MnM Minutes CC 20110302
Contents
- 1 M&M Conference Call 4:00PM Eastern Time (Date above)
- 1.1 Logistics
- 1.2 Agenda
- 1.3 Approve Agenda and Minutes Prior Meeting on 02/23
- 1.4 Reconcile Core Principles Negative Votes
- 1.5 Reconcile Core Principles A-* Votes for Section 1
- 1.5.1 Item 1 [at 1/1.1] (B A-S) 0/0/0
- 1.5.2 Item 2 [at 1/1.1] (B A-Q) 0/0/0
- 1.5.3 Item 3 [at 1/1.1] (B A-S) 0/0/0
- 1.5.4 Item 4 [at 1/1.1] (B A-S) 0/0/0
- 1.5.5 Item 5 [at 1/1.1] (B A-Q) 0/0/0
- 1.5.6 Item 6 [at 1/1.1] (B A-T) 0/0/0
- 1.5.7 Item 7 [at 1/1.1] (B A-Q) 0/0/0
- 1.5.8 Item 194 [at 1.1.1 Model Nomenclature Changes/0.0] (B A-S) 0/0/0
- 1.6 Reconcile Core Principles A-* Votes for Section 2
- 1.6.1 Item 14 [at 2/2.3] (B A-S) 0/0/0
- 1.6.2 Item 15 [at 2/2.3] (B M A-S) 0/0/0
- 1.6.3 Item 16 [at 2/2.3.1] (B M A-S) 0/0/0
- 1.6.4 Item 18 [at 2/2.3.2] (B M A-S) 0/0/0
- 1.6.5 Item 22 [at 2/2.4.1] (B M A-S) 0/0/0
- 1.6.6 Item 23 [at 2/2.4.2] (B M A-S) 0/0/0
- 1.6.7 Item 24 [at 2/2.4.3] (B M A-T) 0/0/0
- 1.6.8 Item 25 [at 2/2.4.3] (B M A-S) 0/0/0
- 1.6.9 Item 26 [at 2/2.4.3] (B M A-S) 0/0/0
- 1.6.10 Item 139 [at 2/3.3] (B A-T) 0/0/0
- 1.6.11 Item 200 [at 2/2.3] (B A-S) 0/0/0
- 1.6.12 Item 201 [at 2/2.3] (B A-S) 0/0/0
- 1.6.13 Item 203 [at 2/2.3.1] (B A-S) 0/0/0
- 1.7 Reconcile Core Principles A-* Votes for Section 3
- 1.7.1 Item 27 [at 3/3.0] (G A-Q) 0/0/0
- 1.7.2 Item 28 [at 3/3.3] (G A-S) 0/0/0
- 1.7.3 Item 30 [at 3/3.3] (G A-S) 0/0/0
- 1.7.4 Item 31 [at 3/3.3.1] (G A-S) 0/0/0
- 1.7.5 Item 32 [at 3/3.3.1] (G A-S) 0/0/0
- 1.7.6 Item 33 [at 3/3.4.1.1] (M Neg-Mi) 0/0/0
- 1.7.7 Item 34 [at 3/3.4.1.1] (M Neg-Mi) 0/0/0
- 1.7.8 Item 35 [at 3/3.4.1.1] (M Neg-Mi) 0/0/0
- 1.7.9 Item 36 [at 3/3.4.1.1] (M A-S) 0/0/0
- 1.7.10 Item 37 [at 3/3.4.1.2] (M A-S) 0/0/0
- 1.7.11 Item 38 [at 3/3.4.1.3] (M A-S) 0/0/0
- 1.7.12 Item 140 [at 3/ ] (B A-S) 0/0/0
- 1.7.13 Item 142 [at 3/3.0] (G A-T) 0/0/0
- 1.7.14 Item 147 [at 3/4.1.1] (M A-T) 0/0/0
- 1.7.15 Item 148 [at 3/4.1.1] (M A-T) 0/0/0
- 1.8 Reconcile Core Principles A-* Votes for Section 4
- 1.9 Reconcile Core Principles A-* Votes for Section 6
- 1.9.1 Item 115 [at 6/6.1] (B A-S) 0/0/0
- 1.9.2 Item 118 [at 6/6.3] (G A-S) 0/0/0
- 1.9.3 Item 120 [at 6/6.4] (G A-T) 0/0/0
- 1.9.4 Item 122 [at 6/6.2.2] (M A-S) 0/0/0
- 1.9.5 Item 123 [at 6/6.2.2] (M A-Q) 0/0/0
- 1.9.6 Item 125 [at 6/6.2.2.1] (M A-Q) 0/0/0
- 1.9.7 Item 126 [at 6/6.2.2.2] (M A-S) 0/0/0
- 1.9.8 Item 128 [at 6/6.2.2.2] (M A-S) 0/0/0
- 1.9.9 Item 129 [at 6/6.2.2.2] (M A-S) 0/0/0
- 1.9.10 Item 130 [at 6/6.2.2.2] (M A-S) 0/0/0
- 1.9.11 Item 132 [at 6/6.4.1] (M A-S) 0/0/0
- 1.9.12 Item 133 [at 6/6.4.2] (M A-S) 0/0/0
- 1.9.13 Item 137 [at 6/1.8] (B A-T) 0/0/0
- 1.9.14 Item 182 [at 6/2.2] (M A-T) 0/0/0
- 1.9.15 Item 183 [at 6/2.2.1] (M A-T) 0/0/0
- 1.9.16 Item 184 [at 6/3.0] (G A-T) 0/0/0
- 1.10 Review Action Items For MnM
