Talk:Domain Message Information Model
Open Issue #2: Domain without D-MIM
The shared messages domain (COMT) has a number of topics. Each topic is based on its own use-case, as such a D-MIM can only be constructed in a rather arteficial way by creating a join (a superset) of all R-MIMs contained in the domain. Does one have to include a D-MIM in this domain? What are the criteria for including a D-MIM?
- (Woody) You said you had tried the super-set approach. Was that difficult to define? Was it Disconnected?
- (Rene) It's not disconnected - yet. It is however rather artificial, and the walkthrough doesn't provide a lot of information...
- We should (at minimum) consider the pros and cons of the alternatives which include (but are not restricted to):
- Require a maintained DMIM for every published domain.
- Well, limited to those domains that defines Message Types, probably.
- Attempt to bind each of the COMT artifacts to a DMIM in some other published domain.
- Forget it - you may try, but there won't be a fit for most (if not all) of them.
- Identify the RIM as the DMIM for COMT (although there are RIM elements that no COMT will ever use, I suspect.
- That's in option - but it would be a first and might create a precedent.
- Allow a "segmented" DMIM, made up of multiple sets of classes that might overlap?
- Drop the must have a DMIM rule for COMT and COCT?
- See UML_ITS_Policy#Serialization_Details - if there is no D-MIM then a D-MIM based serialization process won't be possible.
- Create multiple D-MIMs in COMT where each D-MIM is equal to 1 R-MIM
(Lloyd) However, a domain that doesn't have a top-level all-encompassing domain doesn't really fit the definition of a proper domain.
20070108 MnM/INM WGM: Current methodology requires the definition of a D-MIM in a domain. (This lore needs to be documented). The case of shared messages the topics can be groups and one (or more) D-MIMs can be constructed. - see MnM minutes for official motion.