RIMBAA 200901 WGM Minutes

Minutes of the RIMBAA WG from the Orlando WGM (Sept. 2008). See also the published agenda for the Orlando WGM.

Monday Q3 (13:45-15:00)

• Chair (interim, on behalf of Peter Hendler): Rene Spronk, scribe: Michael van der Zel
• Attendees:
  • Amnon Shabo, IBM (Israel)
  • Mary Desisto, IBM
  • John McKim, conmsultant
  • Paul J Bayes, Booz Allen Hamilton
  • Alex de Jong, Siemens
  • Ian Townend, NHS
  • Rik Smithies, NHS (UK)
  • John Koisch, NCI
  • Amit Popat, Epic
  • Ilkon Kim, KNU Korea
  • Andy Stechischin, consultant
  • Grahame Grieve, Kestral
  • Russ Sarbora, City of Hope
  • Hugh Glover, Bluewave Informatics (UK)

Approval of Minutes

• Approval of the minutes of the last WGM, available at RIMBAA 200809 WGM Minutes
  • Approved without objection, 10-0-6.

Presentation of RIMBAA

• "To RIMBAA is easier than to rumba." ;-)
• Rene provides an overview of "where we are" with RIMBAA. The presentation includes an introduction of the Technology Matrix.
• Dale comments on the persistence layer. Must we also address XML Databases? Should "Query" be added to the Matrix?
• Hugh talks about there being a "third dimension" (needs follow up from Hugh)
• Dale: what does it mean to be "RIM compliant", do we need/want to define that? Conformance aspect not at the top of the to-do list for the RIMBAA WG.
• Dale: applications have more of a focus on the static model, not on the functional model
• We focus on Patterns for Application Development.
• Some discussion if the user interface should be under all cells or just the *O and *S columns.
• Technology Matrix is helpfull to understand were you are.

Possible candidates for the Tech Matrix

• iSoft
• Eclipse Message Instance Editor + a presistance layer?

RS XML-ITS

• There is an interest in the creation of an RS XML-ITS. Grahame/Michael van der Zel
• RS/MS cell transition - what's the difference between RS and MS? RS - self discoverable "blob" of RIM based object instances. Theoretically MS is a subset of RS. There are implementation that (wrongly) associate smenatics with clone names, so semantics get lost when transfroming from MS to RS. Current ITS permits MS.
• RS is more generic. In RS the classCode, typeCode, etc are required. The current MS ITS does not have this requirement. With MS you will have to agree and understand it per interaction. RS has no clone names, just RIM names. In the current reality the clone name is significant. Not all Observations are coded correctly. E.g. bloodpressure morning, afternoon. I would use a different code for them, but currently the Clone Classes get different names so they are semanticly significant and the code of both Observations will be bloodpressure. In the ideal world MS and RS are interchangeble.
• RS <-> MS cell transition is MIF based.

RIM orientation

• RIM was created with an "interoperability mindset".
  • Grahame uses the example of the CD datatype - if one were to create the CD datatype with appkication development / persistence in mind it would look totally differently.
  • Grahame would also like much mmore normalizations, to re-use communalities between models.

Reference Implementation

• High: two options: maximum reference implementation would need to show "all complexity of a real implementation". At a minunimum: pieces that illustrate parts (the various cell-transitions) in the technology matrix.
• John: how about RIMBAA as a testing framework? Would seem to be a very good application of RIMBAA.
• Rene: Enhance current Java SIG work with CTS, user interfaces, and a module for the use/migration of legacy data?

Cell transitions

• TASK: Document/describe (for all possible cell transations) how those steps could be supported/achieved. Some of them may have reference implementations (or parts thereof) associated with them to illustrate the principle. And find volunteers to provider detailed descriptions and examples.

Monday Q4 (15:30-17:00)

• Chair (interim, on behalf of Peter Hendler): Rene Spronk, scribe: Michael van der Zel
• Attendees:
  • Amnon Shabo, IBM (Israel)
  • Mary Desisto, IBM
  • Paul J Bayes, Booz Allen Hamilton
  • Rik Smithies, NHS (UK)
  • Amit Popat, Epic
  • Hugh Glover, Bluewave Informatics (UK)
• The minutes from this quarter have been included in the documentation of the discussion of Q3 (see above).

Future Goals for RIMBAA WG

• Marketing - Public exposure of successes
• Sharing of experiences and solutions
• Education - for newbies to RIMBAA
• Publish informative document best practices going from persistence layer to message/document.