- 1.11 Adjournment
M&M Conference Call 4:00PM Eastern Time (Date above)
Logistics
Join GoToMeeting at
- https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/701832453
- Meeting ID: 701-832-453
Agenda
- Approve Minutes Prior Meeting on 02/23
- Reconcile Core Principles Negative Votes
- Reconcile Core Principles "A*" Votes
Approve Agenda and Minutes Prior Meeting on 02/23
Reconcile Core Principles Negative Votes
Proposed actions in Spread sheet on Ballot Desktop
Filter: Section=4.1 and 3.4.1.1; Vote and type=Neg-Mi; For = 0
As of 2/23 Conference call, the following negatives remain. Lloyd McKenzie and Grahame Grieve will collaborate to address the first three of these; fourth is proposed here:
Item 33 [at 3/3.4.1.1] (M Neg-Mi) 0/0/0
Voter Comment
I have *no clue* what this is saying.
Disposition & Disposition Comment - "tbd"
Item 34 [at 3/3.4.1.1] (M Neg-Mi) 0/0/0
Voter Comment
Not true. The association end names (traversal names) are determined separately for each class in the choice hierarchy. While some association end names may indeed be constructed using the name of the target class, this has nothing to do with choices.
Disposition & Disposition Comment - "tbd"
Item 35 [at 3/3.4.1.1] (M Neg-Mi) 0/0/0
Voter Comment
One of the defining features of a LIM is that it is never used as an expressed model. If it's used as an expressed model, then it's a SIM. If we're not happy with usage being a characteristic of whether something is a LIM or not, then we should just say that LIMs have incomplete classes and accept that templates might be LIMs or SIMs.
Disposition & Disposition Comment - "tbd"
Item 40 [at 4/4.1] (G Neg-Mi) 0/0/0
Voter Comment
This doesn't make sense. Drop the sentence or change.
Disposition & Disposition Comment - "Not persuasive with mod"
Problem is the second paragraph should become the final sentence of the first paragraph. In that case, this reference (which opens the third paragraph) does make sense because the non-update mode uses of reference are summarized in the first para.
Will make the change of combining first two paragraphs in this section.
Reconcile Core Principles A-* Votes for Section 1
Filter: Section=4.1 and 3.4.1.1; Vote and type=Neg-Mi; For = 0
Item 1 [at 1/1.1] (B A-S) 0/0/0
Voter Comment
As it stands, it looks like you first constrain for realm, then for clinical practice. In fact the reverse is usually true. We shouldn't be implying any type of order.
Disposition & Disposition Comment - "Persuasive"
Make the change
Item 2 [at 1/1.1] (B A-Q) 0/0/0
Voter Comment
Is UML an "essential feature"? I'm concerned that the wording will be misinterpretted to mean that where we diverge from core features of UML, we will be seen as violating this premise. As well, it's hard to argue that the vocabulary model is based even vaguely on UML.
