Difference between revisions of "MnM Minutes CC 20130626"
(Created page with "{{subst::MnM Template for Agenda-Minutes}}") |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | |||
<!-- | <!-- | ||
EDITORS - When converting the content from Agenda to minutes: | EDITORS - When converting the content from Agenda to minutes: | ||
| Line 6: | 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:2013 MnM Minutes | + | -->[[Category:2013 MnM Minutes]] |
__NOTOC__ | __NOTOC__ | ||
=M&M Conference Call 4:00PM Eastern Time (Date above)= | =M&M Conference Call 4:00PM Eastern Time (Date above)= | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
==Agenda== | ==Agenda== | ||
| − | *Approve [[ | + | *Approve [[MnM_Minutes_WGM_201305_Atlanta| Minutes From Atlanta WGM]] |
| + | *Endorse harmonization Proposals | ||
| + | *Plan forthjcoming Conference Calls | ||
| + | ==Attendees== | ||
| + | McKenzie, Kreisler, Shakir, Beeler | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Approve Agenda and Atlanta Minutes== | ||
| + | Approved Kreisler/McKenzie 3-0-0 | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Technical Correction Harmonization - Move Naming Data to Vocabulary Data base== | ||
| + | Beeler presented a Harmonization proposal for a TechnicalCorrection to move the "source of truth" for all "formal naming" properties to the Vocabulary data base. At present 2/3rds of the content is in the Formal Namers source file and is incorporated into the Vocabulary core MIF as the latter is assembled from the Vocabulary repository. The correction places ALL of the namers data in the Vocabulary repository (to create a single "source of truth") and to generate the source file (still used by the RMIM Designer tool) by transform from vocabulary MIF. | ||
| + | |||
| + | All steps have been undertaken, tested, verified and are contained in Vocabulary version "1210_20130414". | ||
| + | |||
| + | Motion to endorse: Kreisler/Shakir 3-0-0 | ||
| + | ==Proposal to: Correct Vocabulary Data Type Tables to Align with Data Types Specifications== | ||
| + | Beeler presented an initial harmonization proposal "Correct "immutable" vocabulary Used in Data Types R2" to align the Vocabulary Content for selected data type tables to the Data types Specifications that are the "source of truth" for these concepts. A spread sheet showing the likely chnages was presented. The complete proposal will be drafted after G Grieve reviews the proposed changes. | ||
| + | Motion to endorse: Kreisler/McKenzie 3-0-0 | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Proposal to Amend the ActRelationshipType hierarchy== | ||
| + | The group considered a harmonization proposal submitted by K Coonan to amend the ActRelationshipType hierarchy. The development of this proposal drew upon agreement on the general strategy that was endorsed by MnM during the May 2012 WGM. Following is a summary of the discussion of this proposal. | ||
| + | |||
| + | First, the Work Group thanks Dr. Coonan for completing the proposal based on the prior discussions. It is well drafted and complete. | ||
| + | |||
| + | That having been said, the Work Group raised a number of concerns: | ||
| + | #Because of the annual RIM Balloting Cycle, we cannot implement substantive changes to the RIM in this cycle. If the proposal were presented and approved next month, we would need to wait until after the September ballot to implement the changes, and the results would not be part of Normative Edition 2014. (This "summer blackout" for substantive RIM changes is part of the "balance" required to maintain the RIM both through Harmonization and Normative ballots.) | ||
| + | #: | ||
| + | #Although there is consensus that PERT has been over-used, the proposed solution appears to simply move the issue from PERT to the new code "RELEV", whose description suggests that it is very similar to the "root" code "ART" (non-specific relationship). This suggests that perhaps a simpler solution would be to move all of the children of "PERT" up one level to sit under ART as a sibling of PERT. | ||
| + | #: | ||
| + | #The additional temporal relationships are potentially useful, but questions {see McKenzie's email to MnM List titled "TimingActRelationship Type Codes") were raised that: | ||
| + | #*They produce at least one case where the new term ("TMPCTNS" is simply the inverse of "DURING"); and | ||
| + | #*: | ||
| + | #*Some proposed "specializations" that appear to be incorrect | ||
| + | #: | ||
| + | #Relative to COMP, there is an understanding that it may be advantageous to differentiate aggregation from composition, but also there are a couple of concerns on the specific proposal: | ||
| + | #*Unlike PERT, COMP does not appear to have been misused, and therefore changing it seems unnecessary | ||
| + | #*: | ||
| + | #*Formally, a concept is its definition. Thus, moving the definition to a new code (STEP) is simply "renaming" the concept. And, retaining (re-using) the code "COMP" for a newly-defined concept (has component) is forbidden by good vocabulary practice. | ||
| − | + | The MnM Work Group "tabled" a decision on this proposal until the July 10 conference call (4PM Eastern) to afford Dr. Coonan the opportunity to discuss it with the group. | |
| − | |||
