This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here
Difference between revisions of "Negation Requirements Project Minutes 25 May 2016"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(Created page with " <!-- LOOK FOR THE APPROPRIATE SECTION ****** TO ENTER INFORMATION--> Back to Negation Minutes ==Minutes== ===Meeting Information=== {|border="1" cellpadding="2" cellspac...") |
|||
(3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 102: | Line 102: | ||
# Motion from Montreal | # Motion from Montreal | ||
## We found the following embedded in the motion(s): | ## We found the following embedded in the motion(s): | ||
− | ### requirements: avoid counterintuitive semantics, intractability (hence, BL not a good idea in information model or semantics) | + | ### requirements: avoid counterintuitive semantics, intractability (hence, BL not a good idea in information model or semantics) (agreed) |
− | ### principles: consistency (if we clarify boundaries) | + | #### It may be possible to address semantic issue with DL independently of information modeling. |
+ | ### principles: consistency (if we clarify boundaries; e.g., it seems the V3 negation indicator resulted from an overzealous commitment to this principle) (agreed) | ||
### design guidance: | ### design guidance: | ||
− | #### avoid Boolean negation in information models | + | #### avoid Boolean negation in information models (agreed) |
− | #### | + | #### avoid negation in unary code patterns (sounds good but we don't have a clear foundation for it) |
− | + | # Options for ensuring coverage of use case list | |
− | + | ## Wider audience | |
+ | ### Jay to send out agenda & attendance reminders | ||
+ | ## Review of assets for additional cases | ||
+ | ### WG list (Rob) | ||
+ | ### FHIM domains (Jay) | ||
+ | ### openEHR (Gerard) | ||
+ | ### Ontologist experts: BSmith, WCeusters (Gerard) | ||
+ | ### IHTSDO (Richard) | ||
+ | # Is the use case application list useful (to enumerate not just content to represent, but contexts that may have divergent requirements) | ||
+ | ## GF: UI is only outlier | ||
+ | ## RH: different implementers may want to decompose at different points | ||
+ | ## Yes | ||
+ | # Scenario patterns: useful? | ||
+ | ## Probably | ||
===Meeting Outcomes=== | ===Meeting Outcomes=== | ||
Line 125: | Line 139: | ||
| width="100%" align="left" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|'''Actions''' '' | | width="100%" align="left" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|'''Actions''' '' | ||
− | * review | + | * review [[Media: NegationUseCases.xlsx | Use Cases]] for completeness, classification for accuracy (all) |
Latest revision as of 21:27, 25 May 2016
Back to Negation Minutes
Minutes
Meeting Information
HL7 PC-CIMI-POC Meeting Minutes Location: PC call line |
Date: 2016-05-25 Time: 11:00-12:00 ET | ||
Facilitator | Jay Lyle | Note taker(s) | Jay Lyle |
Attendee | Name | Affiliation
| |
y | Jay Lyle | JP Systems | |
y | Richard Esmond | ||
y | Gerard Freriks | ||
y | Rob Hausam | ||
y | Susan Barber | ||
Agenda
Agenda Topics
- Review of motion from Montreal; identify a) requirements, b) principles, c) design guidance
- Options for ensuring coverage of use case list
- Question of use case application list
- Scenario patterns: useful?
Minutes
Minutes/Conclusions Reached:
- Motion from Montreal
- We found the following embedded in the motion(s):
- requirements: avoid counterintuitive semantics, intractability (hence, BL not a good idea in information model or semantics) (agreed)
- It may be possible to address semantic issue with DL independently of information modeling.
- principles: consistency (if we clarify boundaries; e.g., it seems the V3 negation indicator resulted from an overzealous commitment to this principle) (agreed)
- design guidance:
- avoid Boolean negation in information models (agreed)
- avoid negation in unary code patterns (sounds good but we don't have a clear foundation for it)
- requirements: avoid counterintuitive semantics, intractability (hence, BL not a good idea in information model or semantics) (agreed)
- We found the following embedded in the motion(s):
- Options for ensuring coverage of use case list
- Wider audience
- Jay to send out agenda & attendance reminders
- Review of assets for additional cases
- WG list (Rob)
- FHIM domains (Jay)
- openEHR (Gerard)
- Ontologist experts: BSmith, WCeusters (Gerard)
- IHTSDO (Richard)
- Wider audience
- Is the use case application list useful (to enumerate not just content to represent, but contexts that may have divergent requirements)
- GF: UI is only outlier
- RH: different implementers may want to decompose at different points
- Yes
- Scenario patterns: useful?
- Probably
Meeting Outcomes
Actions
|
Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items
|
© 2012 Health Level Seven® International. All rights reserved.