 Things like upcoming Java SDK and Java chain code in the new programming model is similar to composite kind of and also going through the play back of the cloud native support of the chain code container. So in the future, they are planning to move to the chain code running in a not in a container, separate as a service. So it will enhance the performance. Oh excellent. And also I gone through that one research paper by the one university in Canada about like the 20,000 transaction per second in the hyperledger. So they suggested some architectural changes. So I think it's good. I think it's achievable. Like you mentioned about like in the transaction for hyperledger, we fabricationally send the transaction details, read, write, set and everything to the order. But order only, we have the only the transaction idea to decide the ordering of the transaction in block. So we are unnecessarily sending the transaction details like read, write, set to the order. Oh good. So if we this kind of changes, we can improve the performance to the 20,000 per second in fabric. Wow. So there are a couple of, if you need, I will share with that paper, I think if you not have. So yeah, if you can, I mean, this sounds like a nice improvement going forward. Is this, you know, is this public and can you share this information or? Yeah. I mean, actually some research people tried with this kind of improvement solution. And there is not just theoretical, they just practically did on their research lab with five endors and a couple of using the Kafka out in service. And they achieved this kind of transaction throughput using this changes. So they sent us to the, our architectural team. So yeah, it looks to be my end reading through all that stuff and going through the playbacks. It looks like it's potentially based on the work they had done in testing maybe up to a 600% performance improvement. Yeah. Wow. That's impressive. Well, good. Good that people are focused. Right. And we all have to extrapolate it back to our own individual use cases because these are all benchmarks based on standard use cases. But the beauty of it is I was looking at, you know, conservatively saying, okay, in a couple of standard hyper ledger fabric, you know, one for world that exists today. I was expecting to be in the based on their use cases and their configured environment. Their benchmark was 1800, at least 1800 brights per second, you know, TPS in a sense on the right side. And so I extrapolate that back to my use case and say, okay, I divide by four to get to where we think we're going to be. But when I looked at their results and their configuration from the new model, it was unbelievable. It kicks up out over, you know, certainly 10, 12,000, you know, they were getting to 20,000 transactions per second. Oh, amazing. Oh, good. That's what we need to hear. Yeah. That was crazy. So when you look at those numbers, all of a sudden you're saying, gee, if you think about all the use cases that are floating around potentially, there's very few use cases that would not fall into scope with that kind of architecture change. Excellent. Well, I'm going to interject here. I do want to get ourselves sort of kicked off officially. And then I want to go through some introductions. This is a good conversation, but hold that thought just as we get started. So we're just past the top of the hour. And so for those folks that are brand new, first of all, welcome. And we'll get to introductions in just a moment. I do want to mention that this meeting is recorded. And so it's available for people that usually miss the meeting. They can review it. We also have an antitrust policy. And you should see a screen. I believe I am sharing the screen. This is our antitrust policy notice. Please read through it. The upshot is be a good person. That's kind of the takeaway here. So I'll leave this to you, and the link is available in our agenda. And if I can ask someone to please just sort of take notes for the meeting, can I get a volunteer? Oh, this is, I hear nothing. Okay, well, so I will take notes this time around. That said, let's get to introductions. So Jim, I don't think we've met before. Is this your first time in the general meeting? Yeah, and all honesty, it was an accident. When I clicked on the link, the meeting that I had saved, I said it was the architecture. What was it originally? The architecture. Right. Yeah. So you're this healthcare, and although I'm not healthcare, the reality is somebody else who was in healthcare said he thought that my world is automotive, and he thought that automotive and healthcare only had a couple items in common. And I got off the phone after talking to him, thought for about 30 minutes and came up with 35 things that are identical between what I call the automotive mobility industry and healthcare. So the differences, it sounds idiotic, are actually small. The names are a lot different, but what we focus on is probably 89% the same as healthcare with pretty much the same issues. Yeah, that's a really good point. Well, glad to have you here, however, for fleeting it might be. I will mention, however, Jim, we do have a healthcare interoperability subgroup that's spinning up that is going to be heavy into architecture. So if you're interested in lending a little bit of your expertise or talent, there may be a great fit for you there. It would be very interesting when that happens, I'd like to know about that. Okay, great. And that's a little bit further down in the agenda, but I could certainly connect you with the gentleman that's going to be leading that subgroup. We're already sort of moving forward with the use case. But anyway, we'll get to that, but great to have you, Jim, and the conversation just prior to the kickoff, the meeting was interesting and worthwhile. Okay, and so it looks like maybe one other person, Nisarg, is on the line and I don't recognize the name. I wonder if you can introduce yourself. Yes, hi. This is Nisarg, and it is my first time. I actually just came across this, you know, the forum last night, and I was like, okay, let me just join and see what's going on. I'm obviously just curious. I'm actually working on healthcare, you know, telehealth applications, and also in the interoperability space. And yeah, just curious what's going on in this group, and I'm at the early stages of exploring what capabilities I can bring into my solution. So, you know, really appreciate being on the call. Oh, excellent. Great to have you as a first-timer. Where are you calling from? But yes, I'm from the Chicago suburbs, Naperville, Illinois. Oh, right. So, I grew up in the south suburbs, far south, and I have a family that lives in St. Charles. So... Oh, okay, yes, yes. You