This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here
2012-10-25 Tooling Call
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Contents
Tooling Meeting Template
Meeting Information
| HL7 Tooling Meeting Agenda/Minutes Location: Phone: +1 770-657-9270; |
Date: 2012-10-25 Time: 10:00 am EDT |
| Facilitator: Jane Curry | Note taker(s): Lynn Laakso |
| Attendee | Name, Affiliation |
| x | Woody Beeler, Beeler Consulting |
| x | Wilfred Bonney, HL7 HQ |
| x | Joshua Carmody, HL7 HQ Tooling Administrator |
| x | Jane Curry, Co-Chair |
| x | Lynn Laakso, HL7 HQ Tooling Support |
| x | Abdul-Malik Shakir, Shakir Consulting |
| x | Brian Pech, KP |
| x | Andy Stechishin, Co-chair |
| Michael van der Zel, co-chair | |
| Quorum Requirements Met (co-chair plus 3 counting staff): (yes) | |
Agenda
Agenda Topics
- Roll Call & Agenda Review
- Approval of previous minutes from 2012-10-18 Tooling Call
- Teleconference time scheduling
- Review PI# 913 HL7 Tooling Challenge
- Project plan review
- Upcoming webinars
- Communication plan
- University outreach
- Project plan review
- Other/New Business
Minutes
Minutes/Conclusions Reached:
'
Jane called the meeting to order at 10:06 AM
- Roll Call & Agenda Review - Woody would like to add a report on windows software technologies
- Approval of previous minutes from 2012-10-18 Tooling Call; Andy moves approval and AMS seconds. Unanimously approved.
- Teleconference time scheduling
- Andy spoke with Michael who prefers Thursday but better times are noon Mountain/2 PM Eastern (8 PM in Netherlands), or 1 MT/3 ET/9 PM for Michael. Andy suggests a Doodle poll to the listserv to confirm. AMS has conflict at 2 PM. Andy has a conflict 3 PM with Vocabulary biweekly. Action Item: Lynn will send a Doodle poll with current time, 2pm ET or 3 PM ET to gauge interest.
- Review PI# 913 HL7 Tooling Challenge
- Project plan review
- Upcoming webinars - first is this afternoon; Woody would refer them to Core principles and properties (CPP) of V3 Models. One piece of Visio RMIM designer represents textually a vocab binding and that might be a solution. Woody can come up with some reference links. CPP is a standard, so only available to members.
- Josh notes you do not have to be a member to see the RIM but you have to create an account.
- If we show the wiki page on the webinar, we should not show the communication plan. Josh notes that an editable wiki is not a good place to show rules. How about a Powerpoint slide with this information?
- AMS asks if we need to specify UML version (2.4, 2.41?) - Woody notes we need to use a version that Sparx supports. Should be 2.0 or later.
- AMS asks if we should identify must-have or nice-to-have in the MIF? Maybe we can create a special accessible core principles document for reference.
- AMS asks if they have to complete the entire MIF for qualification? Traceability to a reference model should be required. Some elements of CPP are not enforced by the schema. May need a profile to enforce what the schema enforces as rules. Woody notes that wasn't intended with the profile. AMS wants them to be aware of how the submissions will be judged. Woody displays CPP from the ballot site with section 2 on models, the RIM and its derivatives; and the RIM properties in 2.3.3. Refer to wiki on representation on static model content which applies to all static models not just the RIM. AMS suggests we add the reference documents to the wiki site. Current links to V3 Methodology Requirements not what Woody had in mind. They don't need to know the grammar but the elements that should be in the grammar. He displays Static Model BNF Grammar. ACTION ITEM: Woody to find introductory material and add that along with this wiki link to the Challenge page.
- AMS anticipates questions on reference material and access, Woody suggests flavor of representation of reference material. Woody has a profile on Rational to maintain the RIM available from SVN. Jane asks how far we take it, binding past concept domains and processes, not to value sets. RIM is only bound to concept domain. Jane notes contestants should 'speak' XML so our references should be XML.
