BRIDG Architecture Review Team Meeting minutes – May 8th, 2015

Attendees

  • Ed Helton, NCI
  • Boris Brodsky, FDA
  • Jean-Henri Duteau, Duteau Design
  • Terry Hardin, Parexel
  • Smita Hastak, Samvit Solutions
  • Wendy Ver Hoef, Samvit Solutions
  • Julie James, Blue Wave/Parexel
  • Jane Pollack, NMDP
  • Diane Wold, CDISC

May WG meeting planning

Ed, Terry and Janeare attending the WG meeting remotely. Bob will attend (helping to address LS DAM comments); Julie and Hugh will provide connectivity for Terry as needed.

BRIDG NCI funding for next year looks sufficient to support.

Tom Klumppan oncologist at Thomas Jefferson Medical School - Fox Chase NCI Comprehensive Cancer Center, has notified Ed that they are panning to implement BRIDG at Fox Chase for oncology. Ed invited him to join the HL7 BRIDG WG.

CDISC has provided no BRIDG ballot comments. If some come up, will be incorporated along with the HL7 ones.

Question: Would it be better to start with addressing the ballot comment in full, or to ‘interlace’ reconciliation and architectural review for greater efficiency? Consensus to start with addressing ballot comments, so the entire group can participate in reconciliation: If we are taking DSTU to Normative in September, need to submit normative materials for 4.1 in mid-July. Architectural review and update of RIM are in scope for 5.0.

Multiple ways to attack the comments:

  • “Divide and conquer”: Split the questions by area among the team members, to bring the proposed responses back to the group for evaluation
  • Starting with harder ones

Even if participants agree with draft resolutions, the discussion to address the comments completely would take at least 3 Qs; if some raise controversial questions, may take all the time. May triage (some may be answered via email). To leave sufficient time for BART discussion, want to leverage face-to-face time to cover persuasive with mod, and then discuss persuasive over email.Will try to time-box the comments to specific Qs.

May defer some comments until the architectural solution is available:Could say we agree with the submitter, and that it will be addressed in the later release. Some comments could be declared out of scope for 4.0, and delegated to a later release (5.0), but need to make sure we actually plan to implement them.

LS DAM comments expected to take less time, since they will have to be deferred to the CG domain experts.Need to work closely with CG, to enable modeling by referencing CG DAM. Jane will email Bob re his meeting schedule. NMDP needs their molecular testing data in LS DAM, and will make sure that LS DAM comments are well addressed.

Tentative schedule:

Quarter / Focus
Tue-Q4 / Joint RCRIM
Wed-Q1 / Ballot comments (translational research scope)
Wed-Q2 / Joint meeting (large group / CG, O&O, CIC - TBD)
Wed-Q3 / Ballot comments (clinical research scope)
Wed-Q4 / Ballot comments (clinical research scope)
Thu-Q1 / BART
Thu-Q2 / BART
Thu-Q3 / Ballot comments (overflow)
Thu-Q4 / Business planning, roadmap for BRIDG 5.0
Fri-Q1 / TBD

The group asked to consider the questions related to the in-person architectural review process ahead of the meeting:

  • Sequence: Order of sub-domains; starting from core classes moving down/out, or starting with leaf nodes (in particular, empty classes) and working our way up/in; etc
  • Navigation: An efficient process for exploring classes, inheritance, relationships; moving between classes; etc
  • Updates: Recording changes in EA/Excel; maintaining traceability; etc

1