had an ice storm not too long ago, if I recall. Yes, we did. We did. It's pretty cold today as well, but I think it's getting better. Okay. Okay, well, good. Great to have you on the line. And who do you work for or who do you work with? I am the founder of Ovidone Health. That's the start-up. We're Ovidone Stage, and we're just running a few pilots, actually, internationally, because we haven't quite integrated the HIPAA compliance yet. So, yes, we're just running Ovidone Stage pilots and remote health management. Right now, the use case where we're kind of targeting is prenatal care. And but yeah, we're going to be open to various other conditions as well. Oh, interesting. So, the focus is prenatal care. So, one of our other subgroups is doing work with the donor milk project out of the NICU. So, it may be some interesting sort of crossover that's happening there. Yeah, most definitely. Actually, prenatal care was more by accident than actually a plan to get into that segment. It was, you know, I was kind of going after general health management and cardiac. But they found me, and they're like, no, we can use the same thing, don't worry about it. So, you know, when the customer finds you, you cannot say no. You've got to just, you know, keep going and see what happens. So, yeah, we're very early stage. This is our first pilot. We would even call it an MVP because it's kind of semi MVP right now. So, yeah. Well, excellent. And I would, since you're new to the group, same for Jim as well. If you're interested, we manage a sort of a membership directory. So if you're interested in getting your name and company and contact information up for the sake of this special interest group, feel free to do so. And it's available through, well, through this site here. In fact, let me see if I can pull it up real quickly. So here's our membership directory. So you can sort of figure out pretty quickly what the syntax is. But feel free to log in and edit it. Or if you have any issues with that, just contact me and I'll add you to the list. Sounds great. Thank you. Well, cool. Great to have you on the call. And good morning, Len and Ravish. We've got some names there that I recognize. So excellent to have you. Good morning. Good morning, Ravish and team. Good to be back again. Excellent. Well, good. Good. Okay. Well, let's get, we'll get moving with the rest of the agenda. So we do have what just one community announcement, which is for those of us in the healthcare space. The HIMS conference is happening next week. In fact, I'll be flying out in theory tomorrow night. And I say in theory because here in Seattle, it looks like we're going to be getting a fairly large snowstorm. So I don't know if I'm going to be able to get out of the Seattle area. But that said, the great news is we will have quite a few members at the conference. I think about a half a dozen, maybe eight of us will be getting together for sort of a social event on Wednesday afternoon and evening, which will be great. So I'll get to meet some of you. I think Ravish will be there. And if anyone else happens to be attending, please let me know and we'll try to find a good way to hook you up. And if you happen to know anyone that's going to be going to the HIMS conference, I will be at the hyperledger booth. So I'll be working the hyperledger booth probably. Well, certainly, let's say Tuesday, Wednesday for sure. Monday there's a blockchain symposium that I'll be probably at most of the time. But otherwise, like I said, if you know someone, I'd love to meet them. And it would be a great opportunity. Is anyone planning to attend the conference besides Ravish? Ravish? Yeah. Which could be unfortunately, I'll not be able to make it. Something has come up on the personal front. So I sincerely apologize, I will not be there this time. Oh, OK. Well, good. Good for letting me know. Appreciate it. Well, we'll raise a toast in your absence. OK. Any anyone else want to make an announcement within the group here? All right. And if not, let's sort of go forward. So let's take a look at our subgroups. So patient member, and I don't think Ben's going to be on the call. And let's see, I could sort of give you a little bit of an update. So this is the subgroup that's working on the donor milk project. And we just recently had Marissa Ionaroni, who's been leading this. She had us stuck down for work reasons, and so Ben is now our new lead. So they're sort of transitioning over. And I think Ben actually has, he deferred last week's meeting till a little bit later this morning. I think at 9 o'clock Pacific is when they're doing their meeting today instead of last week. But where they're at is they're, as I mentioned before, this is donor milk project. And what happened was the customer that they were working with effectively exited the health care space. And so they're working right now to identify new customers in the donor milk space that they could work with to need to move the project forward. So that's kind of where we're at. So Nisarg, it may be something that you may want to connect with Ben on if you're sort of interested in sort of working that end of sort of the NICU. And I don't know if the NICU comes close enough to what you guys are doing. And I don't know how the donor milk project might fit, but it may be an interesting conversation for you to have. And I'd be happy to make introductions. Yes, that'd be great. Thank you. If you email me your contact information, or you can just, let's see, probably these, are you familiar with our chat, Hyperledger chat channel? No, this is my first time, but you know, I'll figure it out. Okay. And if not, just post something in the chat window here and I could probably pick it up from here. And that's our chat window there. So yeah. Okay. So, Ravish, you want to talk a little bit about payer? Yeah. Which we have been having active discussions around, especially around the planning. So I think team decided to take a step back, what we are doing from paper, paper standpoint. I think there was a consensus that since we started the work, we should try to get that to completion or some logical state that can be published. And I know Jeff was very passionate about it. He'll take a look at it and then we'll decide how we will get that paper to completion. But there is an agreement that we will get a decision to re-book paper to completion. And there were a number of ideas, great ideas came out of that meeting. In a couple meetings that we have had, we have decided to kind of send out a survey to everyone to solicit ideas and then we will be establishing a plan for 2019. What are the key two or three activities that we will get engaged in, in 2019. Also there is consensus