This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here
Difference between revisions of "MnM Minutes CC 20090626"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(New page: '''Attendees: ''' Woody, Lloyd, Andy, Austin, Patrick, Gregg, Jean, <others> *Agenda approved - Lloyd/Andy *Minutes approved - Lloyd/Andy *Grouper Discussion **Austin emailed out a requi...) |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| + | [[Category:2009 MnM Minutes]] | ||
'''Attendees: ''' Woody, Lloyd, Andy, Austin, Patrick, Gregg, Jean, <others> | '''Attendees: ''' Woody, Lloyd, Andy, Austin, Patrick, Gregg, Jean, <others> | ||
Latest revision as of 01:21, 21 May 2010
Attendees: Woody, Lloyd, Andy, Austin, Patrick, Gregg, Jean, <others>
- Agenda approved - Lloyd/Andy
- Minutes approved - Lloyd/Andy
- Grouper Discussion
- Austin emailed out a requirements document and a proposal for the GROUPER codes
- Austin says that the proposal is probably a non-starter but gives some idea of a way forward
- Lloyd argues that the GROUPER/BATTERY codes are not strictly necessary but can provide extra information about the way that Acts/Observations are organized. He has a strong objection to BATTERY and a smaller object to GROUPER depending on how it is used.
- There was a discussion about a previous Level Code and whether it could be used
- There is a problem in that GROUPER/BATTERY would not be an observation, so you could not get BATTERY acts returned in a generic query for observations. But you can't just make BATTERY a child of GROUPER and OBSERVATION, because then you could not do a battery of diagnostic imaging tests.
- Proposal to move away from using GROUPER/BATTERY for ordering
- Lloyd will writeup a harmonization proposal and work with Patrick to ensure that it works with OO's requirements.
