MnM Minutes CC 20090320

From HL7Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

M&M Conference Call Noon Eastern Time (Date above)

Attendance

  • Lloyd McKenzie
  • Woody Beeler
  • Austin Kreisler
  • Andy Stechishin
  • Bernard Jackson
  • Craig Parker
  • Dave Carlson
  • Gregg Seppala
  • Patrick Loyd
  • Ioana Singureanu
  • Galen Mulrooney
  • Mead Walker
  • Dale Nelson
  • Adam Flinton
  • Leslie

Agenda

  • Graphical Representation of RMIMs (continued)

Minutes

  • We will review any MnM harmonization proposals next week.

Graphical Representation of RMIMs

  • Two questions to answer today:
    • Will we support multiple formats?
    • What graphical format(s) will be acceptable?

Will we support multiple formats?

  • Gregg asked if the agreed upon formats would be used for services. The response was that the current discussion only concerns diagrams
  • Mead stated that it would probably be best to have one format so people reading the models would only have to understand one representation.
  • Ioana asked if the RIM would be represented in the agreed upon format. This question was deemed to be out of scope for today's discussion.
  • We did a straw poll of preferred formats (people could vote for more than one format). There were 7 votes for A, 8 votes for B, and 1 vote for C.
    • Both A and B require on standardized graphical format, but B also allows for the publishing of additional formats.
    • As use cases were discussed there seemed to be a consensus toward option B.
    • Woody questioned about whether alternate formats are really needed for normative ballots. Not having alternate formats in the normative material would NOT prevent them from being used in other settings.
  • From a methodology perspective, we agree to support multiple formats.
  • We will seek publishing's input on how to support alternate formats.


What graphical format(s) will be acceptable?

  • Lloyd discussed some of the issues around representing choices in other formalisms such as UML.
  • Dave discussed the value of being consistent with UML to take advantage of OTS UML tools.
  • Woody pointed out how valuable it is to have all of the semantics possible represented in a graphical view for review in the ballot, and having good tools supporting the creation of this view.
  • This discussion will be continued on the wiki and on next week's call.
  • Austin will conduct a straw poll of preference in the meantime.



Return to M&M Minutes List