This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here
Difference between revisions of "MnM Minutes CC 20090320"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| (3 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| + | [[Category:2009 MnM Minutes]] | ||
=M&M Conference Call Noon Eastern Time (Date above)= | =M&M Conference Call Noon Eastern Time (Date above)= | ||
==Attendance== | ==Attendance== | ||
| Line 41: | Line 42: | ||
'''What graphical format(s) will be acceptable?''' | '''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. | ||
---- | ---- | ||
[[MnM_Minutes | Return to M&M Minutes List]] | [[MnM_Minutes | Return to M&M Minutes List]] | ||
Latest revision as of 01:25, 21 May 2010
Contents
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.
