This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here
<meta name="googlebot" content="noindex">

MnM Project On Defining SAIF Artifacts

From HL7Wiki
Revision as of 20:11, 8 February 2011 by Gwbeeler (talk | contribs)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Discussion Notes from MnM Conference Call on August 27, 2010

DUPLICATED CONTENT

This subject is being more fully covered under Category:Artifact Definition. Aslo, there is now a conference call schedule for Fridays (at 11AM or Noon or 1PM) based on following email exchange on Feb 8, 2011:

Lloyd:

As I am in meetings today, as is John K. and we haven't gotten a lot of turnout on Tuesdays, I'm going to propose we do the Artifact Definition call this coming Friday (Feb. 11) at 12:00 Eastern.
Also, future notifications with respect to these calls will be on the saif_arch_pgm@lists.hl7.org list, not individual e-mails. So if you're interested in this project, please sign up to that list.

G Beeler:

OUCH - Noon Eastern on Friday is the day that MnM SWAPPED with Publishing Work Group last fall. I have a standing conflict as does Austin and perhaps several others who might want to participate.

Artifact Definitions

Ultimately need MIF-definitions for new and modifications to existing definitions to align with SAIF

Artifacts of Interest

At SAIF Levels:

  • CIM (Computationally Independent)
  • PIM (Platform Independent) - Where M&M has its primary responsibility
  • PSM (Platform specific) -

Observations

  • Question: At what level does target paradigm (messages/documents/services) become critical?
    Suggest the CIM can be agnostic and the PSM MUST know its target.
    Indicates that distinctions begin to appear at PIM level (perhaps as sets of patterns)
  • Question: - what is a platform?
    XML schemas, java objects,
    (services/documents/messages are a different dimension, not platforms)
  • Objective: Allow HL7 to defer the paradigm representation as DEEP Iin the SAIF hierarchy) as possible for maximum re-use.

Scope of Project

Develop Artifact Definitions that satisfy all three levels, starting with what we know best. Candidates:

  • Static Models
  • DAMs
  • Shared models (and consistency of Use)
  • Begin chewing on Interactions
    (particularly as they do or do not reflect our current practice)
    (and as they apply to the "document" paradigm).