Difference between revisions of "June 1, 2005"
| Line 46: | Line 46: | ||
<tr><td>Fill out item 4<td>David Aronow<td>1 week<td> | <tr><td>Fill out item 4<td>David Aronow<td>1 week<td> | ||
<tr><td>Discussion of item 3<td>Jim<td>1 week<td> | <tr><td>Discussion of item 3<td>Jim<td>1 week<td> | ||
| + | <tr><td>Slides for FTF<td><td>ftf meeting<td> | ||
<tr> | <tr> | ||
Revision as of 19:11, 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Draft document for FTF | all | ftf meeting | |
| Fill out draft of item 2 | Harold Solbrig | 1 week | |
| Fill out item 4 | David Aronow | 1 week | |
| Discussion of item 3 | Jim | 1 week | |
| Slides for FTF | ftf meeting | ||
