September 27th, Templates Minutes
Meeting began at 21:00 GMT
Attendees:
Galen Mulrooney (scribe)
Grahame Grieve
Mark Shafarman (chair)
Rik Smithies
GG moved that we bulk-accept all Affirmative-Typos, except for #32. RS seconded.
For/Against/Abstain: 4/0/0
GG moved that we bulk-accept all the ones we intend to mark persuasive (specifically: 8, 9, 10, 11, 16, 17, 25, 42, 43, 47, 48, 49, 51, 74, 75, and 76). RS seconded. For/Against/Abstain: 4/0/0
Item 90: GG moved that we find Persuasive With Mod in that we will clarify that example, to explain how it means that it provides this meaning with out meaning that the meaning is in the instance. RS seconded. For/Against/Abstain: 4/0/0
Item 3: GG moved that we find Persuasive With Mod in that we will add a reference to substantivity document. RS seconded. For/Against/Abstain: 4/0/0
Item 7: GG moved that we find Persuasive With Mod in that we will fix them to be consistent. RS seconded. For/Against/Abstain: 4/0/0
Item 13: GG moved that we find Persuasive With Mod in that we will clarify the differences and explain why the RIM definitions. RS seconded. For/Against/Abstain: 4/0/0
Item 14: GG moved that we find Not Persuasive in that templates can contain CMETs. RS seconded. For/Against/Abstain: 4/0/0
Item 19: GG moved that we find Persuasive With Mod in that we will make "allowed" part of the enumeration and make conformance required. RS seconded. For/Against/Abstain: 4/0/0
Item 20: GG moved that we find Persuasive With Mod and answer the question by "because you must be able to understand the instance without knowing the template. This will not be true if the tempalte asserts a default value. Will clarify this in the text". RS seconded. For/Against/Abstain: 4/0/0
Item 21: GG moved that we find Persuasive With Mod and answer the question by "because although the datatype can be derived from the flavor - and that's probably how a design tool would do it - storing both makes for easier implementations". RS seconded. For/Against/Abstain: 4/0/0
Item 22: GG moved that we find Persuasive With Mod in that we will clarify the conditionality. RS seconded. For/Against/Abstain: 4/0/0
Item 26: GG moved that we find Not Persuasive in that the codesedt signifies the use. The nullFlavor simply comments on the conformance status. RS seconded. For/Against/Abstain: 4/0/0
Item 27: GG moved that we find Persuasive With Mod and answer the question by "We believe this is implementable and is the best compromise for the term of the DSTU". RS seconded. For/Against/Abstain: 4/0/0
Item 28: GG moved that we find Persuasive With Mod and answer the question by "no. HIST is a datatype". RS seconded. For/Against/Abstain: 4/0/0
Items 29 + 30: GG moved that we find Persuasive With Mod in that we'll fix the language. RS seconded. For/Against/Abstain: 4/0/0
Item 32: GG moved that we find Persuasive With Mod in that we'll fix the language. RS seconded. For/Against/Abstain: 4/0/0
Item 41: GG moved that we find Persuasive With Mod in that we'll remove the concepts of shell/sandbag. RS seconded. For/Against/Abstain: 4/0/0
Item 44: GG moved that we find Persuasive With Mod in that we'll change to "a set of constraints on a RIM derived Model". RS seconded. For/Against/Abstain: 4/0/0
Item 45: GG moved that we find Persuasive With Mod in that Grahame will work with Rik to get the sentence right. RS seconded. For/Against/Abstain: 4/0/0
Item 46: GG moved that we find Not Persuasive in that it is not for templates to dictate to services like that. Services can do it in their own place. RS seconded. For/Against/Abstain: 4/0/0
Item 50: GG moved that we find Not Persuasive. RS seconded. For/Against/Abstain: 4/0/0
Item 52: GG moved that we find Not Persuasive in that it doesn't make any difference to the menaing of the template. RS seconded. For/Against/Abstain: 4/0/0
Item 53: GG moved that we find Not Persuasive in that this specification only descirbes applied models. RS seconded. For/Against/Abstain: 4/0/0
Item 54: GG moved that we find Not Persuasive in that the more specific parts of the proposed new sentence involve terms otherwise not defined. RS seconded. For/Against/Abstain: 4/0/0
Item 56: GG moved that we find Persuasive With Mod, accepting the first part but not the second part of the suggestion in that The wording implies a different meaning for templates. RS seconded. For/Against/Abstain: 4/0/0
-- Adjourned for the evening at 22:20 GMT to be resumed at 14:00 GMT tomorrow --
-- Resumed call at 14:00 GMT. --
Attendees:
Galen Mulrooney (scribe)
Grahame Grieve
John Koisch
Mark Shafarman (chair)
Rik Smithies
Item 57: GG moved that we remove section 6.3. RS seconded.
