Difference between revisions of "MnM Minutes CC 20090313"
| Line 52: | Line 52: | ||
DC: Any UML diagram needs to follow UML standards so that any tool can render. | DC: Any UML diagram needs to follow UML standards so that any tool can render. | ||
| + | |||
| + | GS: How do we represent vocabulary? Does a value set show up? In RMIM Designer can use <= or =. How is this shown in other diagrams? | ||
| + | |||
| + | DC: Uses = as required by UML for defaults. Standard notations cannot show anything other than default. | ||
| + | |||
| + | LM: We can have both default VS and a default, which can cause problems | ||
| + | |||
| + | SMD graphical format can expose exactly same info as old Visio format, and could handle new things such as update mode. New UML tool cannot expose anything that is not a standard UML artifact. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
Revision as of 17:02, 13 March 2009
M&M Conference Call Noon Eastern Time (Date above)
Attendance
- Woody Beeler
- Austin Kreisler
- Brandon Ulrich
- Lloyd McKenzie (chair)
- Dale Nelson (scribe)
- Han Nguyen
- Ioana Singureanu
- Scott Robertson
- Leslie Flaherty
- Adeola Odunlami
- Adam Flinton
- Ravi Natarajan
- Andy Stechishin
- Bernard Jackson
- Dave Carlson
- Gregg Seppala
- Galen Mulrooney
- Tim Ireland
- Mead Walker
Agenda
- Graphical Representation of RMIMs
Minutes
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.
GS: How do we represent vocabulary? Does a value set show up? In RMIM Designer can use <= or =. How is this shown in other diagrams?
DC: Uses = as required by UML for defaults. Standard notations cannot show anything other than default.
LM: We can have both default VS and a default, which can cause problems
SMD graphical format can expose exactly same info as old Visio format, and could handle new things such as update mode. New UML tool cannot expose anything that is not a standard UML artifact.
