This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here
Difference between revisions of "MnM Minutes CC 20090130"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
=M&M Conference Call Noon Eastern Time (Date above)= | =M&M Conference Call Noon Eastern Time (Date above)= | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
==Attendees== | ==Attendees== | ||
Revision as of 17:56, 30 January 2009
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.
