MnM Minutes CC 20090313
M&M Conference Call Noon Eastern Time (Date above)
Attendance
- Woody Beeler
- Austin Kreisler
- Brandon Ulrich
- Lloyd McKenzie (chair)
- Dale Nelson (scribe)
- Han Nguyen
- Ioana Singureanu
- Scott Robertson
- Leslie Flaherty
- Adeola Odunlami
- Adam Flinton
- Ravi Natarajan
- Andy Stechishin
- Bernard Jackson
- Dave Carlson
- Gregg Seppala
- Galen Mulrooney
- Tim Ireland
- Mead Walker
Agenda
- Graphical Representation of RMIMs
Minutes
LM: Questions to decide 1) Should HL7 support mulitple graphic formats for publishing diagrams
- 1 format (earlier HL7 decisions)
- 1 format, but allow for alternates (every SM will support a common format, but may use others)
- multiple formats (different committeess can represent as they see fit)
2) Which graphical format(s) should HL7 approve?
GB: Presented discussion of findings of differences between representations of features
- Structural attributes (classCode, moodCode) are not complete in SMD, missing in UML
- UML represents participations as association classes;
- Mandatory specification of attrs absent in UML
Started w/ Rose, found that it was not expressive enough for needs.
MW: Preference for single representation. Either representation is OK, SMD looks close to current Visio
IS: Agree, info s.b. on diagram, but s.b. able to hide some info
LM: May be a desire to render differently for different audiences. Near term, single rendering is probable.
LM: MIF will contain everything. Diagrams may omit. Rendering style - e.g. choice boxes may require human intervention
GS: Required vs optional notations might be best shown in a conformance view? Required but min multiplicity of 0.
DC: Any UML diagram needs to follow UML standards so that any tool can render.
