SAEAF Education Series 1: Introduction and Overview April 2009

1. SAEAF Education Series1: Introduction and OverviewApril 2009 HL7 Services-Aware Enterprise Architecture Framework (SAEAF)

2. SAEAF Education Series (1) • The SAEAF Education Series includes the following: • 1: Introduction and Overview • SAEAF Value Proposition: Working Interoperability • SAEAF Structural Components • Behavioral Framework • Conformance/Compliance Framework • Governance Framework • SAEAF Organizational Implications • Education • Change Management • Alpha Projects

3. SAEAF Education Series (2) • The SAEAF Education Series includes the following: • 2: Behavioral Framework • Contracts, Roles, Collaborations • Implementation Patterns for the BF • Mapping to HL7 Dynamic Model • More topics possible as deck is developed (Feb 09)

4. SAEAF Education Series (3) • The SAEAF Education Series includes the following: • 3: Enterprise Conformance/Compliance Framework (ECCF) • The multi-dimensional world of • Conformance • Compliance • Consistency • Certification • Traceability, Jurisdiction, and Provenance • Layered specifications and layered ECCF • Relationship of ECCF to SAEAF Governance

5. SAEAF Education Series (3) • The SAEAF Education Series includes the following: • 3: Enterprise Conformance/Compliance Framework (ECCF) • A multi-dimensional world • Conformance • Compliance • Consistency • Certification • Traceability, etc. • The SAEAF Specification Stack and the ECCF • ECCF and SAEAF Governance

6. SAEAF Education Series (4) • The SAEAF Education Series includes the following: • 4: SAEAF Governance • Role of TSC • Role of ArB • Role of other SDOs • Organizational Impacts • More topics possible as deck is developed (Feb 09)

7. SAEAF Education Series (5) • The SAEAF Education Series includes the following: • 5: SAEAF Examples • Service Interoperability Paradigm • Message Interoperability Paradigm • Document Interoperability Paradigm • More topics possible as deck is developed (Feb 09)

8. SAEAF Series Part 1: Introduction and Overview to SAEAF (1) • Pre-requisites • No SAEAF pre-reqs • Essential: Familiarity with the problems of achieving working interoperability in the healthcare / life sciences / clinical research domain • Helpful: General knowledge of HL7 • Outcomes • Understanding of the organizational principles and contexts around which SAEAF was developed • General understanding of core components of SAEAF • Preparation for all other SAEAF Education materials

9. SAEAF Series Part 1: Introduction and Overview to SAEAF(2) Topics discussed in this deck include: • SAEAF Background • SAEAF Value Proposition: Working Interoperability (WI) • SAEAF Facts and The Lens of SAEAF • SAEAF, SOA, and EA: Core Principles • History of Services in HL7 • SAEAF Operationalization and Implications • Summary Conclusions

10. Background (1)A “Services-Aware Enterprise Architecture for HL7” • April 08: HSSP-sponsored “Services in Healthcare” conference, Chicago, IL (attended by HL7 CTO) • May 08: HL7 CTO asks the HL7 ArB to “develop a straw-man proposal for services development within the context of an HL7 Enterprise Architecture” • “Specify the artifacts and processes necessary to allow HL7 to define specifications for SOA integration.” • “Define an HL7 Enterprise Architecture Framework (EAF) which contextualizes HL7 specifications in a SOA environment.” • Consider services first, but don’t exclude messages or documents as Interoperability Paradigms • “HL7 EAF should be services-aware, not service-specific”

11. Background (2)A “Services-Aware Enterprise Architecture for HL7” • Summer 08: HL7 Executive Committee agreed to sponsor three face-to-face “ArB EAF Jump-Start” meetings • Modeled after “Left-Hand Side of the RIM” project (1998) • Three 3-day F2F meetings in June, July, August, 2008 • Transparent process • Open attendance • Published agendas • Published artefacts and works-in-progress • September 08: CTO and TSC requested that initial results of the Jump-Start process be presented at the Vancouver WG meeting via a series of joint-WG meetings and open ArB sessions

12. Background (3)A “Services-Aware Enterprise Architecture for HL7” • Jump-Start Deliverables (largely contained in the collection of SAEAF documents) to include (but not be limited to): • EA framework “informed by” service specification considerations and industry experience (“services-aware”) • Identification and initial specification of required infrastructure currently missing or incomplete in HL7 • Behavioral Framework (BF) • Enterprise Conformance & Compliance Framework (ECCF) • Governance Framework (GF) • Operational vision for SAEAF deployment • Integration with existing HL7 and HSSP processes • complimentary to existing relationships (e.g. OMG) • extension to message and document Interoperability Paradigms

