Revision as of 16:57, 13 March 2009

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

LM: Questions to decide 1) Should HL7 support mulitple graphic formats for publishing diagrams

1 format (earlier HL7 decisions)
1 format, but allow for alternates (every SM will support a common format, but may use others)
multiple formats (different committeess can represent as they see fit)

2) Which graphical format(s) should HL7 approve?

GB: Presented discussion of findings of differences between representations of features

Structural attributes (classCode, moodCode) are not complete in SMD, missing in UML
UML represents participations as association classes;
Mandatory specification of attrs absent in UML

Started w/ Rose, found that it was not expressive enough for needs.

MW: Preference for single representation. Either representation is OK, SMD looks close to current Visio

IS: Agree, info s.b. on diagram, but s.b. able to hide some info

LM: May be a desire to render differently for different audiences. Near term, single rendering is probable.

LM: MIF will contain everything. Diagrams may omit. Rendering style - e.g. choice boxes may require human intervention

GS: Required vs optional notations might be best shown in a conformance view? Required but min multiplicity of 0.

DC: Any UML diagram needs to follow UML standards so that any tool can render.

@@ Line 42: / Line 42: @@
 MW: Preference for single representation. Either representation is OK, SMD looks close to current Visio
 IS: Agree, info s.b. on diagram, but s.b. able to hide some info
 LM: May be a desire to render differently for different audiences. Near term, single rendering is probable.
+LM: MIF will contain everything. Diagrams may omit. Rendering style - e.g. choice boxes may require human intervention
+GS: Required vs optional notations might be best shown in a conformance view? Required but min multiplicity of 0.
+DC: Any UML diagram needs to follow UML standards so that any tool can render.