that we should move the meeting from weekly to bi-weekly schedule. So there is enough time for everyone to spend time on the deliverables that we will be working on. First for everyone, there are two major pieces of focus that we have. One is really looking at the use cases in healthcare and blockchain. And then second is going to be related to that is going to be how we can materialize some of those use cases, identify challenges, so on and so forth. And second is a decision framework paper that will be caring towards the payer industry as to what are the key decision points to validate a particular use case. Is that a valid use case for blockchain or not? And what are the challenges and focus that you need to have in order to implement a real solution that you can leverage blockchain capabilities to address the challenge in the industry. So that's where we are as of now. I think the momentum seems to be coming back. So there were a good amount of discussion and a number of people joined. I hope it will continue and we'll be able to get to a point where then we'll be able to see some key deliverables other than talks coming out of the group. Excellent. So when's your next meeting planned? It is 19th of February. Excellent, okay. So about 11 days out, you'll have your next meeting and it sounds like you got some folks that are going to be dialing in, which is good to hear. And yeah, I'm happy to hear that you'll sort of if you need to close down the white paper to get it to a point where it's a reasonable paper and perhaps you might even be able to publish it at some point, which is fantastic. So I'm happy to hear about that. And then you said your survey is going to go out. Is that, well, you and I can work on that because it'd be interesting maybe that we put this to full membership as far as the survey goes to perhaps capture additional members that might be interested in the PAIR subgroup. But we can talk about that offline. And Rich, just another thing I wanted to point out for this group to kind of keep track of what is going on. If I can request you, Rick, if you don't mind, if you want to navigate to a PAIR subgroup and the meeting summary page, it shows all the action items that are assigned to the folks. Let's see, do you want me to, is this the subgroup page? No, just the summary, just the second link, meeting index and summary. There we go. Yeah, so you see these tasks have been assigned to the teams, you know, team members who, you know, based on the discussions we have had. So you see if, you know, as we captured the meeting minutes, you know, with the help of Confluence, you know, the framework that they have, these action items comes on the summary page. So you can track what is going on in the group, what is the next thing that is someone is working on. So this gives us a way to kind of quickly communicate to the others in the overall, you know, SIG. If they are interested in a deliverable that is mentioned here, they can, they can, you know, opt for it and so on and so forth. Oh, excellent. Oh, that's really cool. Okay. I'm going to have to come up to speed on how we do this in Confluence. Excellent. Good, good, good. Well, I'm very excited to hear about this. This, this is, this is moving forward very quickly. So excellent. And if there's, of course, anyone on the call that's interested in following up with a ravish feel free to do so and, and that pair subgroup, the next pair of subgroup meeting is about 11 days out. So excellent. Okay. And then I'll, I'll sort of speak for Stephen. I believe, I don't think he's on the call. So, so the healthcare interoperability subgroup is, is fairly new. We, we sort of kicked that off earlier this month, I should say earlier last month and I believe we've got at least one use case in the works. The, I don't think the subgroup was officially meeting regularly yet. It's still ad hoc as they try to figure out what kind of resources they need. I think Stephen's going to be putting out a general email to membership to engage people sort of at a broader level, but the upshot is their interest is in sort of working instead of sort of a top down approach, which is kind of the focus of what, what patient is doing with, with the donor milk project, Stephen is looking at sort of a bottom up approach, which is really generating services on top of the, the blockchain frameworks. They're using fabric at the moment. They're fairly technical in, in how their approach is being made it. But the upshot is they're looking to generate interoperability services on top of fabric. And you can imagine there's value to that because then those services can, can sort of be broadened against other projects sort of at a foundational level. And so, like I said, we're, it's a fairly new subgroup, but there's an awful lot of promise there. So expect Rich, what was that subgroup again? It's called the healthcare interoperability subgroup. And that, and Jim, this is, this is the group that I think you might be interested in dialing in a little bit more on, because it's, it's going to be fairly technical. They're using fabric and I think the use case they're looking at is immunization. So the idea being tracking children that have been immunized across geographic spaces. And so you can imagine, and they're trying to stay sort of country agnostic, so they're trying to be a little bit more global in their approach here, but you can imagine if you've got regional areas that manage immunization. And those currently today have to coordinate. And so here in the state of Washington, we have a state sort of organized immunization database, but you can imagine that there, there may be other sort of regional sections going down or more federal oversight looking up the tree. So, so that's the work that they're doing on, I'll be happy to introduce you to Steven, if you're interested. Actually, he jumped on to a fabric thing that I was on the documentation team for fabric. Oh, right. Okay. He and I synced up and he was a guy that I think I, we went back and forth and he said there, what didn't look to be a lot of common stuff. And I came back with, wait a minute, we got 35 things in common. And I'm actually working on the same things he's working on now on interoperability. And you're right. The only difference being use case, but that's sounds idiotic. That's irrelevant. We're actually looking at the exact same features. Right, right, right. What's off chain, how do you link the two, you know, what gets encrypted, what doesn't, but all of those detail questions on just looking at a different use case instead of immunization. And that's it. Yeah. And the idea there is he wants to sort of, sort of get into it because, you know, the perception