Atlanta wgm meeting Minutes Service-oriented Architecture Workgroup

Download 37.89 Kb.
Date conversion31.07.2017
Size37.89 Kb.
2015-10 Atlanta WGM Meeting Minutes

Service-oriented Architecture Workgroup

Mon Q4 SOA meeting

Monday, October 05, 2015

12:33 PM
Note: This session is dedicated to receiving status updates from each of the sub-projects affiliated with SOA, both to inform the broader community as to current activities, as well as to indicate when and which topics are to be addressed later within the week.
1. Balloted Unified communication service


3 DSTUs with OMG


EPS (look up)

Contracted with VA

  • Ordering Service




Normally process in HSSP starts with a service functional model then go to OMG which creates a complete SOA technical spec (DSTU)


Since VA has funded this for another year, the spec will have a limited update while working out the kinks in the DSTUs.



Balloted as normative

6 votes short of passing

Question: what is the relationship between PASS ACS and IHE ATNA Audit provisions.

Not really any convergence between ACS and ATNA but this could come into PASS Audit.


Cross-Paradigm Implementation Project

Map the different standards at the semantic and behavioral levels.

Semantic mapping is more advanced

DMI possible to create references that contain

Completed ballot reconciliation and are looking to complete the behavioral part of the standard.

Started as a specific implementation guide with immunization being the use case for the implementation.

Have 2 informative ballots. Thinking that the next ballot will be DSTU.


Cloud Blueprint

Looking to complete the PSS.


Composed FHIR Services

Looking at how SOA and RESTful transactions can be represented in a SOA environment.

Has there been a presentation showing an SOA approach using FHIR?



How does Smart-on-FHIR work in an SOA environment? (

We can use Rest as a particular kind of service.

SOA discloses business functionality. SOA is concerned with business meaningful functions. SOA has a lot of data related functions so whether it's SOA or not. It can be a little subjective.

Smart is evolving into FHIR. Allows for the development of FHIR applications on the fly.


Don: I would like to see a tool that makes sure that services using FHIR resources have what they need. So much of healthcare could be done at a system analyst level.

The purpose of Rest is to maintain PHP.

Business process management tool that can pull all the FHIR resources needed when defining a service.

SAHMSA's consent to share service is one possible example. (currently using CCDA 1.1 not FHIR)

One of the things that may be useful is to create an implementation guide similar to X paradigm and in working on this project we may discover a tool(s).

Tues Q1 SOA joint with FHIR, ITS

(need summary)

Tues Q2 SOA

Quarter focused on two principal elements. The SOA workgroup had taken action dating back to the first FHIR DSTU ballot to harmonize what at that time were two disparate sections, one focused on “services” and the other on “service-oriented architecture” that were part of the document. Since the Paris WGM, these sections were fully integrated with that content contributed to the current DSTU publication. A review was conducted of the approach and new content, with discussion to rationalize how and why the remediation undertaken was done. The issues to resolve:

  • Based upon ballot comment, the prior section was too “tutorial-like” and less prescriptive

  • A lot of existing content was either rationalizing or defensive in posture

  • The prior services content was at varying levels of granularity

  • Two sections needed to be harmonized into one

Actions taken:

  • Revision of the section was done with the intention of being largely “content neutral”. While existing verbiage was edited and moved, little new original text was added, and removal of content was primarily to eliminate redundancies

  • In the prior version, three “approach styles” of bringing together of SOA and FHIR were contrasted, with each being studied independently while considering 8-10 factors. This was redone, focusing the section on the “factors” and then calling-out differences among them when there were variations among the approach styles. This resulted in a cleaner section with less redundant material

  • Tutorial and rationalization text was moved to the end of the section, instead focusing on how to bring together FHIR with SOA, and the dimensions of the problem space that SOA is able to help address. Tutorial information was substantially trimmed.