For/Against/Abstain: 4/0/0
Item 58: GG moved that we find Not Persuasive in that the suggestion is not correct. If the dynamic model does this, then they are not templates. RS seconded. For/Against/Abstain: 4/0/0
Item 60: GG moved that we find Not Persuasive in that it is off-topic. Raises many issues we don't want to get into. RS seconded. For/Against/Abstain: 4/0/0
Item 68: GG moved that we find Persuasive With Mod in that "Not Supported" has been removed, and issues are dealt with in item, #70. RS seconded. For/Against/Abstain: 4/0/0
Item 77: GG moved that we find Persuasive With Mod in that we will work to Kevin to include at least on bibliographic citation format. RS seconded. For/Against/Abstain: 4/0/0
Item 78: GG moved that we find Not Persuasive in that it these are not necessarily v3 types. RS seconded. For/Against/Abstain: 5/0/0
Item 79: GG moved that we find Not Persuasive. How does testing differ from draft, and how does deprecated differe from withdrawn? And what is nonhuman? RS seconded. For/Against/Abstain: 5/0/0
Item 80: GG moved that we find Persuasive With Mod in that we will add endorsing authorities (e.g. SET<II>) RS seconded. For/Against/Abstain: 5/0/0
Item 81: GG moved that we find Persuasive. We will add as an optional element. RS seconded. For/Against/Abstain: 5/0/0
Item 82: GG moved that we find Persuasive With Mod - we will take out schematron,schema,adl, replace with Computable_Rules, and refer to mediatype for details. Define arbitrary mediatype for schematron. RS seconded. For/Against/Abstain: 5/0/0
Item 83: GG moved that we find Persuasive With Mod - We don't need to use v3 types except where we are using v3 examples. Add clarification text on this matter. RS seconded. For/Against/Abstain: 5/0/0
Item 84: GG moved the following answer: There's no way to do this in any formal language at this time. It's a matter for further development - such development is under the purview of committees other than Templates. RS seconded. For/Against/Abstain: 5/0/0
Item 85: GG moved that we find Persuasive. RS seconded. For/Against/Abstain: 5/0/0
Item 86: GG moved the following answer: This is a matter of current development by the vocabulary committee. RS seconded. For/Against/Abstain: 5/0/0
Item 87: GG moved that we find Not Persuasive. The categorisation is only to support representation of the template in standard v3 colours. There doesn't appear to be a lot of point in making the differentiation finer. RS seconded. For/Against/Abstain: 5/0/0
Item 88: GG moved that we find Not Persuasive. They could be combined, but this would lose meaning. The truly combined parts are already shared. RS seconded. For/Against/Abstain: 5/0/0
Item 89: GG moved that we find Persuasive. Already done. RS seconded. For/Against/Abstain: 5/0/0
Revisited Item 43: GG moved that we recind our previous Persuasive and change to Persuasive with Mod - we wish to keep all the contributors together, but add Rik, Ian, and John. GM seconded. For/Against/Abstain: 5/0/0
Revisited Item 46: JK moved that we recind our previous Not Persuasive and change to Persuasive with Mod - Change to make it clear that services are in interoperability paradigm. Ignore rest of content. GM seconded. For/Against/Abstain: 5/0/0
JK withdrew Item 52.
Revisited Item 56: GG moved that we recind our previous Not Persuasive and change to Persuasive With Mod - rewrite this sentence and previous sentence to John and Riks satisfaction and consistent with recent MnM decision. GM seconded. For/Against/Abstain: 5/0/0
JK withdrew Item 58.
Meeting adjourned at 15:06 GMT
