Difference between revisions of "MnM Minutes CC 20081205"
(→Agenda) |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | =M&M Conference Call Noon Eastern Time | + | =M&M Conference Call Noon Eastern Time December 5, 2008= |
| − | == | + | ==Attendees== |
| − | + | Stechishin, Singureanu, Seppala, Kreisler, Duteau, Coller, Beeler | |
| − | + | ==Agenda== | |
| − | + | *Approve [[MnM_Minutes_CC_20081107| Minutes November 07]] | |
| + | *Consider Technical Correction to RIM 2.22 Proposed by E-mail | ||
| + | *Other TBD | ||
| + | Accept agenda - Andy/Lee OK | ||
| + | ==[[MnM_Minutes_CC_20081107| Minutes November 07]]== | ||
| + | Approve Minutes - Ioana/Andy OK | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Technical Correction to RIM 2.22== | ||
| + | Beeler sent an e-mail on December 3 to the M&M and Harmonization lists that said: | ||
| + | |||
| + | RIM 2.22 has been posted and is being published as part of Ballot 2009Jan. In preparing the publication of this RIM, I converted the publishing process from one that depended on the old "rim.xml" file to a "rim.coremif" file created by the V3 Generator. | ||
| + | |||
| + | The first pass of this conversion assigned all of the descriptive (definition) text for RIM attributes and classes to the "definition" annotation type in MIF2. However, the long-term, CORRECT RIM representation will extract the sub-elements of the description (such as Design Comments or Constraints) that are embedded in the current definition with italicized headers that act as tags, and make these separate annotation "types" as defined in the MIF2 schemas. | ||
| + | |||
| + | I would like to make this transition (splitting out the annotation types) DURING the current ballot cycle, but have run into twenty cases in which the tagged annotation sub-sections in the RIM do NOT map directly to the MIF. These fall into one of two cases: | ||
| + | #A "Discussion" tag exists in the RIM definition, but there is no corresponding annotation type in the MIF. I have reviewed EACH these and conclude that they should all actually be "Usage Notes". | ||
| + | #Items tagged as Constraints but in the MIF, these need to be assigned as either "Formal constraints" (those that can be, in the future, represented in a formal language and evaluated against each instance) and "Usage Constraints" (those that are less robust, but represent desired functionality of the applications). I have reviewed all of these and made a determination as to the appropriate assignment for each. | ||
| − | + | The attached XML file summarizes the 20 changes I plan to make as Technical Corrections to RIM 2.22 to produce RIM 2.23. Each line in this table documents a single change as : | |
| − | + | *The "site" attribute lists the class or class.attribute whose definition needs to have a tag altered. | |
| − | + | *The "alterFrom" attribute shows the name of the current (italicized) tag in the definition | |
| − | + | *The "alterTo" attribute shows the revised name proposed for the tagged paragraph(s) | |
| − | |||
| − | + | I seek an M&M motion to authorize these changes. | |
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
[[MnM_Minutes | Return to M&M Minutes List]] | [[MnM_Minutes | Return to M&M Minutes List]] | ||
Revision as of 20:16, 6 December 2008
Contents
M&M Conference Call Noon Eastern Time December 5, 2008
Attendees
Stechishin, Singureanu, Seppala, Kreisler, Duteau, Coller, Beeler
Agenda
- Approve Minutes November 07
- Consider Technical Correction to RIM 2.22 Proposed by E-mail
- Other TBD
Accept agenda - Andy/Lee OK
Minutes November 07
Approve Minutes - Ioana/Andy OK
Technical Correction to RIM 2.22
Beeler sent an e-mail on December 3 to the M&M and Harmonization lists that said:
RIM 2.22 has been posted and is being published as part of Ballot 2009Jan. In preparing the publication of this RIM, I converted the publishing process from one that depended on the old "rim.xml" file to a "rim.coremif" file created by the V3 Generator.
The first pass of this conversion assigned all of the descriptive (definition) text for RIM attributes and classes to the "definition" annotation type in MIF2. However, the long-term, CORRECT RIM representation will extract the sub-elements of the description (such as Design Comments or Constraints) that are embedded in the current definition with italicized headers that act as tags, and make these separate annotation "types" as defined in the MIF2 schemas.
I would like to make this transition (splitting out the annotation types) DURING the current ballot cycle, but have run into twenty cases in which the tagged annotation sub-sections in the RIM do NOT map directly to the MIF. These fall into one of two cases:
- A "Discussion" tag exists in the RIM definition, but there is no corresponding annotation type in the MIF. I have reviewed EACH these and conclude that they should all actually be "Usage Notes".
- Items tagged as Constraints but in the MIF, these need to be assigned as either "Formal constraints" (those that can be, in the future, represented in a formal language and evaluated against each instance) and "Usage Constraints" (those that are less robust, but represent desired functionality of the applications). I have reviewed all of these and made a determination as to the appropriate assignment for each.
The attached XML file summarizes the 20 changes I plan to make as Technical Corrections to RIM 2.22 to produce RIM 2.23. Each line in this table documents a single change as :
- The "site" attribute lists the class or class.attribute whose definition needs to have a tag altered.
- The "alterFrom" attribute shows the name of the current (italicized) tag in the definition
- The "alterTo" attribute shows the revised name proposed for the tagged paragraph(s)
I seek an M&M motion to authorize these changes.