sort of again, being bottom up in service, more service oriented is they want to sort of shake the tree a bit and understand where some of these sort of sensitive spots are going to be. And, and so they're obviously we're in a healthcare context here. So they're use cases, health, healthcare specific. But to your point, obviously, you know, you can generate a use case that is not necessarily healthcare related, and still sort of exercise some of the issues that they're up against. So yeah. But he's right. The services view of the world says, all of a sudden you wind up with what I call these common functional services, if you will, that support many, many different use cases. And then you look at something like fabric and say, well, that has a set of features that support some of these services. But really, it becomes a library of services, ultimately, that can consume by the use cases. So his, his model is a good one. Excellent. Yeah. Yeah, I agree. And, and, and I see Bob Colley is on the call. So good morning, Bob. Bob is part of the group with Steven that that sort of spun out the concept of a bottom up approach. And, and which ultimately sort of led to the this this interoperability subgroup. So Bob, do you want to talk more on this point? Well, I haven't had a chance in the last couple of weeks to intersect with Steven directly. But I look at this, and I'd be interested in Jim's opinion, as analogous, I'm always looking for analogies in, in these highly technical fields. And it looks analogous to me to the health care services platform consortium, you know, done by Intermountain and Cerner, the HSPC, which is in the centralized database world, you know, by using fires, open APIs, to create interoperable exchange for, you know, EHR vendors trying to develop applications on top of the, that consortium's platform. I mean, is that is that somewhere in the right direction, Jim? No, fire is a service, from my point of view. And it's one of the things we're looking at, we're looking at the what I call the model above that. So it's called services models. And then you're right, fire is just an implementation of that, right? Okay. And so the, but the concept is we have models for things, different types of models for services. And then we say, okay, and I'm looking across the board, and I say, which one am I going to use to implement it? And so one of the things which actually ties back exactly to Hyperledger, and probably why you guys are part of the thing is we're not interested in driving down to say we locked in only on one platform, we're trying to be, in a sense, multi platform and portable across platforms. So if those are you say, geez, I really can't, I can, I can do what I call bindings to implementations from a model, models are actually become very important, because they give you the portability, and they give you the abstractions you need to say, we're going to dive into the single platform stuff and say, here I use, you know, whatever is RDS or big table or something else. And I bound everything, I'll call it tightly to that without a model. Yeah, and you bring up a good point, Jim, you know, if you can abstract away from whatever the framework is that you're that you're sitting on all the better, because that way, you know, you it's a very clean implementation, you have very clear distinction of interfaces there. And you don't get sort of mired in the details of any one particular framework. So, so, so this is yeah, so this is really interesting stuff. So I will, so Jim, you have a way to contact Steven, it sounds like or you've already perhaps connected. So just to let you know, that's where Steven's head with this particular subgroup. And it'd be great to have you, you know, participate and certainly help out at least initially. Yeah, I will definitely jump into that. Because like I say, it, the difference between what I'm doing and what he's doing is 10%. So, right, right. Okay, well, good. Okay. So I wanted to also sort of walk through status on on some of our ad hoc teams. So, Ravish, do you want to talk a little bit about our migration over to Confluence and sort of where we are and how that's going? Yeah, so I think, for most part, going forward, the old wiki has been disabled. So it's freed only now. So all the content that will relate to wiki will be created on on the new wiki that we have. And Rick, the overall migration as such, we have not moved a lot of content yet. The idea is since the old one is going to be available, we will reference it. But I think the question is, I know you raised a good question about the docu wiki that Michael redesigned. I am not sure whether I'm not clear as to do we reorganize the content or organize it the same way, but because yet conform to the templates that are there within the Confluence that have been published by, I think there is a template for the meeting minutes, there is a template for the team, you know, workgroup, so on and so forth from, I think they were our Linux foundation. So I have tried to keep the pages for the for the groups conforming to the team workgroup templates. But we do have a homepage that we have a question about that we want to answer. Yeah, and I would say the homepage particularly we probably want to make it a little bit more conform with with the template that's being used just so that since we have members that tend to move sort of laterally across some of the SIGs and workgroups that, you know, common, common designs should should be probably prevalent here. I think that's probably where the bulk of the work is going to be because the design that was done on docu wiki probably needs to get sort of re sort of reflowed into the template that that we have through Confluence. And so I think that's where I think that's where the work effort goes. And that was probably the purpose, the point of the email that I had sent over. And what I would recommend is maybe putting together a meeting with the team. And to find a way to sort of, you know, find sort of way forward with the resources that you have available. And by the way, I'll just open this up if anyone on the call is interested, has Confluence experience and is interested in helping out Ravish and his team. Feel free to sort of, you know, mention as much. And I think Ravish, you could probably, you know, probably make use of the extra resources. I work on Confluence in my company as an administrator so I can provide that. Oh, okay. So, so Ravish, you may want to talk with Jim a little bit more about that. But by the way, Ravish, have you heard from Mikhail at all regarding the, the, the migration? No, nothing from him yet. But I will, you know, as you mentioned, I will set up a meeting to get together so we can