Next Steps:

  • Specific examples of use of SOA techniques applied to FHIR (code examples) were not included in this revision, though that was an aspirational goal. Hope is to identify candidates and include example as illustrative to complement existing content for DSTU 2.1

Other Items:

  • The FHIR WG was informed about the Cloud Blueprint project (emerging). A review of the draft project scope statement was conducted, and FHIR invited to participate as a co-sponsor of the project. In brief, the Cloud Blueprint project will create an informative document to help HL7 consumer make informed decisions about how and where HL7 standards fit into a cloud implementation/migration. The emphasis will be on the intersection with existing HL7 portfolio. The effort will NOT re-create existing generic cloud implementation (e.g. virtualization, platform-as-a-service, etc.) guidance, rather referring to high-quality sources that are available.

Note: Ken apologized that the revised documentation did not receive customary advanced notice and review, in part from his time constraints and in part due to a problem with the HL7 listserv.

Tues Q3 SOA

Don J. Officially resigned. Diana P-M has expressed an interest in stepping in as interim co-chair.


Cloud blueprint

Reviewed the tentative outline.

Use case driven

Meat of the document would be a design pattern (section 3)


Even if what we are doing isn't new and unique, this can be used as a jumping off point for healthcare organization who wants to implement a cloud solution.


Viewpoint: how does the healthcare organization need to organize


Recommend reading "Design Patterns: Elements of Reusable Object Oriented Software."


This book is a compilation of design patterns that they did write. We are looking to do something similar for cloud, compiling cloud design patterns and healthcare best practices around a healthcare cloud implementation.


Suggestion that we reach out to the mobile health WG as another possible co-Sponsor.


Looking at having this as a signed PSS within a month.


Next steps (assuming approval) (this list is on a document on the HSSP wiki) Survey HL7 members Develop the Maturity Model Collect info for primer Elaborate the target audience roles Identify short-list of blueprint contexts


use case development

Define substructure for each blueprint

Consider design patterns pattern

Bottom-up view of HL7 Standards as applied to each of the above patterns.

Look at reference Cloud architecture


Diana and Ken to work on the justification section.


Dimitrio would like a rethinking of the call times to allow for greater European participation. (Doodle poll)

Tues Q4 SOA

Tuesday, October 06, 2015

12:32 PM

Object Management Group (OMG) RFP


  • Introductions

  • SOA Specifications are done in 2 parts

    • HL7

    • OMG (

      • OMG gets standards through the RFP process.

      • We will be seeing two RFPs

      • OMG meets 4x/year



Audio recording started: 12:42 PM Tuesday, October 06, 2015

  • Coordination of Care is a joint submission team forming. The submission window is open with the initial submission due 15 Feb 2016

  • Letter of Intent needs to be submitted 31 Dec 2015

  • Initial submission presentations 16 March 2016

  • Revised submission August 2016

  • Revised Submission presentations September 2016

  • Only aware of one submission team at this point.

    • Allscripts has been running very open and collaborative meetings for the submission.

  • Looking for willingness to implement.

    • There is the possibility of a "supporter" role for someone who has something to contribute but who is not able to implement.

  • Coordination of care service is looking at out to create a care service that can be accessed by multiple healthcare providers.

  • 4 parts:

    • Mandatory requirements.

      • Platform Independent Model

      • Platform Specific Model

      • PSM needs to support REST architectural style.

      • Define explicit functions that support all of the capabilities defined in sections 4.1, 4.2 and 4.4 of SFM.

      • Identify service profiles

      • Etc… (these mandatory requirements are all listed in the RFP).

    • Non-mandatory reqs

      • Nice to haves

    • Issue for discussion

    • Evaluation criteria

      • Would need to include FHIR.


  • HSSP Artifacts, Roles, Attributes

    • Service Functional Model

      • Owned/produced by HL7 community

      • Defines what a service does but not how

      • Independent of technical platform

      • Audience is tech leads, EAs, Tech Spec developers

        • Technical spec with lay out the mandatory requirements.

