1 / 12

SAEAF Governance

SAEAF Governance. TCS Topic Discussion. SAEAF Governance. Background Appling SAEAF Contextualizing Governance SAEAF Impact on Governance SAEAF Architectural Governance Challenge Other Governance Concerns Next Steps. Background.

ursala
Télécharger la présentation

SAEAF Governance

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. SAEAF Governance TCS Topic Discussion

  2. SAEAF Governance • Background • Appling SAEAF • Contextualizing Governance • SAEAF Impact on Governance • SAEAF Architectural Governance Challenge • Other Governance Concerns • Next Steps...

  3. Background • HL7 is a specification development body formally recognized as a Standards Development Organization (SDO) granted authority to set consensus standards by ANSI and by the delegated authority of its members. • In accordance with ANSI rules & HL7 bylaws, we have enshrined our governance practices within the Governance and Operations Manual (GOM). • Governance determines… • Who gets to make the decisions • How and when those decisions are made • How and when their adherence is enforced • Key Governance concepts are: • Jurisdiction, Policy, Accountability, Governance Events and Provenance

  4. Appling SAEAF to our goal… • What’s our goal... HL7 working interoperability (WI) objective: • Establish a internally consistent methodology and architectural approach across and between HL7’s V3 interoperability paradigms. • Interoperability Paradigms • Messages, • Documents, • Services • SAEAF Objective... Provide a framework for ensuring interoperability for documents, messages, and services shared between organizations. How do we govern HL7 standards development to reach our goal?

  5. Contextualizing Governance V3 Architecture & Methodology Other area’s to consider… • Referencing the SAEAF framework, and the existing HL7 V3 architecture and methodology, we need to: • Identify changes needed to ensure we reach our goal of working interoperability (WI) across and between our three interoperability paradigms. • Revise as needed the governance rules associated with the production of those specification artifacts. • Arising from other standardization activities within HL7. • Governance arrangements between other Specification Development Bodies (SDB) and HL7. • Originating from external regulatory authorities • Flowing to HL7 from external authorities (domain based). • Within an Interoperability Consortium • a variant of inter-SDB (above)

  6. SAEAF Impact on Governance • SAEAF impact on governance structure/processes • Redefine governance between domain & technical work groups Or • Define some fine-tuning of responsibilities of some groups • Preserve the essential collaborative nature of producing consensus-based specifications • Within HL7 • Alignment and harmonization processes are part of the existing governance framework • Need to verify alignment with SAEAF’s consistency and traceability requirements

  7. SAEAF Impact on Governance • Work Groups serve as forums for domain experts • Articulate the requirements of their domain to produce artifacts associated with the Conceptual layer of ECCF • Layered conformance via ECCF • Requirements artifacts • Logical artifacts (e.g. DAMs, RMIMs) • Implementable artifacts (e.g. IGs)

  8. SAEAF Impact on Governance • Platform Independent (PI) specifications, (e.g. use cases, models, interaction diagrams) for Messages, Documents, Services are currently developed by various workgroups. • Sorting out the responsibilities for clinical domain (CI) traceability and applying SAIF principles, processes, and practices across HL7’s three interoperability paradigms is likely the biggest challenge to governance and adoption of SAEAF. • Platform Specific (PS) specifications (schemas, service APIs, orchestration scripts ) are produced in conformance to the PI specifications. • Include consideration of the capabilities and constraints of particular technology platforms • Should be compliant to relevant standards associated with the specific technology platform

  9. SAEAF Architectural Governance Challenge

  10. Other Governance concerns… • Some Work Groups produce Reference Artifacts • Reference Information Model (RIM), Data Types, Vocabulary, Refinement and Localization … • These artifacts increase consistency of specifications across domain groups and interoperability paradigms • Governance is required to ensure conformance to HL7 V3 - SAEAF based methodology. • Reference specifications may be produced in compliance with external specifications produced by other SDBs • Formal joint projects • Informal working relationships

  11. Next Steps… • Establish a cogent view of the SAEAF based architectural approach for HL7’s V3 three interoperability paradigms. • Domain Prospective • Interoperability Prospective • Reference Prospective • Operations Prospective • Revise the HL7 Governance and Procedures • To ensure internally consistent methodology and architectural approach across and between HL7’s V3 interoperability paradigms.

  12. Discussion on SEAEF

More Related