- AMS asks if he'll be expected to comb through the XMI to judge entries. XML stereotypes extend the metamodel object for a UML profile. EA can diagram out the profile. AMS thinks we should receive an EA model with definitions. He doesn't want to comb through the XML, but review the model.
- Judging criteria reviewed. Woody has not tried his model against EA. We need to extract the judging criteria into another document for the web page and add contest rules. Woody will create RIM Content section on properties, XML file URL for background section. Joshua will add these to web site today.
- Intent today is to provide background on why we did it, what our objective is to get out of it, and opportunity for participants to learn. Then open up for questions. Questions may not be down in the weeds but on the nature of the contest. Are panelists prepared to be contacted directly or funnel them through a list; New list rather than the Tooling list? Drive them to answers on a wiki page. Mike Kingery's time is needed to create the list. Andy will ping the ES cochairs to keep them in the loop. ACTION ITEM: Josh will contact Mike to ask him about setting up the list.
- AMS displays an HDF UML Profile Specification from 2006, with an EA Model that described a profile. Creating stereotypes and indicating which metaclass it extends. He has an accompanying document for description and reference. He would submit this diagram and XML. Woody and AMS agree they will not review XMI. Need a document to describe profiles and example static model using the profile. It was published in a chapter of HDF at one time. Under tooling documentation project on GForge Wilfred finds it, and will send a link to Lynn.
- Project plan review
- Woody report on windows software technologies - Windows 8 does not appear to be a barrier to our work, Rosetree works on it. Preview of Visio 2013 - big red flag has changed base file format but professes to a "backwards compatibility" mode which seems to work. Will have to manage how users use it to maintain file format.
Next week back to Tooling Strategy and HingX. Need to update telecon coordinates to indicate 11 AM.
Adjourned 11:14 AM EDT, move to Tooling Strategy call
- Tooling Strategy document sections and assignments - how are we going to tackle this work? Need some specific assignments. Which ones can be done individually and which as a group.
- Andy notes the coordination belongs with governance (under "additional elements")
- Requirements Configuration and Release Management document from Wilfred needs to be updated. No representation here yet of tools to support product lines. TSC is considering definition so we can use that once it's approved. Level of focus and skillset needs to be appropriate. Liaisons are intended to be outreach to the various work groups; not necessarily "tooling coordinators". John wants sufficient understanding of budget implications of implementation of strategy. Tooling coordinators would keep documentation up to date, having budget implications. Trifolia being maintained by external parties. What is the control outside of tooling management group?
- Jane will tackle requirements configuration and release mgmt document for tooling governance and management and methodology to classify sections for next week's feedback.
- Details around the tools - need a toolsmith to distinguish tools for individual tasks versus integrated toolsets with ripple effects of changes. Management processes must be able to identify tools' fit into continuum of use. Must have understanding of effects of breaking of tight coupling between Rosetree and RMIM designer.
- Candidate metrics need to be a group effort. They will need wide consideration and be formally voted upon. ACTION ITEM: Andy will make a draft.
- Jane can mine from trial processes of RFPs as well as req/config/release mgmt.
- Lynn will update the assignments on the wiki and collect assignments for collation.
- Jane notes methodology changes that impact tooling need risk / control point acknowledgement, and acceptance testing of tools "thrown over the wall" to become part of HL7 tooling suite.
- Woody notes we need to point to the MIF-lite in GForge for them to start.
- Jane notes a need to distinguish product line/ platform and tooling stack. Need also to define skillsets. Don't want to specify the skills and technologies but to illustrate that we need to know what skills and technologies are needed.
- Revisit time of this call if we move the tooling call.
Adjourned 11:45 AM EDT.
Meeting Outcomes
Actions
|
| Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items |
© 2012 Health Level Seven® International. All rights reserved.
