|
|
| Line 5: |
Line 5: |
| | 2) Delete the Logistics template reference | | 2) Delete the Logistics template reference |
| | {{:MnM Conference Call Logistics}} below | | {{:MnM Conference Call Logistics}} below |
| − | -->[[Category:2011 MnM Minutes|Agenda Template]]__NOTOC__ | + | -->[[Category:2011 MnM Minutes]]__NOTOC__ |
| | =M&M Conference Call 4:00PM Eastern Time (Date above)= | | =M&M Conference Call 4:00PM Eastern Time (Date above)= |
| − | {{:MnM Conference Call Logistics}}
| |
| | [[:Category:2011 MnM Minutes|Return to MnM Minutes]] | | [[:Category:2011 MnM Minutes|Return to MnM Minutes]] |
| − | ==Agenda== | + | ==Attendees== |
| − | *Approve Agenda and [[MnM_Minutes_CC_20110209| Minutes Prior Meeting on Feb 9]]
| + | Kreisler, Beeler, Seppala, Hausam, Pech, McKenzie |
| − | *Core Principles Ballot Reconciliation
| + | |
| − | ===Approve Agenda and [[MnM_Minutes_CC_20110209| Minutes Prior Meeting on Feb 9]]===
| + | ==Approve Agenda and [[MnM_Minutes_CC_20110209| Minutes Prior Meeting on Feb 9]]== |
| − | ===Core Principles Ballot Reconciliation===
| + | Motions: Agenda - AK/GS; Minutes BP/GS - both unanimous |
| | + | |
| | + | ==Core Principles Ballot Reconciliation== |
| | Proposed actions in [http://www.hl7.org/documentcenter/ballots/2010SEP/reconciliation/recon_v3_cppv3models_r1_n4_2010sep.xls Spread sheet on Ballot Desktop] | | Proposed actions in [http://www.hl7.org/documentcenter/ballots/2010SEP/reconciliation/recon_v3_cppv3models_r1_n4_2010sep.xls Spread sheet on Ballot Desktop] |
| | | | |
| | [http://www.hl7.org/v3ballot2010sep/html/infrastructure/coreprinciples/v3modelcoreprinciples.htm Document Being Reconciled] | | [http://www.hl7.org/v3ballot2010sep/html/infrastructure/coreprinciples/v3modelcoreprinciples.htm Document Being Reconciled] |
| | | | |
| − | ===Other Business===
| + | Following Motions were made on the line item numbers shown, and approved as shown |
| − | ????
| + | 29 - LM/AK 5-0-0 |
| − | | + | 119 - LM/GS 5-0-0 |
| − | {{:MnM Action Items from 201005}}
| + | 121 - LM/Bp 5-0-0 |
| − | | + | 127 and 131 GS/LM 5-0-0 |
| − | ===Adjournment===
| + | 136 LM/BP 5-0-0 |
| − | | + | 141 RH/LM 5-0-0 |
| − | ==Remaining Core Principles Negatives for Which M&M Responsible==
| + | 143 LM/GS 5-0-0 |
| − | ===Item 29 [at 3/3.3] (G Neg-Mi) 0/0/0===
| + | 146, 149, and 150 LM/AK 5-0-0 |
| − | =====Voter Comment=====
| + | 181 RH/GS 5-0-0 |
| − | Something is considered null if omitted and no null flavor is declared.
| + | 193 AK/RH 5-0-0 |
| − | | + | 196, 197 AK/BP 4-0-0 |
| − | ===Item 33 [at 3/3.4.1.1] (M Neg-Mi) 0/0/0===
| |
| − | =====Voter Comment=====
| |
| − | I have *no clue* what this is saying
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===Item 34 [at 3/3.4.1.1] (M Neg-Mi) 0/0/0===
| |
| − | =====Voter Comment=====
| |
| − | Not true. The association end names (traversal names) are determined separately for each class in the choice hierarchy. While some association end names may indeed be constructed using the name of the target class, this has nothing to do with choices.
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===Item 35 [at 3/3.4.1.1] (M Neg-Mi) 0/0/0===
| |
| − | =====Voter Comment=====
| |
| − | One of the defining features of a LIM is that it is never used as an expressed model. If it's used as an expressed model, then it's a SIM. If we're not happy with usage being a characteristic of whether something is a LIM or not, then we should just say that LIMs have incomplete classes and accept that templates might be LIMs or SIMs.
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===Item 40 [at 4/4.1] (G Neg-Mi) 0/0/0===
| |
| − | =====Voter Comment=====
| |
| − | This doesn't make sense. Drop the sentence or change.
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===Item 43 [at 4/4.2] (G Neg-Mi) 0/0/0===
| |
| − | =====Voter Comment=====
| |
| − | We don't talk about fields, and the attribute name is lower-case.
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===Item 119 [at 6/6.3] (G Neg-Mi) 0/0/0===
| |
| − | =====Voter Comment=====
| |
| − | No clue what Accountability History Link is.
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===Item 121 [at 6/6.5] (G Neg-Mi) 0/0/0===
| |
| − | =====Voter Comment=====
| |
| − | I think something got messed up here . . .
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===Item 127 [at 6/6.2.2.2] (M Neg-Mi) 0/0/0===
| |
| − | =====Voter Comment=====
| |
| − | Earlier in this document, there was a statement that you can't mix updateMode and snapshot and that if update mode wasn't declared, the element would be ignored. This conflicts with that statement. (I prefer the second view better, as mixing modes is useful in some circumstances.)
