Difference between revisions of "MnM Minutes CC 20070615"
| Line 53: | Line 53: | ||
=====(Q4) 3:30-5:00 am EST ===== | =====(Q4) 3:30-5:00 am EST ===== | ||
'''Complex interaction patterns''' | '''Complex interaction patterns''' | ||
| − | In this session we will look at some concrete examples | + | |
| + | :In this session we will look at some concrete examples | ||
*Service orchestration vs. choreography | *Service orchestration vs. choreography | ||
**We will not go into the solution for run-time representation of system (e.g. WS-CDL | **We will not go into the solution for run-time representation of system (e.g. WS-CDL | ||
WS-BPEL). We will focus on the design time representation of interfaces not at the runtime realization. | WS-BPEL). We will focus on the design time representation of interfaces not at the runtime realization. | ||
| − | |||
====Thursday, June 22nd==== | ====Thursday, June 22nd==== | ||
Revision as of 20:08, 15 June 2007
Contents
Attendees
- Kathleen Connor
- Lee Coller
- Ioana Singureanu
- Lloyd McKenzie
- Rick Chesnik
- John Cooper
- Dale Nelson
Agenda
- (Lloyd): Administrative topic: Dynamic Model - agenda
- (Lloyd): Hot Topics: Act Reference - postponed for next WGM because this topic requires input from INM.
Mottion to accept agenda: (No objections)
Administrative Topic: Dynamic Model Discussion
Concerns regarding desinging system behaviors are pervasive in HL7 (from application roles to committee-specific complex interactions to functional service specifications). We have a variety of constructs (Applications Roles, SOA Services, interactions) that require dynamic views and behavioral model constructs such as interfaces, ports, and subsystems.
The agenda for next week must address the needs of a variety of stakeholders:
- Support for the processes specified in the HDF regarding behavioral models
- SOA Service support and relating interfaces to Application roles
- Ability to describe complex interactions for specific domains
- Leverage the notation and design to describe a variety of in, in/out, output parameters and return types
- We need to ensure that our design constructs are supported by implementation technologies (e.g. WSDL, WS-CDL, WS-BPEL)
Dynamic Model Agenda (Harmonization Meeting June 21-22, 2007)
The CBC form, as submitted is available on this Wiki and also at http://www.hl7.org/library/committees/mnm/minutes/CBC_INFO_MNM_2007MAY-Complete 20070119.pdf.
Thursday, June 21st
(Q1) 9:00-10:30 am EST
Inventory of where we are with the dynamic model
- We will try to compile a comprehensive list of needs and issues with the current behavrior modeling.
- UML Activity diagrams were deemed too complex when they were suggestes as a means for documenting system behavior
(Q2) 11:00-12:30 am EST
Services and Application roles
- In this session we will discuss how we relate operations (in interfaces) to interactions.
- Map our interaction concepts to operations and interface
(Q3) 1:00-2:30 am EST
Identify artifacts that will affected by changes to dynamic modeling notation, style guide, or methodology.
- Documenting and specifying complex interaction patterns
- Look for consensus on the mapping developed in the previous session
(Q4) 3:30-5:00 am EST
Complex interaction patterns
- In this session we will look at some concrete examples
- Service orchestration vs. choreography
- We will not go into the solution for run-time representation of system (e.g. WS-CDL
WS-BPEL). We will focus on the design time representation of interfaces not at the runtime realization.
Thursday, June 22nd
(Q1) 9:00-10:30 am EST
Develop approaches to "make it real"
- The methodology will be linked back to the product lifecycle management project in the HDT
- Select the notation
(Q2) 11:00-12:30 am EST
Open session
Minutes by --Ioana Singureanu 14:50, 15 June 2007 (CDT)