13. Background (4)A “Services-Aware Enterprise Architecture for HL7” • Operationalization of SAEAF within HL7 (to be overseen by HL7 TSC) • Organizational impact • Within HL7 and between HL7 and other organizations • Tooling impact • Additional SAEAF considerations: • Use/reuse of existing/legacy HL7 artifacts • RIM • Data Types • CDA • RMIMs • Vocab

14. Background (5)A “Services-Aware Enterprise Architecture for HL7” • “Services-aware but not services-specific” -- SAEAF is not SOA • Consideration given to three HL7 “interoperability paradigms” (“HL7 Unified Field Theory”) • Messages • Documents • Services • The SAEAF work draws on “service-aware principles” e.g. • Contracts, Roles, and Collaborations (“behavior”) • Conformance & Compliance • Governance

15. Background (6)Jump-Start Participants • Other • Alex DeJong, Siemens • Ed Larsen, HITSP • Galen Mulrooney, JP Systems, VA • Scott Robertson, Kaiser • Rich Rogers, IBM • Ann Wrightson, NHS UK • Participants brought a wide range of perspectives to the discussion • HL7 ArB • Yongjian Bao, GE Healthcare • Jane Curry, Health Information Strategies • Grahame Grieve, Jiva Medical • Anthony Julian, Mayo • John Koisch, NCI • Cecil Lynch, OntoReason • Charlie Mead, CTO NCI • Nancy Orvis, DoD MHS • Ron Parker, Canada Health Infoway • John Quinn, Accenture, CTO HL7 • Abdul Malik Shakir, Shakir Consulting • Mead Walker, Health Data and Interoperability

16. SAEAF Value Proposition (1):Working Interoperability • Working Interoperability: • The collection of structures, processes, and components • that support Computable Semantic Interoperability • in the context of a Conformance/Compliance Framework. • SAEAF facilitates the explicit and layered expression • of the set of static, functional, and behavioral semantics that collectively enable Working Interoperability. • Specifications developed to enable Working Interoperability • are defined in such a manner so as to ensure that they are • usable, useful, durable, and that they are • implementable in a variety of deployment contexts • in a repeatable, comprehensible manner.

17. SAEAF Value Proposition (2):Working Interoperability Interoperability Paradigm (Messages, Documents, Services): specifications which enable two or more (HL7) trading partners to collaborate in the context of a specific business interaction No assumptions of size, character, or identify of parties Nations, Enterprises, Departments, Individual, Systems, etc. No assumptions of exchange details (What, Why, How, etc.)

18. SAEAF Value Proposition (3):Working Interoperability D C E Component Component B F Agree on “Platform -Specific” view A Agree on “Platform-Independent” view Agree on “Conceptual” view Agree on “Reference” view A -- F: trading partners • Interoperability: the deterministic exchange of data/information in a manner that preserves shared meaning • Two “trading partners” interoperate based on a certified “level of shared compliance” to interoperability specifications/standards • Certified “level of conformance” determine degree of automated interoperability that is possible and/or difficulty of the transformations that are required to enable interoperability

19. SAEAF Facts (1) • Architecture: “A set of resources, relationships, and processes that collectively define a system and its products-of-value.” • HL7 is concerned with two architectures • #1: The organization of HL7 dedicated to producing specifications that promote interoperability within (between member participants) the “other” architecture, i.e. • #2: The collective “enterprise architecture” that supports healthcare, life sciences, and clinical research

20. SAEAF Facts (2) • SAEAF… • is a set ofFrameworks for producing specifications that support aspects of “HL7 architecture #2” • SAEAF is not meant to be a “complete” EA • SAEAF focuses on the critical interoperability aspects of HL7 specifications in each of the three HL7 Interoperability Paradigms • has structural, relationship, and process implications for architecture #1 • defines the artifacts and specification semantics needed to support interoperability in healthcare, life sciences, and clinical research