Disposition & Disposition Comment - "Persuasive with mod"
Propose to make it "and that, to the extent possible, these models will be based ..."
Item 3 [at 1/1.1] (B A-S) 0/0/0
Voter Comment
Disposition & Disposition Comment - "Persuasive"
Make the change
Item 4 [at 1/1.1] (B A-S) 0/0/0
Voter Comment
When we publish the RIM, we don't refer to releases, we refer to versions. So it would be useful to include the version as a cross-reference.
Disposition & Disposition Comment - "Persuasive with mod"
Release 1 (version 1.25) of the RIM …"
Item 5 [at 1/1.1] (B A-Q) 0/0/0
Voter Comment
We're going to ISO regularly with the RIM now, aren't we? Do we really need to be specific about which versions have gone to he RIM?
Disposition & Disposition Comment - "Not persuasive"
Not yet - agree once we do.
Item 6 [at 1/1.1] (B A-T) 0/0/0
Voter Comment
The spacing between the bullets is different.
Disposition & Disposition Comment - "Persuasive"
Reomve second
after second bullet
Item 7 [at 1/1.1] (B A-Q) 0/0/0
Voter Comment
Technically, only the Datatypes ITS is a CEN and ISO standard. Abstract Datatypes is not.
Disposition & Disposition Comment - "Considered - Question Answered"
Yes, but that is a nuance that few would understand.
Item 194 [at 1.1.1 Model Nomenclature Changes/0.0] (B A-S) 0/0/0
Voter Comment
Please align RIM terms to reflect CPP usage or delete from CPP until aligned
Disposition & Disposition Comment - "Persuasive with mod"
Will CONTINUE to do BEST to keep CoreP aligned with RIM.
Reconcile Core Principles A-* Votes for Section 2
Filter: Chapter = 2, Section=all, Vote and type=A-C, A-Q, A-S, A-T; For = 0
Item 14 [at 2/2.3] (B A-S) 0/0/0
Voter Comment
Disposition & Disposition Comment - "Persuasive"
Item 15 [at 2/2.3] (B M A-S) 0/0/0
Voter Comment
Remove the word most; does the methodology really support just a RIM construct with no additional constraints? I suppose it does; but does that make sense?
Disposition & Disposition Comment - "Persuasive"
Item 16 [at 2/2.3.1] (B M A-S) 0/0/0
Voter Comment
Why non-optional? Isn't title an optional attribute (I wonder that someone following the example, and looking up the values in the RIM would mis-understand)
Disposition & Disposition Comment - "Persuasive with mod"
Item 18 [at 2/2.3.2] (B M A-S) 0/0/0
Voter Comment
Sent" is more of a messaging concept.
Disposition & Disposition Comment - "Persuasive with mod"
Item 22 [at 2/2.4.1] (B M A-S) 0/0/0
Voter Comment
Make it clear that DIMs can constrain DIMs.
Disposition & Disposition Comment - "Persuasive"
Item 23 [at 2/2.4.2] (B M A-S) 0/0/0
Voter Comment
Include a cross-reference to 2.3.3 which defines the rules for serializability.
Disposition & Disposition Comment - "Persuasive"
Item 24 [at 2/2.4.3] (B M A-T) 0/0/0
Voter Comment
Disposition & Disposition Comment - "Persuasive"
Item 25 [at 2/2.4.3] (B M A-S) 0/0/0
Voter Comment
This is also true and should be made clear.
Disposition & Disposition Comment - "Persuasive"
Item 26 [at 2/2.4.3] (B M A-S) 0/0/0
Voter Comment
We've done this in the other sections, should do it here too.
Disposition & Disposition Comment - "Persuasive"
Item 139 [at 2/3.3] (B A-T) 0/0/0
Voter Comment
Disposition & Disposition Comment - "Persuasive"
Item 200 [at 2/2.3] (B A-S) 0/0/0
Voter Comment
Disposition & Disposition Comment - "Persuasive"
Item 201 [at 2/2.3] (B A-S) 0/0/0
Voter Comment
Remove the word most; does the methodology really support just a RIM construct with no additional constraints? I suppose it does; but does that make sense?