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===Item 131 [at 6/6.2.2.2] (M Neg-Mi) 0/0/0===
| |
| − | =====Voter Comment=====
| |
| − | The section on identify implies that you *can* identify classes without an id, at least in context by structural codes and other attributes and associations. (E.g. the patient visit on a given date for which an id isn't known)
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===Item 136 [at 0/0.0] (B Neg-Mi) 0/0/0===
| |
| − | =====Voter Comment=====
| |
| − | At the tooling committee on Sept. 23, Tim Ireland raised an issue related to Core Principles that I'm submitting on his behalf. There are a number of capabilities made available in the MIF that aren't necessarily formally exposed by tooling yet. He felt that these should still be addressed in Core Principles so that when tooling does support them, it does so in a way clearly aligned with the methodology. For example, how the new features behave from the perspective of derivation, etc. Examples include "allowed range", "enumerations", "business sort key", "do not collapse indicator", etc. Vocabulary also has elements that are present in MIF but not yet supported by tooling. In some cases these features are discussed in Core Principles and in other cases not. An official policy should be determined. This might be based on the approval level of the content (e.g. Alpha, Beta or Production).
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===Item 141 [at 2/4.0] (B Neg-Mi) 0/0/0===
| |
| − | =====Voter Comment=====
| |
| − | The intro in 1.1 clearly defined the main structural models, by 2.4 the topic is other structural models - it would be nice if the first sentence reminded the reader that this section is covering things other than the RIM, Data Types and Vocab Model - 1.1 was 4 pages ago. Another way to connect the two is to mention in 1.1 that other structural models are discussed in section 2.4
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===Item 146 [at 3/4.1.1] (M Neg-Mi) 0/0/0===
| |
| − | =====Voter Comment=====
| |
| − | This sentence is circular. If the next two sentences define an expressed model, the first sentence isn't necessary.
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===Item 149 [at 3/4.1.2] (M Neg-Mi) 0/0/0===
| |
| − | =====Voter Comment=====
| |
| − | This sentence belongs in 3.4.1.1 - it is a requirement for expressed models. OR - the word 'expressed' should be replaced with 'implied'.
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===Item 150 [at 3/4.1.2] (M Neg-Mi) 0/0/0===
| |
| − | =====Voter Comment=====
| |
| − | This is confusing, how can the RIM be and expressed or an implied model? Should it be that the RIM is both an expressed and an implied model? Its confusing at this point whether the model types are mutually exclusive.
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===Item 151 [at 4/2.0] (G Neg-Mi) 0/0/0===
| |
| − | =====Voter Comment=====
| |
| − | This paragraph seems out of place here, not sure what the intent of this para is other than to provide a link to the data types spec. Maybe removing the 1st sentence will help.
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===Item 152 [at 4/3.0] (G Neg-Mi) 0/0/0===
| |
| − | =====Voter Comment=====
| |
| − | Identifiers are unique within a context (root + extension). The phrase 'globally unique' might lead the reader to assume that the identifier value must be truly unique, across the universe.
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===Item 154 [at 4/5.0] (G Neg-Mj) 0/0/0===
| |
| − | =====Voter Comment=====
| |
| − | duplicate OIDs is a differenct scenario than assigning an OID to an object that already has an OID. Duplicate OIDs would be assigning the same exact OID to two objects
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===Item 181 [at 6/1.0] (B Neg-Mi) 0/0/0===
| |
| − | =====Voter Comment=====
| |
| − | Its not clear in this section what is old, what is new, something was replaced but its not clear which is which? Using 'conduction' in the old and the new contributes to the confusion.
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===Item 188 [at 0/0.0] (B Neg-Mj) 0/0/0===
| |
| − | =====Voter Comment=====
| |
| − | The model should support cross-mapping terms that mean the same thing within a coding system and across coding systems.
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===Item 189 [at 0/0.0] (B Neg-Mj) 0/0/0===
| |
| − | =====Voter Comment=====
| |
| − | The model should support the ability to subset a group of concepts. For example, I have a concept of Specimen Type and a subordinate grouping of these that represent a specimen obtained from a patient (i.e. blood, urine liver tissue etc.) and genetic sample type extracted (i.e. RNA, DNA, mRNA, rDNA, GDNA, snRNA …).
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===Item 193 [at 0/0.0] (B Neg-Mj) 0/0/0===
| |
| − | =====Voter Comment=====
| |
| − | The statement: " the assertion of a different primary performer for a descendant class simply means that there will be two such performers listed - the conducted performer and the addition" seems to say that when a descendent primary performer is used instead of the ancestor primary performer, then necessarily two performers must be included in the context for an act for which only one performer is responsible? Either the statement needs clarification or the statement makes no sense.
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===Item 196 [at 6.5 Negation Indicators in RIM Classes/0.0] (M Neg-Mj) 0/0/0===
| |
| − | =====Voter Comment=====
| |
| − | It is unacceptable to put placeholders in the CPP for substantial, non-backward compatible, arguably unnecessary changes of this sort in a document making conformance statements on use of the RIM. These should always be synchronized. If they are not, neither should be balloted.
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===Item 197 [at 6.6 ''isDocumentCharacteristic'' Property on Act Attributes and Association Type Codes/0.0] (M B Neg-Mj) 0/0/0===
| |
| − | =====Voter Comment=====
| |
| − | It is unacceptable to put placeholders in the CPP for substantial, non-backward compatiblechanges of this sort in a document making conformance statements on use of the RIM. These should always be synchronized. If they are not, neither should be balloted.
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===Item 206 [at 6/6.1] (B Neg-Mi) 0/0/0===
| |
| − | =====Voter Comment=====
| |
| − | Sentence that starts with "as a discussions the prior…." doesn't make sense.
| |
| | | | |
| − | ===Item 207 [at 6/6.1] (B Neg-Mi) 0/0/0=== | + | ==Adjournment== |
| − | =====Voter Comment=====
| + | At 5PM Eastern |
| − | Sentence that starts with "In this example, when using…." doesn't make sense (there is wording missing in the middle).
| |