21. SAEAF Facts (3) • The 3 component Frameworks of SAEAF: • Behavioral Framework (deck 2) • Specification of integration semantics of IT components • Linkage of integration semantics to real-world behaviors • Conformance/Compliance Framework (deck 3) • Layered to enable “degrees” of conformance and compliance • Governance Framework (deck 4) • Internal HL7 governance • HL7 relationships to other organizations specifying standards • NOTE: there is no formal “Static Framework” listed because of the existing maturity of the HL7 RIM, ADT specification, CDA, etc. which are used to describe static semantics in HL7 specifications

22. SAEAF Facts (4) • SAEAF… • is now stable/mature enough to begin “pilot” implementations that: • produce SAEAF-compliant message, document, and service specifications • utilize and provide feedback for SAEAF-centric Education • execute under SAEAF-triggered Change Management processes • report to the TSC or its designate • Focus of TSC activities going forward (additional deck) • Education • Change Management • Alpha Projects in all Interoperability Paradigms

23. The Lens of SAEAF (1):Contextualizing SAEAF • SAEAF: intersection of SOA, MDA, CSI, Distributed Systems Architecture, and HL7 (e.g. HDF, Core Principles) provide goals, artifacts, portions of a methodology, and a framework for defining the HL7 EA, a robust, durable business-oriented set of constructs that provide extensibility, reuse, and governance. Service Oriented Architecture Health Level 7 Computable Semantic Interoperability Reference Model For Open Distributed Processing Model Driven Architecture You are here (Vousêtesiçi)

24. The Lens of SAEAF (2):Services-Oriented Architecture • SOA (Services-Oriented Architecture) • SAEAF is “services-aware,” i.e., not “just about services • Service awareness (at the architecture level) surfaces need for: • Behavioral Framework built around Contracts and Roles • Well-defined Conformance/Compliance Framework • Focus on Governance • Attention to “separation of concerns” (static vs dynamic) • Technology-Independent specifications

25. The Lens of SAEAF (3):Model-Driven Architecture • MDA (Model-Driven Architecture) enables • Levels of abstraction that layer complexity from Conceptual through Logical to Implementation • Support/enforce SOA thinking • Support partitioning of artifacts to layers of Conformance/Compliance Framework • Solid tooling support

26. The Lens of SAEAF (4):Computable Semantic Interoperability (CSI) CSI (Computable Semantic Interoperability) Pillar #1: Common Model across all domains-of-interest Multiple domains  one or more domain analysis models Common Model Components  Universally applied Pillar #2: Model #1 bound to robust data type specification Pillar #3: Methodology for binding terms from concept-based terminologies Pillar #4: A formally-defined process for specifying the static and behavioral semantics of the interoperability scenario

27. The Lens of SAEAF (5):Computable Semantic Interoperability (CSI) CSI (Computable Semantic Interoperability) Individual domains-of-interest may share common concepts (e.g. Person) CSI informs SAEAF artifact generation facilitate expression of explicit semantics across multiple domain models (e.g. multiple Clinical Domain Models for constructed in separate clinical domains)

28. The Lens of SAEAF (6)RM-ODP • RM-ODP (Reference Model for Open Distributed Processing) • ISO standard • View Points + Ontology for human semantic interoperability and for creating specifications of distributed systems

29. RM-ODP (1) ISO Standard (RM – ODP, ISO/IEC IS 10746 | ITU-T X.900 ) • SAEAF used the Reference Model for Open Distributed Processing (RM-ODP) as its lingua franca categorize the various artifacts • Five non-orthogonal, non-hierarchical Viewpoints in which Conformance Assertions are made or validated • Conformance Statements made (Conformance asserted): • Enterprise/ Business VP • Informational VP • Computational VP • Engineering VP • Conformance Statements validated (Conformance tested) • Technology VP

30. RM-ODP (2) ISO Standard (RM – ODP, ISO/IEC IS 10746 | ITU-T X.900 ) Why? What? How? Where? True? SAEAF Specification Stack is made up of Conformance Assertions and Compliance Validations. In SAEAF, the artifacts are constructed via Constraint Patterns sorted by RM-ODP Viewpoints.