    • Request For Proposal

    • Submission

    • Implementation


  • RFP #2: Ordering Service (This RFP has not yet been released)

    • Letters of Intent due: 7 Oct 2016

    • Submissions due: 7 Nov 2016

    • Working on finishing this RFP

      • FHIR is identified as a discussion point as opposed to making it mandatory.

    • Timeline for finishing up the RFP

      • Looking at having one or two more meetings in order to finish this up.

      • Get to alpha with one more call (next week or the following week at latest).

      • Ken will send out a doodle poll to determine a meeting time.

Wed Q1

Note: SOA Sent a representative to Patient Care to provide an update on the Coordination of Care Service. Note that the technical work on that effort is underway, with the window to participate closing December 31st of this year. Please contact if you would like to be introduced to the leader of the joint submission team.
Wed Q2 Joint SOA/Security Ballot Reconciliation

Wednesday, October 07, 2015

9:31 AM


Diana Proud-Madruga

Don Jorgenson

Mike Davis

Trish Williams

Hideyaki Miyohana

Alexander Mense

Ken Rubin - Chair

Leslie Sistla

Stefano Lotti

Duane DeCouteau

John Moehrke


Mike moved to accept the dispositions as discussed at yesterday's and today's meeting (Rows 3-50).

Alex seconded



We will have at least one joint meeting at the next WGM.

Wed Q3 Cloud Working Session (Part II)

Continued discussions on the Cloud Blueprint, both in terms of the scope of work, and discussion to determine how best to engage industry Cloud players. With Microsoft in attendance, we were able to identify some existing published works that could be leveraged, and they will help us both secure industry participation and identify reference sources that can be leveraged in the development of this work.

The group elected to change the name of the effort to be more self-descriptive. The new name is the “HL7 Cloud Planning Guide”, which will still contain the “blueprints” section and has not substantively changed the table of contents or the objectives. The group felt the new name would both improve consumption of the document, and do a better job in setting expectations as to target audience and expected content.

Wed Q4 SOA Strategic Planning

Wednesday, October 07, 2015

12:37 PM



Diana Proud-Madruga

Don Jorgenson

Reuben Daniels

Praveen Ekkati

Stefano Lotti

Ken Rubin - Chair



Create revise adapt roadmap?


Have mostly been focused on services but not as much on the architecture.


Went around the room with introductions


Need to update the roadmap. We have a lot coming out of pipeline but not as much going in. Much of our work has come from other WGs and we have had a number of projects that have happened that way. We have generally had projects happening on a distributed work model.


What should we be working on:

  • PASS Audit and PASS Authentication

    • Expand into the technical specs of the PASS ACS, Audit, and Authentication models

      • Platform specific implementation guides for FHIR and RESTFul?

  • We have a catalog of services. We need to make sure it is maintained.

  • Use these services were developed pre-FHIR, hence there are no FHIR bindings.

    • Do we want to create the FHIR bindings?

  • FHIR connect-a-thon had opened the door to having a SOA arm.

    • Define scenarios for test implementations in FHIR for presentation at the FHIR connect-a-thon.

  • There is no underlying architecture that binds together all of the services. We may want to start focusing on the architecture.

  • We have been doing a good job of working with other WGs.

    • There is a disconnect between the FHIR Resources and the services.

    • There are no micro-services in FHIR

(Note: Cloud blueprint is now called "HL7 Cloud Planning Guide.")

  • There are multiple implementations of our services scattered around the globe.

    • Many of the implementations were done using open source applications

    • The lessons learned are in the normative standards but there is no software development kit (SDK) to go along with the implementations.

  • There have been thoughts of pulling together a tool kit.


Input from Daren:

  • Australia needs a registry. Need to get the criteria from NeHTA and find at least two other interested parties.

  • Suggest this WG have a role in creating an implementation guide for developing services in FHIR using operation definition resource.

  • How does the relationship between SOA and OMG work?

    • HL7 takes care of the business functional model. OMG takes care of the technical spec.

The database is protected by copyright © 2016
send message

    Main page