M&M Conference Call Noon Eastern Time (Date above)

Attendees

Woody gave an update on the Tooling WG's decision to make sure graphic notation is not dependent on color only to distinguish different types of things.
Motion (Patrick/Andy) to approve last week's minutes. Motion accepted unanimously.

Because of issues in supporting the traditional HL7 iconography using 3rd party tools (e.g. eclipse UML diagraming tools) there is a discussion about what approach HL7 should take in the future for representing artifacts graphically.
Woody pointed out that we currently don't have a common example in each of the proposed representations that we can use to compare the representations effectively.
Questions we need to consider:
- How willing are HL7 members to move to a new representation?
- What are the perceived requirements?
- How would we make a transition? Training?
- What are the costs associated in making a change? This will clearly be a major effort.
Lloyd reviewed the benefits of each representation as described in the hot topic.
Do we believe HL7 should have a single diagram syntax for RMIMs and HMDs?
Are we committed to leaving the Visio tools? Tooling WG has said that the direction is to move from Visio to an Eclipse-based equivalent. The consensus on the call is that no one wants to stay on Visio-based tooling.
Does it make sense, just to move away from Visio, to move to a non-traditional representation for a period of time and then to move back once the traditional representation can be supported on non-Visio tools?