[Openid-specs-heart] Proposal for reworked use case AND use case template

Mon Aug 3 14:00:05 UTC 2015

Adrian,

Hi – I agree with your assessment regarding the sufficiency of oAuth for the use case as documented.  It is a good way and block and tackle the problem space to get to consensus of what separate components are capable of doing and resolving them from the basic to the complex.  

Does everyone agree with that starting point?  

For discussion purposes lets assume we have consensus on that.  For the use case where the consumer has PGHD that the Provider wants oAuth is sufficient.

This sentence from your email:

If the problem is to begin HEART with a patient-centricity as the problem, then this particular use-case distorts the discussion by presuming Alice wants a PHR and diminishes the patient-centered benefits of UMA as a health information exchange technology.

I want to parse that better so I understand – can you help edify me about what is meant by “patient-centricity as the problem”?

I don’t have the same feelings about the fact that part of the work HEART is doing is inventorying what the different use cases are and their sufficiency.  In fact I think this step may prove informative to the end point that we are all pursuing.

One use case that is important that doesn’t follow the “Consumer has PGHD that the Provider Wants” that readily comes to mind is the pattern of Provider A having PHI about Patient X that Provider B (whom has a patient-provider relationship with Patient X) should have if and only iff (IFF) it is aligned with the privacy preferences of Patient X for Provider B to have said data.  

To close the loop – is that a statement of a patient-centricity use case?  Does what we are learning with the first use case inform what needs to be done to satisfy the second use case?  

>From a laypersons perspective I see a Russian Dolls exposition of the use cases one building on another until we solve the problems established by this work groups charter.

Thank you for letting me share.

Aaron

Aaron Seib, CEO

@CaptBlueButton 

 (o) 301-540-2311

(m) 301-326-6843

From: Openid-specs-heart [mailto:openid-specs-heart-bounces at lists.openid.net] On Behalf Of Adrian Gropper
Sent: Sunday, August 02, 2015 2:30 PM
To: Id Coach
Cc: openid-specs-heart at lists.openid.net
Subject: Re: [Openid-specs-heart] Proposal for reworked use case AND use case template

Thank you Eve!! I hope we can reach consensus on something like the format you present.

Narratives are much easier to understand when they begin with a clear statement of the problem. Shouldn't use cases be asked to clearly state the problem they are trying to solve right up front? 

This particular use-case seems to be trying to solve some or all of three problems: federated sign-in, eliminating the registration clipboard hassle, and updating a PHR with encounter results. All of these can be solved by OAuth alone.

If the problem is to begin HEART with a patient-centricity as the problem, then this particular use-case distorts the discussion by presuming Alice wants a PHR and diminishes the patient-centered benefits of UMA as a health information exchange technology.

I've tried to clarify these fundamental issues in my comments on the document and hope we can resolve this before we move on to semantic profiling and scopes.

Adrian

On Sat, Aug 1, 2015 at 3:32 PM, Id Coach <coach at digitalidcoach.com> wrote:

Thanks Eve,

This is wonderful. I questioned/commented on things only a newbie is likely to ask/care about. 

It's also a useful template for other use cases. To your point about explaining oAuth and other template terms, you're using a new language and a new ecosystem to many, so I encourage those template terms to be explained over and over again as needed and as appropriate.

It will be helpful to me to illustrate or diagram this process. I'll take a crack at that in the next few days (I hope).

  judi

On 8/1/15 11:20 AM, Eve Maler wrote:

Completing my action item, you'll find our (well-worn :-) use case document here <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1IvbdWerdvMuA1dQ-KQvVKqIBrAas7FoenNVUtgpqYrw/edit?usp=sharing> . Following is my proposal. If we like what I've done here, I recommend that we: 

*	Edit the doc title to match the use case title I've supplied (just below the horizontal line).

*	Resolve all the comments above my title (fear not, they're all accounted for in the comments I've inserted) and delete all the text above that point (I've retained all our existing text above the line, just in case).

*	Resolve all the comments I've inserted -- as quickly as possible! We don't have to take up call time to do the minor ones, if people take the initiative to review them offline and supply their feedback as responses to this note. Note that, in this new template, I have avoided the use of the comment mechanism for anything that should be a permanent part of the document.

*	Ask people to write their other use cases in GDoc using this style.

*	Obviously, if you have suggestions on how to improve the template, weigh in! If you want to make invasive suggestions, contact me and we can do a collaborative editing session together.

I'm extremely glad I finally did this exercise, because it caused me to understand more of what we need to consider profiling and more of the "health SME" point of view. And, to be honest (perhaps forestalling a comment from Justin ;-), I don't feel that it was wasteful to go to this degree of mapping to the technologies because it flushed out some mismatches that really didn't make sense to me all this time. I now feel we can go straight to the heart (ahem) of the profiling matter with as many future use cases as we want, and in fact, we can begin profiling and write more use cases in parallel.

Thanks to you all for letting me "get my OCD on".

Eve Maler
ForgeRock Office of the CTO | VP Innovation & Emerging Technology
Cell +1 425.345.6756 <tel:%2B1%20425.345.6756>  | Skype: xmlgrrl | Twitter: @xmlgrrl
Join our ForgeRock.org OpenUMA <http://forgerock.org/openuma/>  community!

_______________________________________________
Openid-specs-heart mailing list
Openid-specs-heart at lists.openid.net
http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-heart

_______________________________________________
Openid-specs-heart mailing list
Openid-specs-heart at lists.openid.net
http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-heart

-- 

Adrian Gropper MD

RESTORE Health Privacy!
HELP us fight for the right to control personal health data.
DONATE:  <http://patientprivacyrights.org/donate-2/> http://patientprivacyrights.org/donate-2/ 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs-heart/attachments/20150803/2a860b8f/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 3147 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs-heart/attachments/20150803/2a860b8f/attachment-0001.jpg>