This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here
Difference between revisions of "MnM Minutes CC 20090130"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(New page: =M&M Conference Call Noon Eastern Time (Date above)= ==Logistics== Join GoToMeeting at :https://www1.gotomeeting.com/join/846611869 :GoToMeeting ID: 846-611-869 Conference Call: :Noon Ea...) |
|||
| (6 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)= | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | + | ==Attendees== | |
| − | + | * Woody Beeler | |
| − | + | * Dale Nelson | |
| − | + | * Andy Stechishin | |
| − | + | * Austin Kreisler | |
| − | + | * Bernard Jackson | |
| − | + | * Brandon Urlich | |
| + | * Craig Parker | ||
| + | * Gregg Seppala | ||
| + | * Ioana Singureanu | ||
| + | * Patrick Loyd | ||
| + | * Lloyd McKenzie | ||
| + | * Mead Walker | ||
| + | * Leslie Flaherty | ||
| + | * Ravi Natarajan | ||
==Agenda== | ==Agenda== | ||
*Approve [[MnM_Minutes_CC_20090123| Minutes January 23]] | *Approve [[MnM_Minutes_CC_20090123| Minutes January 23]] | ||
| − | * | + | * Hot Topic -- [[RMIM Diagram Representation]] |
*Other TBD | *Other TBD | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Minutes== | ||
| + | * Woody gave an update on the Tooling WG's decision to make sure graphic notation is not dependent on color only to distinguish different types of things. | ||
| + | * '''Motion''' (Patrick/Andy) to approve last week's minutes. Motion accepted unanimously. | ||
| + | ===Hot Topic -- [[RMIM Diagram Representation]]=== | ||
| + | * Because of issues in supporting the traditional HL7 iconography using 3rd party tools (e.g. eclipse UML diagraming tools) there is a discussion about what approach HL7 should take in the future for representing artifacts graphically. | ||
| + | * Woody pointed out that we currently don't have a common example in each of the proposed representations that we can use to compare the representations effectively. | ||
| + | * Questions we need to consider: | ||
| + | ** How willing are HL7 members to move to a new representation? | ||
| + | ** What are the perceived requirements? | ||
| + | ** How would we make a transition? Training? | ||
| + | ** What are the costs associated in making a change? This will clearly be a major effort. | ||
| + | * Lloyd reviewed the benefits of each representation as described in the [[RMIM Diagram Representation|hot topic]]. | ||
| + | * Do we believe HL7 should have a single diagram syntax for RMIMs and HMDs? | ||
| + | * Are we committed to leaving the Visio tools? Tooling WG has said that the direction is to move from Visio to an Eclipse-based equivalent. The consensus on the call is that no one wants to stay on Visio-based tooling. | ||
| + | * Does it make sense, just to move away from Visio, to move to a non-traditional representation for a period of time and then to move back once the traditional representation can be supported on non-Visio tools? | ||
| + | |||
[[MnM_Minutes | Return to M&M Minutes List]] | [[MnM_Minutes | Return to M&M Minutes List]] | ||
Latest revision as of 01:33, 21 May 2010
Contents
M&M Conference Call Noon Eastern Time (Date above)
Attendees
- Woody Beeler
- Dale Nelson
- Andy Stechishin
- Austin Kreisler
- Bernard Jackson
- Brandon Urlich
- Craig Parker
- Gregg Seppala
- Ioana Singureanu
- Patrick Loyd
- Lloyd McKenzie
- Mead Walker
- Leslie Flaherty
- Ravi Natarajan
Agenda
- Approve Minutes January 23
- Hot Topic -- RMIM Diagram Representation
- Other TBD
Minutes
- Woody gave an update on the Tooling WG's decision to make sure graphic notation is not dependent on color only to distinguish different types of things.
- Motion (Patrick/Andy) to approve last week's minutes. Motion accepted unanimously.
Hot Topic -- RMIM Diagram Representation
- Because of issues in supporting the traditional HL7 iconography using 3rd party tools (e.g. eclipse UML diagraming tools) there is a discussion about what approach HL7 should take in the future for representing artifacts graphically.
- Woody pointed out that we currently don't have a common example in each of the proposed representations that we can use to compare the representations effectively.
- Questions we need to consider:
- How willing are HL7 members to move to a new representation?
- What are the perceived requirements?
- How would we make a transition? Training?
- What are the costs associated in making a change? This will clearly be a major effort.
- Lloyd reviewed the benefits of each representation as described in the hot topic.
- Do we believe HL7 should have a single diagram syntax for RMIMs and HMDs?
- Are we committed to leaving the Visio tools? Tooling WG has said that the direction is to move from Visio to an Eclipse-based equivalent. The consensus on the call is that no one wants to stay on Visio-based tooling.
- Does it make sense, just to move away from Visio, to move to a non-traditional representation for a period of time and then to move back once the traditional representation can be supported on non-Visio tools?
