CTO Report HL7 Co-Chairs Dinner

1. CTO Report HL7 Co-Chairs Dinner John Quinn Cambridge, Massachusetts October 4, 2010

2. Announcement • Tooling Update • SAIF Update

3. In July, 2010 we published the2010 HL7 InternationalVersion 3 Normative Edition

4. Tooling

5. Tooling Report • Evolution of Tooling Processes • Opportunities for Collaboration • Implications for ongoing support

6. Manual Process Before Tooling Identify Specification Requirements Implement Specifications Design New Artifacts Publish Specifications

7. There are Interdependencies Between Methodology and Tooling • We started with a largely manual process where tooling helped form, hold and present the RIM and derived artifacts only. Methodology was applied by manual processes and effort. • Methodology and Reference Specifications are interdependent • Methodology and HL7 Meta-Model are interdependent • Tooling is dependent on Meta-Model • Feedback from implementers suggest changes to: • Core Artifacts – RIM, Datatypes, Vocabulary • Methodology • Alignment with other SDOs • All impact tooling

8. Current Tooling Process Change HL7 Meta-Model (Currently the Model Interchange Format – MIF) Identify Specification Requirements Implement Specifications Design New Artifacts Publish Specifications Convert and Update Previously Designed Artifacts Change Design and Publication Tooling

9. Future Tooling Process Ballot Changed Methodology And Core Reference Artifacts Align Methodology with Other SDOs Change HL7 Meta-Model (Currently the Model Interchange Format – MIF) Identify Specification Requirements Implement Specifications Evaluate Specification and Artifact Fit for Purpose Design New Artifacts Publish Specifications Convert and Update Previously Designed Artifacts Change Design and Publication Tooling

10. Implications for Tooling Processes • There is a need for an increased formality in change control of all interdependencies. • Recognize that updates may/will be needed to previously balloted content to remain current. • Synchronization of changes will need to be formalized into releases – both developmental and production. • There is an overall need for increased coordination and communication

11. 2009-2011 Tooling Projects • 2009 Projects focused on improved stability and quality measures of current tools and core reference artifacts. • 2010 Projects include: • V3 Publishing update to enable MIF 2.0 and streamline implementation; • Updates to the Static Model Designer (SMD) initially developed by the NHS as an Open Health Tools Project to incorporate changes needed to support full development cycle of Universal level artifacts as well as realm specific artifacts. • 2011 will be impacted by our balloting of methodology and the Model Interchange Format (MIF): • The current SMD version implements MIF 2.1.6.; • The current MIF reconciliation process (when all comments are reconciled) will become MIF 2.2.; • Hence our tooling will then need to be modified to also support MIF 2.2.

12. HL7 Tooling Solution Vision Static Model Designer Terminology Manager EHRS Function Model Designer Shared Artifact Repository Behavioral Model Designer Balloting Desktop & Online Reconciliation Specification Publication Manager Leverage OHT HL7 Specified connection

13. V3 Normative Specifications Every year there are more interdependent artifacts to manage

14. Opportunities to Collaborate • Current project to implement the NHS Static Model Designer has completed the first increment for testing with HL7 Tooling and V3 Publishing WGs • Canada Health Infoway is sponsoring a project to update and stabilize the V3 generator, incorporate Canadian enhancements and license as EPL • A new project to develop requirements for the Shared Artifact Repository was proposed at the October 1, 2010 OHT Board Meeting – co-sponsored by IHTSDO and OMG • Successful Pilot of another OHT Project – Model Driven Health Tools (MDHT), sponsored by IBM & the VA designing CDA Templates and generating Implementation Guides but will need HL7 support to become an HL7 tool • Other projects supporting vocabulary management, conformance testing, example message generation, semantic mapping, code generation and others that support implementation are underway at OHT.

15. Shared Artifact Repository • OHT Proposal to create a charter project: • Will assemble requirements from OHT members; • Will identify existing technology capabilities to support requirements; • Is preferably based on an extensible open source architecture with a significant community to continue the work and evolve the SAR; • Is co-sponsored by HL7, OMG and IHTSDO.

16. Budget Implications for Tooling • Maintaining and Enhancing HL7 Tooling requires: • Help desk support /technical support for installation, configuration and user support for appropriate use; • Both commercially acquired tools and developed tools require that both require ongoing maintenance & support; • Formal change management with release schedules and integration testing to ensure tools work together • Development of new tools requires collaboration with both other SDOs and potential tool users so that methodologies are aligned and interoperability is increased; • Coordination between Tooling and other HL7 WGs to align methodologies and tools, train and support users and support conversion of existing artifacts. • Benefits of new tooling development can not be realized with the proposed 2011 HL7 budget and we will enter a period of tooling “maintenance” at best.

17. Open Health Tools • At the OHT meeting—Friday October 1: • The Shared Artifact Repository (SAR) project was accepted in principle as an OHT charter project with HL7 identified as lead and at least OMG and IHTSDO co-sponsoring, at least in terms of providing requirements.  • The expectation is that a charter will be drafted for submission to the OHT Board at the February meeting.   • Charter development will articulate the scope, objectives, participants, deliverables, priorities, expected timelines and funding expectations and at least some possible funding sources. • NCI could also provide a SAR—our requirements and its capabilities need to be analyzed.

18. Service Aware Interoperability Framework

19. SAIF Development Progress • Available on GForge • Current SAIF documents and decks are dated early May 2010 • Draft submission documents are at mid-September 2010 in “for peer-review” folder View Details saif_introduction_for_peer_review_20100409.pdf 2 MB View Details README_peer_review.txt391 bytesView Details intro_LATEST_DRAFT_b007_20100929.docx 2 MB View Details intro_LATEST_DRAFT_b006_20100624.docx 2 MB View Details HL7SAIFPeerReviewCommentForm.xls 28 KB View Details Enterprise_Conformance_Compliance_Framework_peer_review_20100312.pdfView Details Enterprise_Conformance_Compliance_Framework_LATEST_DRAFT_b006_20100624.docx 1 MBView Details behavioral_framework_LATEST_DRAFT_b006_20100521.docx 2 MB View Details Behavioral_Framework_for_peer_review_20100312.pdf 2 MB

20. NCI caGRID Roadmap • NCI is developing a SAIF-based Enterprise Architecture for caBIG2 • September 13, 2010 publication of latest design documents are available on NCI Web site available for comment to the NCI • Documents reference the current HL7 SAIF documents • https://wiki.nci.nih.gov/display/CBIITtech/caGrid+2.0+Roadmap+Documents • Useful reference information about SOA approach, Semantic Interoperability and specifically project reference for ECCF • References for caGrid 2.0 and Semantic Infrastructure 2.0 • NCI SAIF IG https://wiki.nci.nih.gov/x/nTdyAQ

21. NCI and Shared Artifacts Repository • NCI is producing a shared artifact repository and DITA documentation processes and tooling as part of the caGRID 2.0 roadmap. • NCI’s intends to make this shared artifact repository work available through OHT and/or HL7.