LRI+IG+Analysis+WG+Meeting+Minutes+2011-4-13

include component="page" wikiName="siframework" page="LRI Header" =LRI IG Analysis SWG Meeting Minutes=
 * Date:** 04-13-2011
 * Time:** 12:00PM-1:00PM EDT
 * Dial in:** 1-888-998-2663 | Pass code: 2410512#

Attendance
Nagesh (Dragon) Bashyam, Hans Buitendijk, Kathryn Calderone, Ernest Grove, Freida Hall, Les Keeper, Austin Kreisler, Bob Lutolf, Kosta Makrodimitris, Ken McCaslin, Erik Pupo, Rob Snelick, Jonathan Tadese, Thanos Tsiolis, Merideth Vida, Bob Yencha

Action Items

 * **#** || **Date Initiated** || **Action** || **Owner** || **Status** || **Date Closed** ||
 * 1 || 04-13-2011 || Review & comment on the matrix || All || Ongoing ||  ||
 * 2 || 04-13-2011 || Create a table to put matrix comments in || Jonathan Tadese || Open ||  ||
 * 3 || 04-13-2011 || Send out a "when is good" email to SWG || Erik Pupo || Closed || 04-13-2011 ||

Agenda Items

 * 1) Meeting Structure
 * 2) Lead Introduction
 * 3) Wiki
 * 4) Matrix

Meeting Structure
We are not going to be working through slides going forward as we will be more focused on doing analysis work, which is the charge of this group. We are going to start by walking through the wiki structure so that everyone is clear as to where everything is. We are going to have the Leads introduce themselves and discuss the approach we're going to take.

Lead Introduction
The two Leads, Hans Buitendijk (from Siemens Healthcare) and Ken McCaslin (from Quest Diagnostics), introduced themselves.

Wiki
On the wiki page, members will need to focus on the to-dos for the week. Erik Pupo also sent out an email reminder focused on workgroup activities for the week, and directions for things to review. The big item up for review this week is the matrix. When the group was asked if they had any questions or issues with the wiki, there was a question on whether the group is tasked with harmonizing the guides or the message structure in the guides. The Leads will be responsible for guiding the group in that approach going forward.

Merideth Vida said that they are waiting until the the use case has been completed to move all the content from Jira to Wikispaces to avoid any confusion as a lot of the content is being revised on a regular basis on Jira.

Once materials are posted, members would like to know how they can take advantage of time between meetings. The intent is to use the wiki for all work. Conference calls should be used solely to go over items that people feel need additional discussion. There will be mechanisms put into place that allow discussion to occur directly on the wiki page that would allow individuals to list who they are, and the specific area/row they want to focus on. Alternatively, we could post the matrix on the wiki itself, but it is very large and could be difficult to manage. The preferred method would be to have a table in which team members can comment. This will be ready post-meeting. If the group decides that separate wiki pages for separate threads are needed, that can be done.

It was asked if it is appropriate that the conference calls are utilized to confirm that an item is definitely closed. This would provide clear closure on each line item. How should team members integrate what goes on in the wiki with what goes on in the calls? Jonathan Tadese asked that for management purposes, when members are on the wiki, they should specify the subject and comment specifically on that subject to facilitate easier discussion on the calls.

A wiki page has been created to serve as a parking lot for questions on the calls. Members can add their questions on the wiki if there is not enough time to cover them on the call. There is also a link for analysis assumptions.

Matrix
The matrix, which was pulled up via the go-to meeting, is a draft product and not meant to be all-encompassing at this point. The group is encouraged to provide feedback and ask questions. They should be looking initially at identifying and prioritizing variances between the ELINCS materials and the HL7 materials in order to ensure that there is a mitigation strategy going forward. Bob Yencha, co-creator of the matrix with Jonathan Tadese, provided background on how the matrix was put together. The expectation as they were gathering background material for the matrix was to pull information together so that as use case requirements are received, the team can see if an existing data element in the guides is available and how it matches the requirements. The team should focus not necessarily on trying to harmonize the two guides, but trying to see if there exists clear data element definitions needed to go forward. The matrix is really just a catalogue of what is already out there. As the group moves forward, we can see if the requirements are met by one or the other, or if there is a middle ground to be reached. That is for the community to decide. Harmonization would occur if we do have multiple paths.

Bob Lutolf said that the use case group is coming up with the requirements, but these two documents also have use cases. If use cases drove what is in each of the guides and message structures, shouldn't we also be looking at those on a detailed level? Austin Kreisler said that the difference in number of data types is driven by the fact that the HITSP guide supports a broader range of data elements in the first place. There is potential use case variation between the guides - that might initially be best looked at in the use case discussions. Other variances potentially exist in the implementation guide that are not necessarily expressed in the table. Use Case is going to validate whether we need to include, exclude, or solve a particular problem, so we need to have the right use case requirements.

There was a question on if this SWG should be more about syntax and structure. Erik Pupo said that the LRI Vocabulary SWG, headed up by Cindy Johns, would do that, but if this SWG thinks that that should be housed here as well, we can do that.

An audit trail of how we are documenting the project exists in the wiki itself as members update. There is no audit trail application that would allow us to run a report.

The Leads asked if the group would like to prioritize what we want to look at on the spreadsheet first, or just start at the top and go down. General consensus was that once we get to that level, we might as well just start at the beginning and go down from there. Members should start thinking about how we would like to resolve these differences. What is the right sequence to tackle the problem? If a top-down approach is to be used, the group concluded that the appropriate structure should be 1.) Policy differences; 2.) Message structure; 3.) Missing columns; and 4.) Data type variances.

After some discussion on the day and time of the Implementation Group Analysis meetings, it was decided that Erik Pupo and Bob Yencha will coordinate sending out a "When is good?" email to everyone, which is set on Eastern Standard Time, in order to determine a day and time that fits with more people’s schedules going forward.

Next Meeting
**Dial-in:** 1-888-998-2663 | **Participant Code:** 2410512#
 * Date:** 04-20-2011
 * Time:** 12:00 PM-1:00 PM EST

Reference Materials

 * 1) [[file:Implementation Guides Analysis Matrix.xlsx]]

include component="page" wikiName="siframework" page="space.template.inc_contentleft_end"