31. RM-ODP (3) ISO Standard (RM – ODP, ISO/IEC IS 10746 | ITU-T X.900 ) Information Computational Business /Enterprise Engineering Technology • Non-hierarchical and Non-orthogonal • Each Viewpoint can (and often will) contain a hierarchy of layered information

32. The Lens of the SAEAF (7):Health Level 7 • HL7 • SAEAF takes a number of enterprise architecture best practices / approaches and contextualizes them to HL7 including • Use of existing HL7 artifacts • Core Principles • HDF • RMIMs • etc. • Awareness of HL7 business context • Dedication to HL7 Mission and Goals RE Working Interoperability

33. SAEAF, SOA, and EA: Core Principles (1) • Objectives of the SAEAF project: • Facilitate organization-wide development of service specifications • Enable “Unified Field Theory,” i.e. contextualization and utilization of SAEAF principles, processes, and practices in the development of other HL7 specifications (e.g. messages, documents, etc.) • Explicit definition of/support for • Behavioral Framework (deck 2) • Contract-based integration • Functional specification • Conformance/Compliance Framework (deck 3) • Requirements traceability • Explicit expression of policy and governance (deck 4)

34. SAEAF, SOA, and EA: Core Principles (2) • SAEAF draws on a “Combination of Forces” • Existing HL7 artifacts (RIM, ADT’s, CDA, etc.) • RM-ODP methodology and framework as the lingua franca • Application Model-Driven Architecture (MDA) • Commitment to and framework for achieving Computable Semantic Interoperability (CSI) • Necessity of a Conformance/Compliance Framework • “…the micrometer, T-square, and plumb-bob of an Enterprise Architecture…” • Service-awareness/SOA perspectives and explicitness

35. SAEAF, SOA, and EA: Core Principles (3) • Given the Value Proposition (Working Interoperability), the following requirements surface, i.e. the need for: • Definition of Data/Information to be exchanged • Definition of Functions that enable/perform the exchange • Traceable Mappings of functions to Real World Events and Business Processes • Reference Terminology / Language for sorting and discussing the above • Engineering Deployment Topologies and Technology Bindings to achieve/instantiate Working Interoperability

36. SAEAF, SOA, and EA: Core Principles (4)Syntactic vs Semantic Interoperability • Main Entry: in·ter·op·er·a·bil·i·ty: ability of a system ... to use the parts or equipment of another system • interoperability: ability of two or more systems or components toexchange information and to predictably use the information that has been exchanged. Source: Merriam-Webster web site Syntax  Structure Semantics  Meaning Source: IEEE Standard Computer Dictionary: A Compilation of IEEE Standard Computer Glossaries, IEEE, 1990] Semanticinteroperability Syntactic interoperability(interchange) Semantic Interoperability means reliable, predictable exchange of meaning between two parties, be they machine or persons.

37. SAEAF, SOA, and EA: Core Principles (5)Pillars of CSI -- redux • #1 - Common model across all domains-of-interest • Information model vs Data model • Semanticsof shared concepts – Domain Analysis Model • Includes, but does not necessarily require, dynamic/behavioral semantics • Functions • Behavior • Interactions • #2- (static) Model bound to robust data type specification • HL7 V3 Abstract Data Type Specification (R2) • ISO DT Specification

38. SAEAF, SOA, and EA: Core Principles (6)Pillars of Computable Semantic Interoperability • #3 - Methodology for binding terms from concept-based terminologies • Domain-specific semantics bound to cross-domain concepts • #4 - A formally-defined process for specifying the static and behavioral semantics of the interoperability scenario, e.g. • RM-ODP- and MDA-based Service Specification Methodology • Service interfaces and interactions semantics (“Contracts,” “Service Roles,” “Interactions”) • Methodology for specifying exchange/wire format • CSI Pillars form a key component of WI Value Proposition

39. SAEAF, SOA, and EA: Core Principles (7)Integration vs Interoperability • Implementers need a framework to provide: • Computable Semantic Interoperability (CSI) – • Measurable goals, • “Plug and play” patterns of implementation • Incremental adoption yields Incremental Benefit • Implementable Specifications • Including governance as modeled, testable specifications • Reflect the semantics of integration (CSI) • Conformance/Compliance Model • Fit with the way organizations model, use, and test components • Implementation Guides (“Are you ready? How does this work with our new ABC Interface Engine?”)

40. SAEAF, SOA, and EA: Core Principles (8)Integration vs Interoperability • Any single instance of integration is simple, though not necessarily easy. • Engineers of any single system understand it well enough to allow integration with any other single system • Integration is an manufacturing/implementation issue, i.e. deployment of computational components • Interoperability is an engineering/architectural concern that allows for the creation of multiple context-specific integration solutions • The complexity and high-change of healthcare requires WI  requires an EAS • “Enterprise Architecture is more than just an implementation or technology perspective.”