talk it out and figure out the next steps quickly. Okay. Okay, good, good. Yeah, I mean, obviously, we're now officially on Confluence. That's where we're at right here with the page we're looking at. And so at least operationally, we're sort of in the Confluence base. And of course, we're still still a bit of a work in progress. The healthcare special interest group is one of the oldest, if not the oldest SIG that we have through hyperledger projects. And so we have a lot more sort of maturity or, or, I don't know, you could call it overhead or baggage even in the wiki. And so there's, there's an awful lot more work sort of ahead of us to try to migrate that stuff over in a proper manner. So it'll take a little bit of time. Okay, well, thanks for that Ravish, appreciate it. So moving forward. So the academic research team, I think we're we may, well, so this isn't works. And so last week, Logan and Adrian and I had a chance to meet to talk about the sort of a way forward. I also received an email, I believe it was last night from someone who's also very interested in academic research. The purpose of this team is to really understand what the workspace is in the academic world. And particularly in healthcare, healthcare tends to make decisions based on on peer reviewed outcomes, usually academic papers, sometimes presentations or posters. But healthcare just happens to be very closely wedded to academia. And there's obviously long history with that. And so what's what we're what we're finding is that a lot of our healthcare organizations really won't make a sort of a commitment to to even a POC with with a blockchain solution, until there's some sort of rationale behind it and it tends to need to be objective to the extent that it's possible. And again, this is just the way that healthcare tends to work. And so this research team is trying to look at ways to make academia sort of a little bit more amenable to the to the blockchain technology space, whether that means trying to understand how to get more publications using blockchain in into the academic sort of workflow, for the sake of healthcare, or for helping to maybe collate some of the existing work that's out there, the upshot being where we're just was very much starved in a lot of objective sort of research in in blockchain within the healthcare context. So the funny part about what you're mentioning about peer reviews and analysis, from a healthcare perspective, everything is built around the concept of trusted data. And what blockchain does fundamentally is sit on the trust side of that equation, right? Right, right. Increases that. So I mean, if you look across the idea of doing experiments, replication of data sets and all that kind of stuff, and see what the changes are in tracking all that, then blockchain sort of is a natural fit for that. Yeah, and it's ironic. It's just the nature of how decisions get made in the healthcare space that they they expect it to be presented through, through these these sort of peer reviewed mechanisms. But you can imagine right now, since it's a fairly new technology, everyone sort of has their sort of take on it. Generally speaking, myself and included as a startup, you you one of the first things to do is you publish a white paper to say how wonderful your solution happens to be. But that's not objective. That's certainly not peer reviewed. And so, you know, healthcare institutions will not necessarily make decisions based on these sorts of these sorts of white papers. They're still waiting for the large organizations, large institutions to publish something that is credible. And so that's really kind of the position that we're in, and we're trying to understand, well, how do we sort of move forward with this? And to as a lead to I'll just add to Adrian's credit, he works with RTI. RTI is a fairly large organization. And they may actually be lending themselves to helping to vet some of this some of this work effort. Go ahead, Jim. I was just going to say that again, going back to the data challenges, you look at it, and when you're trying to say, OK, I've got a result that I think is outstanding. I've cured cancer or whatever. It is just me saying that. And the whole point of this thing is you look at all of these things. They're what I call a process, as you say, peer review, whether it's just what's a better process to analyze something or if it's something even for an FDA review or whatever it is in healthcare. Whatever the process is, you're trying to figure out is there a way to, in a sense, shorten the overall cycle time and speeding what I call peer review is a big deal. And if you look at what I call shared anonymous data sets, which again fits the blockchain model, where there's trust on that. You have, in a sense, broader data sets from multiple sources now that you can, in a sense, analyze faster and look for differences and variances and so on. And you can do sort of faster analysis that way than just saying, OK, Jim's going to build his own data sets serially over time and analyze those. Yeah. And of course, I think the technology is sound. The bigger issue then has more to do with convincing sort of the powers that be in various healthcare institutions that, you know, that what's being, what's being told to them. You know, the way I look at it with blockchain, the simple answer is this. You always say, no, we don't need blockchain. Let's build the best or design the best solution we can without blockchain. Let's do that. And then when you look at that, say, OK, is there any, what are the impacts if I added blockchain and into this thing correctly, what would change? And then you look at those changes and say, Oh, I really like those. I guess that's the simple shortcut. Because rather than say, let's go to blockchain and say, No, let's not use blockchain and look at the difference. And that's the fastest analysis I've ever seen to get blockchain in. That's a good way to look at it. Absolutely. Yeah. This is this. So, you know, as I mentioned earlier towards the beginning of the call, I'm running a little pilot and that happens to be with a research organization. So one thing I want to kind of point out is that, you know, there's a lot of these academia, they do global, global health research, right, and emerging markets and things like that. Right, right. So there's a there's a massive use case, and you don't have to tell them as blockchain, because they basically have a huge issue even accessing the data, right? Right, right. So I'm actually hitting that rule block right now. And, you know, it's it's a very clear use case. And, you know, it's, you know, I don't, I don't think they have another way out of it to ricochet out of it. So, you