Disposition & Disposition Comment - "Persuasive"
Item 203 [at 2/2.3.1] (B A-S) 0/0/0
Voter Comment
Why non-optional? Isn't title an optional attribute (I wonder that someone following the example, and looking up the values in the RIM would mis-understand)
Disposition & Disposition Comment - "Persuasive with mod"
Reconcile Core Principles A-* Votes for Section 3
Filter: Chapter = 3, Section=all, Vote and type=A-C, A-Q, A-S, A-T; For = 0
Item 27 [at 3/3.0] (G A-Q) 0/0/0
Voter Comment
I'm not familiar with this term as an XML term. XML uses complex types and simple types. (And we care about attribute types just as much as element types)
Disposition & Disposition Comment - "Persuasive with mod"
Change to: "In XML-encoded communications, the content model is either a "complex type" or a "simple type."
Item 28 [at 3/3.3] (G A-S) 0/0/0
Voter Comment
Datatypes aren't known as null classes.
Disposition & Disposition Comment - "Persuasive"
Make his change
Item 30 [at 3/3.3] (G A-S) 0/0/0
Voter Comment
This should be a link. (There are lots of sections in various documents about conformance :>)
Disposition & Disposition Comment - "Persuasive with mod"
Believe this shoujld link to Abstract DT R2 "infrastructure/datatypes/datatypes.htm#section-Conformance"
Item 31 [at 3/3.3.1] (G A-S) 0/0/0
Voter Comment
Some comparison operations do not result in a null result. E.g. 1.equals(PINF)
Disposition & Disposition Comment - "Persuasive"
Make his change
Item 32 [at 3/3.3.1] (G A-S) 0/0/0
Voter Comment
This should be a link.
Disposition & Disposition Comment - "Persuasive with mod"
This (and the three later items (36-38) fall under a Negative Ballot reconciliation in which we agreed that McKenzie and Grieve would work to resolve these issues.
Item 33 [at 3/3.4.1.1] (M Neg-Mi) 0/0/0
Voter Comment
I have *no clue* what this is saying.
Disposition & Disposition Comment - "0"
Ask LM and GG to collaborate to fix these
Item 34 [at 3/3.4.1.1] (M Neg-Mi) 0/0/0
Voter Comment
Not true. The association end names (traversal names) are determined separately for each class in the choice hierarchy. While some association end names may indeed be constructed using the name of the target class, this has nothing to do with choices.
Disposition & Disposition Comment - "0"
Ask LM and GG to collaborate to fix these
Item 35 [at 3/3.4.1.1] (M Neg-Mi) 0/0/0
Voter Comment
One of the defining features of a LIM is that it is never used as an expressed model. If it's used as an expressed model, then it's a SIM. If we're not happy with usage being a characteristic of whether something is a LIM or not, then we should just say that LIMs have incomplete classes and accept that templates might be LIMs or SIMs.
Disposition & Disposition Comment - "0"
Ask LM and GG to collaborate to fix these
Item 36 [at 3/3.4.1.1] (M A-S) 0/0/0
Voter Comment
I would love to see this statement added into the first paragraph.
Disposition & Disposition Comment - "Persuasive with mod"
See item 32 above
Item 37 [at 3/3.4.1.2] (M A-S) 0/0/0
Voter Comment
I would love to see this statement added into the first paragraph.
Disposition & Disposition Comment - "Persuasive with mod"
See item 32 above
Item 38 [at 3/3.4.1.3] (M A-S) 0/0/0
Voter Comment
Provide a complete listing of common names.
Disposition & Disposition Comment - "Persuasive with mod"
See item 32 above
Item 140 [at 3/ ] (B A-S) 0/0/0
Voter Comment
Is this still the notion? Proposed wording is based on the assumption that this is still the notion
Disposition & Disposition Comment - "Persuasive with mod"
Agree to change, but also change to "Common Model Element Type"
Item 142 [at 3/3.0] (G A-T) 0/0/0
Voter Comment
Disposition & Disposition Comment - "Persuasive with mod"
Agree but also should not end with preposition so "usually any model to which the type claims conformance"
Item 147 [at 3/4.1.1] (M A-T) 0/0/0
Voter Comment
Disposition & Disposition Comment - "Persuasive with mod"
Lloyd and Grahame to note as this section is reconciled between you
Item 148 [at 3/4.1.1] (M A-T) 0/0/0
Voter Comment
Disposition & Disposition Comment - "Persuasive with mod"
Lloyd and Grahame to note as this section is reconciled between you
Reconcile Core Principles A-* Votes for Section 4
Filter: Chapter = 3, Section=4.1, Vote and type=A-C, A-Q, A-S, A-T; For = 0
Item 39 [at 4/4.1] (G A-S) 0/0/0
Voter Comment
These should be links
Disposition & Disposition Comment - "Persuasive with mod"
See your item 41 that covers same phrase.