41. SAEAF, SOA, and EA: Core Principles (9)Enterprise Integration Paradigms • Service/service-aware perspectives make explicit • Integration dimensions • Static (“the data”) • Functional (“what data goes in and/or comes out”) • Behavioral (“who interacts with whom?”) • Business Context (“who is interacting where and why?”) • Integration dimensions ~RM-OPD Viewpoints • Static  Informational • Functional & Behavioral  Computational • Business Context  Enterprise, Computational, Engineering • Integration Points between interacting components • Testable and Enforceable

42. SAEAF, SOA, and EA: Core Principles (10)Summary: Services and Service Awareness (1) • Services/service-awareness perspectives are • supported by various artifacts • that allow them to be specified technologically neutrally • support conformance, • provide a framework for specification of various semantics, and • are necessary for integrating systems across the enterprise.

43. SAEAF, SOA, and EA: Core Principles (11)Summary: Services and Service Awareness (2) • Services/service-aware perspectives are • not technology-specific per se. • are a framework for approaching the problem • of how to design distributed capabilities (information and functionality sharing) • SAEAF is notdefining “service” per se • SAEAF is using perspectives from the SOA world • Hence the phrase “service-aware perspective” • Services are not equivalent to Web Services

44. SAEAF, SOA, and EA: Core Principles (12)Summary: Services and Service Awareness (3) Services/service-aware perspective focus on Virtualization Composition Unity of Purpose and Separation of Concerns Parsimony Technology Independence Specifications supporting Layered Conformance and Compliance

45. SAEAF, SOA, and EA: Core Principles (13)Services and Service Awareness (text from BF document) • Because services cannot directly leverage the principles that make objects so enduring (e.g. encapsulation, polymorphism, and inheritance.), it is necessary to construct a set of principles that support service-oriented definition and design. • Enterprise Architecture is the framework that provides the service specification foundation and thus plays a critical role in successful service design.  The following principles are considered essential for enterprise-level service specifications which explicitly define testable, verifiable four-dimensioned service contracts: • Virtualization • Composition • Unity of Purpose and Separation of Concerns • Parsimony • Technology Independence • Specification supports a Layered Conformance Policy • These principles are validated and coordinated in the Service Classification Scheme, as well as in crafting individual services via Specification Best Practices • see SAEAF deck 2 (Behavioral Fframework)

46. History of Services in HL7 (1) • Early efforts • ebXML • Web Service Profile for HL7 • 2005: The Health Services Specification Project (HSSP) • HL7 established an agreement with the Object Management Group (OMG) to share intellectual capital in support of the cooperative development of healthcare-specific services • HL7 would specify requirements and some analysis artifacts (Service Functional Model) • OMG would create the technical specification in conjunction with industry

47. History of Services in HL7 (2) • In support of HSSP, HL7 formed the SOA SIG (now WG) • Produced several SFMs balloted as DSTUs • Resource Locate and Update Service (RLUS) • Entity Identification Service (EIS) • Decision Support Service (DSS) • Clinical Research Functional Query Service (CRFQS) • Several currently in-process • Privacy and Security Services (PASS) • Service Provider Registry (SPR)

48. History of Services in HL7 (3) • Alignment of SAEAF and HSSP: artifacts • Service Functional Model (SFM) • Essentially the same as the SAEAF Analysis Specification artifact • Should be readily interchangeable for the purposes of HL7 SAEAF and HSSP coordination

49. History of Services in HL7 (4) • Alignment of SAEAF and HSSP: process • Service Specification Framework served as one of the inputs into the SAEAF • SAEAF extends the HL7 portion of HSSP by defining Logical and Platform specifications within HL7 • Functional Profiles and Semantic Profiles • OMG has expressed interest in aligning these SAEAF artifacts with OMG artifacts • SAEAF allows artifacts to be built outside of HL7 • Both the SAEAF and the HSSP Processes support MDA, Constraint Patterns

50. History of Services in HL7 (5) • HL7, Services, HSSP, and OMG • The HSSP Process provides one means of intersection between HL7 and OMG • The HSSP process is one exemplar means of creating constrained specifications based on the SAEAF’s Analysis Specification outside of HL7. • Other Intersections include MDA, SOA ML, UML, BPDM • The HSSP Process is encouraged and Facilitated by greater specification on the HL7 side • Ongoing HL7/OMG relationship is considered important to both organizations