we have a different kind of uptake from industry vendors outside of our traditional domain.
[John  D]:  Planning concerned with need in industry, not technical viability.  Why is there a change in Planning Committee’s priority from earlier priority established.
:*[Karen Witting]:  ECON was very highly evaluated at ITI Tech (based on technical considerations).
[Karen W]:  Challenge is that we’ve brought in a new market, and people on this call are from the traditional market.
:*[John  Donnelly]:  ITI Planning is concerned with need in industry, not technical viability.  Questioned why there was a change in Planning Committee’s priority from earlier priority established?
[Rob Horn]:  PC wants everything on this list, so the question is changed to “what can we live without”.
:*[Karen Witting]:  Challenge is that we’ve brought in a new market, and people on this call are from the traditional market.
[Didi]:  Can we merge white papers with profiles and vote on all together?
:*[Rob Horn]:  Noted that the Planning Committee wants everything on this list, so the question is changed to “what can we live without”.
[Larry W]:  Suggests that we use the original ranking, rather than use the ranking from today’s call.
:*[Didi Davis]:  Can we merge white papers with profiles and vote on all together?
[Mike N]:  Pointed out that ECON was not at the top of the list at the f2f, and was in fact tied with 5 other proposals.
:*[Larry Williams]:  Suggested that we use the original ranking, rather than use the ranking from today’s call.
[Larry W]:  Very critical within a number of initiatives in the US (CalRHIO, HITSP)
:*[Mike Nusbaum]:  Pointed out that ECON was not at the top of the list at the f2f, and was in fact tied with 5 other proposals.
[Manuel]:  This is a US need, not an international need.  Should be done as a national extension.
:*[Larry Williams]:  ECON is very critical within a number of initiatives in the US (CalRHIO, HITSP)
[Mick Talley]:  Support from Financial sector.
:*[Manuel Metz]:  Suggested that this is a US need, not an international need, and as such should be done as a national extension.
[Vassil]:  This could be a PDQ or PDQ/v3 extension, as originally proposed.
:*[Mick Talley]:  Added support for ECON from Financial sector.
[John M]:  PDQ data model was different, and not appropriate to handle ECON requirements.
:*[Vassil Peytchev]:  This could be a PDQ or PDQ/v3 extension, as originally proposed.
[Larry W]:  Would agree with Vassil, as a national extension.
:*[John Moehrke]:  PDQ data model is sufficiently different, and not appropriate, to handle ECON requirements.
[Karen W]:  ITI Tech cannot handle this as a national extension.
:*[Larry Williams]:  Agreed with Vassil that ECON might best be developed as a national extension.
[Lori]:  How can we rally resources within IHE US.
:*[Karen Witting]:  ITI Tech cannot handle this as a national extension... it must be externally resourced
[Glen]:  Example of PIX/PDQ/v3 as a successful implementation of a Canadian-led initiative.
:*[Lori Fourquet]:  Asked how can we rally resources within IHE US?
[John M]:  HITSP shouldn’t drive IHE’s work.  Example of a Security/Privacy initiative from HITSP that was rejected from IHE, and is being dealt with elsewhere.
:*[Glen Marshall]:  Cited the example of PIX/PDQ/v3 as a successful implementation of a Canadian-led initiative.
:*[John Moehrke]:  HITSP shouldn’t drive IHE’s work.  Gave an example of a Security/Privacy initiative from HITSP that was rejected from IHE, and is being dealt with elsewhere.


Table for now.
'''''The discussion was tabled pending resolution of the white paper selection below.'''''


3. White Papers:
'''White Papers:'''
• Publish/Subscribe Infrastructure for XDS (with New Directions demonstration) – 7 [large effort] – Vassil, Floyd
Webex Polling was conducted to determine the priority within the 3 white papers.  Each member was allowed a single "yes" vote.  Results noted below, along with ITI Tech's proposed sizing, and the proposed editor(s):
• Policy-Driven Security and Privacy – 4 [small effort] – Don Jorgenson, Manuel, Lori, Glen.
• Terminology Sharing  - 1 [larger effort] -


[Karen]: Assumed that white papers would be done by separate group and reviewed by committee.
::*Publish/Subscribe Infrastructure for XDS (with New Directions demonstration) – '''7''' [large effort] – Vassil, Floyd
[Karen]:  Publish/Subscribe needs strong leadership.  Suggests having 2 leaders (Charles agrees).
::*Policy-Driven Security and Privacy – '''4''' [small effort] – Don Jorgenson, Manuel, Lori, Glen.
::*Terminology Sharing  - '''1''' [larger effort] - Anna et al.