know, it's, you know, are we, are we interested in contributing? Maybe some ideas to this, because, you know, maybe we can even try to bring a quick pilot into market. You know, if if there's already some work going on. Oh, well, good. So this sounds good. So, so as I said, this is sort of spinning up. There was see Adrian and I sort of started sort of a bit of an article on this topic a couple of months ago, and then it just sort of got pushed off a little bit, because we did an internal reorg here within hyperledger. But, but we just recently got a little bit more traction and we've got some additional resources put to it. So what what I'm going to do is I'm going to talk to Adrian and see if we can. And I know Logan is doing some work. I think he should have something up by end of day today, as a matter of fact. I think what I'm going to do is I'm going to push this up to general membership rather than keeping it small, so that those of us on today's call, for example, and then for larger membership. This is starting to resonate, I think, at a broader level. And so I agree with you, Nisar. This is something that I think probably is going to be touching us a little bit more so than we had originally anticipated. And I think for that reason, I want to open this up. And my my gut is, I'm going to probably recommend that we move this to a full subgroup just because I think there's enough happening kind of coalescing around this topic that makes it worthwhile to sort of pursue this more than sort of at a not ad hoc level. Because this is starting to get real interesting real fast. Okay. They have so much so much research just sitting around or they can't access and it's in silo. So yeah, there's a massive option. I agree. Yeah, good, good. Yeah. Okay. And then sort of moving forward and mindful of time. So as far as the subgroup review team. So and I think Bob is on was was part of that group. We had our final meeting last month, the end of last month to sort of walk through team objectives. And just as a reminder to everyone, the purpose of the subgroup review team was was really twofold, one to sort of review the state of at that time the EMR subgroup, which sort of was floundering, whether or not we wanted to sort of move forward with trying to sort of resuscitate the EMR subgroup or or disbanded and possibly in the future sort of reconstituted as an EHR subgroup. And of course, the purpose of that was really more focused around the EHR space. And then sort of the secondary part. And of course we met that first objective. The EMR subgroup was disbanded. And of course we're hopeful that maybe going forward, we have an EHR subgroup, but that may or may not happen depending on resources or interest. And then the second sort of aspect of this review team was to sort of look at sort of the structure of our existing subgroup organization within the SIG and to make recommendations on any changes going forward on how we may want to consider subgroups being organized going forward within within the SIG and across SIGs as well. And the takeaway from that was this notion of whether we have existing top down solutions, which is really the patient subgroup, where we sort of work with our customers to develop a sort of a one-off solution that conceivably can be sort of repurposed for other reasons. Or the new model, which is supplemental, not necessarily replacement would be a bottom up solution, which is really more services, which is the work that's coming out of the stuff that Steven and Bob have been doing with what is now going to be the healthcare interoperability subgroup. And so with all that sort of done, we decided to disband this subgroup, this ad hoc team, I should say. And so I just wanted to thank, well, so Bob's on the call, I want to thank Bob particularly, and of course the work that's been done by Steven and Mikhail and Sonia was lead for quite a while and then she had to sort of drop off for work reasons. So this was a group that, a team that did an awful lot of work over the past couple of weeks. So we're very happy for that. So Bob, did you want to add anything more to that as we sort of sort of close out the subgroup review team? I'm wondering, is it should there be a look at the, the PHR, the patient facing data that comes out of EHR databases, you know, within the, the healthcare interoperability that's Steven and now Jim are and look like it's going to be involved in because of the Apple, all the stuff that's happening with Apple and their focus on, you know, the patient facing, patient health records coming up on smartphones, not just tablets and desktop computers. So that's something I haven't even had a chance to talk to Steve about, but I, you know, I've collected some information about Apple's entrance into healthcare, big time. And that's just one thing that needs to be evaluated from my perspective. Yeah, that's a great point. And you know what, Bob, I put a little burb at the very bottom for our new business. So I'll, I'll let's hold on the discussion about Apple's influence in the healthcare space, because, because we had a great email sort of a listserv conversation. So I want to bring back that, bring that back to the table in just a short order, just a little while here. So hold that comment because I think that's a good conversation I have. I'm trying to, I want to make as much time for us to sort of focus on that point. So we can get, I just, I just need to get through the rest of this stuff, but, but good excellent point. Thank you. So let's see. So, so, so, so that's been disbanded. So I'm happy to report that it was excellent work by the team. So going forward as far as old business goes, as I had mentioned before, we had discussed probably about a month or so ago the notion of putting together a way to get folks within membership to collaborate on articles and white papers sort of outside of this SIG. So that page is officially up. And, and so here's, here's what that looks like. The upshot is if you're interested in finding a way to collaborate with someone on a paper that that either you've conceived of, or that you see that someone else has sort of generated a thesis and you want to write with them, please feel free to use this page to make that happen. The syntax is pretty straightforward. Let me get this out of the way. The upshot is if you've got a working title, that that will be in the first sort of column there, which you're sort of a short thesis. So, so you're really trying to engage other collaborators, who you happen to be, and then collaborators that may be interested in joining in into that writing exercise. And really the reason why this happened has to do a lot with a paper that an article that I'm writing