Difference between revisions of "June 1, 2005"
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
''' Point 5 from May 27 discussion ''' | ''' Point 5 from May 27 discussion ''' | ||
| + | <br/> | ||
5) Outline of our deliverables to VCDE workspace: | 5) Outline of our deliverables to VCDE workspace: | ||
| Line 34: | Line 35: | ||
fields are linked in the messaging layer. | fields are linked in the messaging layer. | ||
| + | ----- | ||
| + | David - CDE developer needs to be able to specify MV in field, MVR as separate field or neither | ||
=== Action Items: === | === Action Items: === | ||
Revision as of 18:32, 1 June 2005
June 1, 2005 Teleconference
Time: 2:00 to 3:00 PM Eastern Time Convert
Phone #: (877)407-0183
PassCode: 764591#
Attendees:
Discussion
Point 5 from May 27 discussion
5) Outline of our deliverables to VCDE workspace:
a) define a vocabulary of missing value reasons that CDEs can draw
from. This is likely to be a hierarchy.
b) develop recommendations to CDE developers. They will need to wrestle
with MV vs. MVR.
One possibility: include MV (e.g., unknown, not specified) in the
permissible values
And/Or create a linked CDE for the MVR - with values chosen from the
vocabulary in (a).
It seems probable that we will need some way in the caDSR for
linking a CDE with a CDE for the MVR.
c) develop recommendations for the architecture ws on how MV and MVR for
fields are linked in the messaging layer.
David - CDE developer needs to be able to specify MV in field, MVR as separate field or neither
Action Items:
| Task | Assignee | Due | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