Propose we drop Terminology Sharing. 
'''Discussion:'''


Motion:  [MN, seconded KW]:  Drop ECON and take on Publish/Subscribe and Policy-Driven Security/Privacy.
:*[Karen Witting]:  Remined members that white papers would be done by separate group and reviewed by ITI Technical Committee committee.
:*[Karen Witting]:  Noted that Publish/Subscribe needs strong leadership.  Suggests having 2 leaders for each selected white paper (Charles agreed).


Vote: 8 yes, 6 no, 5 abstain
'''''Proposal to drop Terminology Sharing'''''  


Not a 2/3 majority.
'''Motion #1:  [proposer Mike Nusbaum, seconded Karen Witting]:  Drop ECON and take on the 4 other profiles, plus the Publish/Subscribe and Policy-Driven Security/Privacy white papers.'''


Propose:  Keep ECON, drop 2 white papers [Rob Horn, second Glen Marshall].
:*'''''Vote:  8 yes, 6 no, 5 novote'''''
:* '''''Defeated:''''' not a 2/3 majority.


Vote:  11 yes, 4 no, 5 abstain  Carried.
'''Motion #2:  [proposer Rob Horn, seconded Glen Marshall]:  Keep all 5 profiles, keep Publish/Subscribe white paper, drop Security/Privacy and Terminology white papers.'''


Adjourn.
:*'''''Vote:  11 yes, 4 no, 5 novote'''''
:*'''''Carried.'''''
 
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 11:06am Central time.
 
''Recorder:  M. Nusbaum''

Latest revision as of 12:20, 4 December 2007

IHE IT Infrastructure

Joint Meeting of Planning and Technical Committees

December 3rd, 2007 • 9:00-11:00am Central


Purpose: Response to ITI Planning Committee from ITI Technical Committee – November 2007


1. Attendance: December 3, 2007

[Attendance]

2. Scope of work for 2007/2008:

Challenges [Charles Parisot]:

  • Have made great progress on RHIO’s, and there are approximately 10 profiles in trial implementation from several years’ development work. Lots of uptake, as illustrated by published references, Connectathon, etc. There are 15-20 projects worldwide using the new ITI profiles in 2008.
  • ITI Domain will need to take this backlog into final text profiles and merge to technical framework (likely 4-6 profiles out of the 10 in trial implementation). This will require significant maintenance effort.
  • The ITI Domain, despite it's success, is running into problems mobilizing ITI committees to ensure quality of the profiles. It is suggested that a broader review on profiles under development will go a long way towards ensuring quality.
  • Proposed that 5 new profiles for 2007/2008 will compromise quality.

Discussion:

  • Rob Horn: Indicated that Bill Majurski had already raised the issue that there was a very large maintenance backlog.
  • Charles Parisot: Suggested that, for 2008, a reasonable load might be 4 profiles, plus 2 white papers, plus maintenance.
  • Didi Davis: Take into account size of development effort, to ensure a reasonable balance.
  • Vassil Peytchev: Some of this work is designed to assist getting other profiles from trial implementation to final text (ie. Asynch XDS.b, Referral Request), and therefore should be maintained.
  • Rob Horn: Disagreed, regarding Referral Request.

Proposed Actions:

  • Trim one profile. ITI Tech saw lowest priority as Referral Request, however it was pointed out that this was around technical considerations only. ITI Planning needs to assess from a perspective of importance from an implementation perspective.
  • Webex Polling was used to cast votes on the top 3 profiles for 2008. The intent was to select the top 4 of 5. Votes were registered as follows:
  • Emergency Contact Registry Query (ECON) 5 yes, 6 no, 5 novote
  • Sharing Value Sets (scoped from original) 10 yes, 2 no, 4 novote
  • Asynchronous XDS.b (scoped from original) 8 yes, 2 no, 6 novote
  • Referral Request (scoped from original) 7 yes, 5 no, 4 novote
  • Extended PDQ 7 yes, 4 no, 5 novote

Proposal: Based on the results of the polling vote, ECON Profile to be dropped for this year.

