Latest revision as of 01:25, 21 May 2010

M&M Conference Call Noon Eastern Time (Date above)

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.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+[[Category:2009 MnM Minutes]]
 =M&M Conference Call Noon Eastern Time (Date above)=
 ==Attendance==