that's supposed to go to supposed to go to HBR, I don't know whatever happened to it. But I thought, boy, we have, you know, 1000 members in this special interest group, I should be able to engage some of those folks to help write this paper rather than me having to sort of do it solo with some other folks. So anyway, so that is available, feel free to make use of it. The idea is we've got 1000 folks here in the healthcare space that have interest in blockchain technologies. Someone's got to be able to have an excellent ability to to write and collaborate on on excellent white papers. So feel free to make use of that as a resource. Let's see. So I see, I don't see. Well, so let me let me give you a quick update. So we're trying to get a six page sort of summary for the kidney X redesign dialysis prize. Most of you probably know I have a background in in in kidney care in general. And then here in Seattle, we have an awful lot of resources available to us. So we're hoping to try to put something together by end of month for the sake of this competition, and that's still work in progress. I managed to talk to a director for what's called the kidney research research Institute, which is out of Seattle. And they're also part of the KRI is judging this competition. So it's a bit of a political thing. I need to be very careful about who I talked to. But the upshot is we're hoping to continue to move forward with this activity. And then finally, if you haven't participated in our annual survey, please do so. I think we have probably about a maybe a dozen or so, maybe a few few more folks that that are participated. But with 1000 people membership, I mean, that's that's terrible. So we really, really want to ask to get you involved and hearing your voice, because that really is going to set the direction going forward for for the year for this special interest group. And so if you haven't participated in the survey, use the link that you see in front of you, click it. It's a very fairly short survey. And again, it's really going to help define sort of how a membership moves forward. And and some of the feedback that I've received already is going to be pretty helpful to make it a little bit more minimal for for sort of for the group moving forward and where they're they're particularly in so sly. Has anyone not participated in the survey yet? Let me just get a quick quick sense. Yeah, I have not. I don't know. Jim, I'll you get you get a you get a you get a buy on that one. All right, well, so so anyone else that that's normally part of this special interest group that hasn't participated in survey, please, please do so, I think the survey will close out in the next I want to say 10 days or so. So please participate. Okay, so I want to bring back around the conversation that brought Bob sort of initiated and this really comes from an excellent email discussion that we had on the listserv probably about a week or two ago regarding a couple announcements that sort of happened. And then really the question is, how do we how do we look at what Apple is doing in the health care space? And Bob, do you want to sort of sort of generate a bit of an introduction and talk a little bit more about what you've seen to this point so far? Well, you know, Apple among all of the other paying companies is under under pressure along with Facebook and all the Twitter. And what I was impressed in reading and I haven't read it as much depth as I should have was that Tim Cook stated on that video, which which came out to all the members of the group, I don't know how many people on the call have seen it that he he looked at Apple's major contribution to society of the world as their activities in health care, which they're just beginning. And I, you know, I obviously don't know Tim Cook, but he's a brilliant guy. And I don't I can't imagine why he would state that unless they're going to put a huge amount of resources into that health care industry. And their smartphone is patient facing. I mean, it's a PHR data displayed on a handheld device, or, you know, or a regular screen, obviously. So that those are that's the main thing that impressed me that statement in that video. And in fact, I don't know if how many people of the of the thousand members have seen that particular video that came out. I can't remember who sent that put that email out. I can't remember the name of the person that did it. But he was impressed by, you know, Apple's apparent commitment to taking that huge company and making real contributions in health care globally. So yeah, so it's a really good point, Bob. I mean, I guess the way that that we sort of want to maybe view this is Apple is huge. They have the resources. I think the comment that came out of this sort of conversation suggested that this you know, this may be just simply another way for Apple to sell the hardware. And of course, they they have a certainly long history in being successful in selling hardware. So I'll just I'll just sort of ask, is this something that, you know, that we expect is going to have any kind of long term impact on sort of on the face of health care? I can't tell you that I do know a couple of the folks that work in the Apple health care space. In fact, someone used to run one of the organizations up here out of Seattle and then sort of got wooed down back down to California to sort of run the organization. And so they, you know, these are very, very smart folks. My my own sort of take on it is, I believe the reason why we're seeing some of these bigger players getting into the health care space has less to do with altruism and more to do with data management that they see tremendous value in the data generated, particularly out of the HRs that relate back that correlate back to users. And it's simply if you think of it from a consumer perspective, if these larger players, particularly Apple and Google, for example, Microsoft to some degree, if they have access to to patient data that correlates back to the consumer, this is simply just another facet of defining the consumer, which adds additional value for the sake of marketing advertising PR and so forth. That's my sort of personal take on it. I'd like to hear what others think about it. And what what are the sort of the short term long term implications of what this might mean. So the one thing I'll say about Apple and it's not just Apple, it's also Facebook, they're stumbling on trying to understand data privacy very badly. So and they go off in different directions. And so what it is is we all know about what I call PAI personal identity information. There's something different which is I'll call it APD anonymous personal data, which is not PAI, which is a different