| − | + | The consensus of this conference call is to withdraw the proposal from this Harmonization cycle and schedule a quarter in Cambridge during which to review and, probably, amend the proposal. It would then endorse submission for the November Harmonization Meeting. | |
| − | |||
| − | + | ==Future Agendas== | |
| + | *July 3 - Proposed reconciliation of Core Principles (Beeler) | ||
| + | *July 10 - Further consideration of Harmonization Proposal to Amend ActRelationshipType Hierarhcy | ||
==Adjournment== | ==Adjournment== | ||
Revision as of 15:45, 28 June 2013
M&M Conference Call 4:00PM Eastern Time (Date above)
Agenda
- Approve Minutes From Atlanta WGM
- Endorse harmonization Proposals
- Plan forthjcoming Conference Calls
Attendees
McKenzie, Kreisler, Shakir, Beeler
Approve Agenda and Atlanta Minutes
Approved Kreisler/McKenzie 3-0-0
Technical Correction Harmonization - Move Naming Data to Vocabulary Data base
Beeler presented a Harmonization proposal for a TechnicalCorrection to move the "source of truth" for all "formal naming" properties to the Vocabulary data base. At present 2/3rds of the content is in the Formal Namers source file and is incorporated into the Vocabulary core MIF as the latter is assembled from the Vocabulary repository. The correction places ALL of the namers data in the Vocabulary repository (to create a single "source of truth") and to generate the source file (still used by the RMIM Designer tool) by transform from vocabulary MIF.
All steps have been undertaken, tested, verified and are contained in Vocabulary version "1210_20130414".
Motion to endorse: Kreisler/Shakir 3-0-0
Proposal to: Correct Vocabulary Data Type Tables to Align with Data Types Specifications
Beeler presented an initial harmonization proposal "Correct "immutable" vocabulary Used in Data Types R2" to align the Vocabulary Content for selected data type tables to the Data types Specifications that are the "source of truth" for these concepts. A spread sheet showing the likely chnages was presented. The complete proposal will be drafted after G Grieve reviews the proposed changes. Motion to endorse: Kreisler/McKenzie 3-0-0
Proposal to Amend the ActRelationshipType hierarchy
The group considered a harmonization proposal submitted by K Coonan to amend the ActRelationshipType hierarchy. The development of this proposal drew upon agreement on the general strategy that was endorsed by MnM during the May 2012 WGM. Following is a summary of the discussion of this proposal.
First, the Work Group thanks Dr. Coonan for completing the proposal based on the prior discussions. It is well drafted and complete.
That having been said, the Work Group raised a number of concerns:
- Because of the annual RIM Balloting Cycle, we cannot implement substantive changes to the RIM in this cycle. If the proposal were presented and approved next month, we would need to wait until after the September ballot to implement the changes, and the results would not be part of Normative Edition 2014. (This "summer blackout" for substantive RIM changes is part of the "balance" required to maintain the RIM both through Harmonization and Normative ballots.)
- Although there is consensus that PERT has been over-used, the proposed solution appears to simply move the issue from PERT to the new code "RELEV", whose description suggests that it is very similar to the "root" code "ART" (non-specific relationship). This suggests that perhaps a simpler solution would be to move all of the children of "PERT" up one level to sit under ART as a sibling of PERT.
- The additional temporal relationships are potentially useful, but questions {see McKenzie's email to MnM List titled "TimingActRelationship Type Codes") were raised that:
- They produce at least one case where the new term ("TMPCTNS" is simply the inverse of "DURING"); and
- Some proposed "specializations" that appear to be incorrect
- They produce at least one case where the new term ("TMPCTNS" is simply the inverse of "DURING"); and
- Relative to COMP, there is an understanding that it may be advantageous to differentiate aggregation from composition, but also there are a couple of concerns on the specific proposal:
- Unlike PERT, COMP does not appear to have been misused, and therefore changing it seems unnecessary
- Formally, a concept is its definition. Thus, moving the definition to a new code (STEP) is simply "renaming" the concept. And, retaining (re-using) the code "COMP" for a newly-defined concept (has component) is forbidden by good vocabulary practice.
- Unlike PERT, COMP does not appear to have been misused, and therefore changing it seems unnecessary
The MnM Work Group "tabled" a decision on this proposal until the July 10 conference call (4PM Eastern) to afford Dr. Coonan the opportunity to discuss it with the group.
The consensus of this conference call is to withdraw the proposal from this Harmonization cycle and schedule a quarter in Cambridge during which to review and, probably, amend the proposal. It would then endorse submission for the November Harmonization Meeting.
Future Agendas
- July 3 - Proposed reconciliation of Core Principles (Beeler)
- July 10 - Further consideration of Harmonization Proposal to Amend ActRelationshipType Hierarhcy