Discussion:

  • [Larry Williams] ECON is at a disadvantage to other profiles, re: likelihood of implementation. There is extensive support and established need for ECON. "Rated at the top" before this vote.
  • [Lori Fourquet]: Recognize that we have a different kind of uptake from industry vendors outside of our traditional domain.
  • [Karen Witting]: ECON was very highly evaluated at ITI Tech (based on technical considerations).
  • [John Donnelly]: ITI Planning is concerned with need in industry, not technical viability. Questioned why there was a change in Planning Committee’s priority from earlier priority established?
  • [Karen Witting]: Challenge is that we’ve brought in a new market, and people on this call are from the traditional market.
  • [Rob Horn]: Noted that the Planning Committee wants everything on this list, so the question is changed to “what can we live without”.
  • [Didi Davis]: Can we merge white papers with profiles and vote on all together?
  • [Larry Williams]: Suggested that we use the original ranking, rather than use the ranking from today’s call.
  • [Mike Nusbaum]: Pointed out that ECON was not at the top of the list at the f2f, and was in fact tied with 5 other proposals.
  • [Larry Williams]: ECON is very critical within a number of initiatives in the US (CalRHIO, HITSP)
  • [Manuel Metz]: Suggested that this is a US need, not an international need, and as such should be done as a national extension.
  • [Mick Talley]: Added support for ECON from Financial sector.
  • [Vassil Peytchev]: This could be a PDQ or PDQ/v3 extension, as originally proposed.
  • [John Moehrke]: PDQ data model is sufficiently different, and not appropriate, to handle ECON requirements.
  • [Larry Williams]: Agreed with Vassil that ECON might best be developed as a national extension.
  • [Karen Witting]: ITI Tech cannot handle this as a national extension... it must be externally resourced
  • [Lori Fourquet]: Asked how can we rally resources within IHE US?
  • [Glen Marshall]: Cited the example of PIX/PDQ/v3 as a successful implementation of a Canadian-led initiative.
  • [John Moehrke]: HITSP shouldn’t drive IHE’s work. Gave an example of a Security/Privacy initiative from HITSP that was rejected from IHE, and is being dealt with elsewhere.

The discussion was tabled pending resolution of the white paper selection below.

White Papers: Webex Polling was conducted to determine the priority within the 3 white papers. Each member was allowed a single "yes" vote. Results noted below, along with ITI Tech's proposed sizing, and the proposed editor(s):

  • Publish/Subscribe Infrastructure for XDS (with New Directions demonstration) – 7 [large effort] – Vassil, Floyd
  • Policy-Driven Security and Privacy – 4 [small effort] – Don Jorgenson, Manuel, Lori, Glen.
  • Terminology Sharing - 1 [larger effort] - Anna et al.

Discussion:

  • [Karen Witting]: Remined members that white papers would be done by separate group and reviewed by ITI Technical Committee committee.
  • [Karen Witting]: Noted that Publish/Subscribe needs strong leadership. Suggests having 2 leaders for each selected white paper (Charles agreed).

Proposal to drop Terminology Sharing

Motion #1: [proposer Mike Nusbaum, seconded Karen Witting]: Drop ECON and take on the 4 other profiles, plus the Publish/Subscribe and Policy-Driven Security/Privacy white papers.

  • Vote: 8 yes, 6 no, 5 novote
  • Defeated: not a 2/3 majority.

Motion #2: [proposer Rob Horn, seconded Glen Marshall]: Keep all 5 profiles, keep Publish/Subscribe white paper, drop Security/Privacy and Terminology white papers.

  • Vote: 11 yes, 4 no, 5 novote
  • Carried.

There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 11:06am Central time.

Recorder: M. Nusbaum

Retrieved from "http://wiki.ihe.net/index.php?title=ITI_Planning_3Dec07_Notes&oldid=11996"