category. So PAI has is under what I call lots of legal restrictions. And we can only sort of forecast what those might be. But when you look at whether it be health care or any other field, I'll put the APD anonymous personal data is a different legal category and will not be covered the same way as PAI data by any legal regulations for sure. And then of course you have other data, which doesn't fit either one of those categories. It's not not personal at all. Like how many cars are there in the US? That's not personal data. That's just other data. So ultimately, there'll be those, I think, three categories. And what's going to happen is we'll have a different set of regulations around what I call APD data than PAI data. And as long as the you take whether it's health care information or anything else, and it fits what I call the APD category, there will be ways to use that stuff. Whereas the PAI stuff, as in a sense, the technology, the software technology gets better. Ultimately, that stuff may be locked away and hidden forever under the control of the user, which is actually not a bad thing. So Tim Cook has talked about that, but it's that middle ground, I'll call it the APD data, that he's yet to define in his health care initiative for sure. The other thing I'll say is that while it sounds like, oh, yes, this it all be on your iPhone, in reality, it's not. In fact, it actually becomes another blockchain application, because all your personal health records have decentralized data. They cannot sit on a device alone, because if you lost the device or it got destroyed, you have no health care records. So therefore, by nature, it has to be decentralized. And because you want it locally available, most likely something like blockchain or catheter type technology that distributes that data will be part of the underlying platform as well. So yeah, so interesting point on that last point. Yeah, I imagine, you know, some notion of sharding will have to happen just to keep information sort of distributed in a way that makes a lot of sense that is well is either distributed or decentralized. The other point regarding anonymity, you know, I read an interesting couple of papers that suggested that if you have enough sort of disparate data, you can sort of restructure someone's identity based on the bits and pieces that sort of are representative of who that individual might be. Yeah, but I think that I agree with you, but I think the legal thing, it's absolutely true. So if I'm the only man over 70 in a town that has 30 people, well, then I'm it, you know, 70 had a hamburger, well, it had to be Jim. Yeah, most part minus that that what I call unique outlier, because I know, but the deal is I would look at the rest of the world and say I don't think the PII, the whole PII model and how it's being targeted correctly for closer regulation and all that. Um, well, they'll have boundaries, if you will, over what APD looks like, clearer boundaries than we have today to your point. And, and you're right, that sure, you can say, you know, who lives in a neighborhood that makes between 50 and 60,000 a year who went to Cornell. It's not the data, but you're right, that APD data could hone in on me, you know, as an example. Yeah, so it's an I don't think there's a solution per se, but it's certainly an interesting exercise given, you know, that you can sort of triangulate to the point where you can infer an awful lot. And of course, machine learning AI is really good at doing this to the point where the question of is, is anonymous data truly anonymous? I think that's, that's going to be an interesting discussion point. Maybe what it is, is the PII is confirmed data, right? It's accurate data. Unlike APD data, which is, as you say, derived to a level of confidence, it's a completely different thing. And so who uses it to say, I think I'll send an email to Jim or pop this up on his browser. So yes, many, in a sense, organizations will use the APD data for sure. Yeah. Well, actually, I'm sure there will also be restrictions on APD, but there'll be nothing more PII data, the PII stuff, like GDPR and all that other stuff. If you look at those restrictions, they're phenomenal. APD data will also have restrictions, but not the same for sure. Yeah. So I, this is that I totally agree, but it's not an exciting field and time that we'll all enter into because both Apple and Amazon have targeted the healthcare space to do major, you might say, improvements in their capabilities and services that they provide to Joe Block, the general public. So in Apple's case, they already have the smart watch, which already they're able to capture a lot of health data. And now they extended that to capture, I think, electrocardiogram data, which is personal to the weller, to the user. So they're not going to be getting, provide the data from the doctors and the hospitals and the clinics out there. That would get with them. But you and I, as we purchase these prices and we now start collecting our fitness and our healthcare data, that's going to be available for you and me as the number of capabilities on these smartwatches or smart sources in free. So they see that, but they see that market and they see the potential for putting healthcare more in the hands of the consumer, each individual patient, which will be, which will augment, sorry, which will augment the data and the services provided by, you know, our healthcare organizations and clinics. So I think that seems to be the strategy because they have a massive investment in these areas. It's really wait and see, but very exciting from my perspective. Right. I had one thing is that a common rhythm disturbance in humans is atrial fibrillation. And the the state of the art was a two week remote, two week cardiac monitoring device that they stick on your chest and records every heartbeat. So to go from that, which was the state of the art to the smartwatch, the cardiac alive core company for ninety nine dollars. If you're one of these people that develops atrial fibrillation, paroxysmally, you know, it's a huge valuable tool that's just recently be created and is certainly not overpriced. And there are millions of people, atrial fibrillation may be 10 or 15 percent of the population over 70. So that's a that's the perspective. I think they want to sell their watches. They've got that, you know, that permanent customer base as people get older. So good point, Bob. And we're going to have to leave it here. We're at the top of the hour. So let's call it a day. So thanks, everyone. And we'll see you in two weeks. Have a great weekend. Thank you. Let your team. Thanks for the meeting. Have a have a great week and everyone. Thank you. Thanks, everyone.