Item 41 [at 4/4.1] (G A-S) 0/0/0
Voter Comment
Move the reference/hyperlink up to the first mention of the new term updateMode, etc.
Disposition & Disposition Comment - "Persuasive with mod"
Modify your change to: "When source and destination systems share sufficient information to permit it, the source system may simply refer to an object rather than providing full details of the object. Rather than updating the object in either snapshot or update mode (see Update Control), the destination system should use the information provided to identify an existing instance of data." With link in the parenthetic reference to <loc href="#coreP_Update_control">...
Item 204 [at 4/4.1] (G M A-S) 0/0/0
Voter Comment
Move the reference/hyperlink up to the first mention of the new term updateMode, etc.
Disposition & Disposition Comment - "0"
Duplicate to item 41, which see.
Reconcile Core Principles A-* Votes for Section 6
Filter: Chapter = 6, Section=all, Vote and type=A-C, A-Q, A-S, A-T; For = 0
Item 115 [at 6/6.1] (B A-S) 0/0/0
Voter Comment
Remove redundancy (and confusing wording)
Disposition & Disposition Comment - "Persuasive with mod"
Prefer: "the context of descendants of the immediate descendant of the ActRelationship.
Item 118 [at 6/6.3] (G A-S) 0/0/0
Voter Comment
HIST works too.
Disposition & Disposition Comment - "Persuasive"
Adopt as suggested
Item 120 [at 6/6.4] (G A-T) 0/0/0
Voter Comment
Use the same bullet style as other sections.
Disposition & Disposition Comment - "Persuasive"
Has been logged as a BUG against the ballot software, but we will also amend the source.
Item 122 [at 6/6.2.2] (M A-S) 0/0/0
Voter Comment
There's no preceding clause for the "however"
Disposition & Disposition Comment - "Persuasive"
Use your text
Item 123 [at 6/6.2.2] (M A-Q) 0/0/0
Voter Comment
What are the brackets for? Suspect the intention had been for this to be a link to "Expressed Model", though that raises the question of how to use updateMode when the expressed model is the RIM. (The RIM doesn't explicitly expose any of the update modes as 'available for use'. That's expected to be done in downstream models.). There's a similar double-bracket thing a little further one that should be fixed as well.
Disposition & Disposition Comment - "Persuasive with mod"
Link "constrining model" to id="coreP_Type_Representation-Class" in both 6.2.2 amd 6.2.2.1
Item 125 [at 6/6.2.2.1] (M A-Q) 0/0/0
Voter Comment
Huh? What methodological issues? What circumstances?
Disposition & Disposition Comment - "Persuasive with mod"
LLOYD - HELP??
Item 126 [at 6/6.2.2.2] (M A-S) 0/0/0
Voter Comment
This section appears to have nothing to do with the model designer. And a good chunk of it is relevant to implementers, not just designers.
Disposition & Disposition Comment - "Not persuasive"
GWB: I disagree an informed model desginer MUST understand the implementation consequences of the design. The implementation comments herein provide that form of guidance.
Item 128 [at 6/6.2.2.2] (M A-S) 0/0/0
Voter Comment
Use the new terminology.
Disposition & Disposition Comment - "Persuasive"
Make the change
Item 129 [at 6/6.2.2.2] (M A-S) 0/0/0
Voter Comment
Use the new terminology.
Disposition & Disposition Comment - "Persuasive"
Make the change
Item 130 [at 6/6.2.2.2] (M A-S) 0/0/0
Voter Comment
Document environments don't have the necessary context to establish what data existed prior to the update.
Disposition & Disposition Comment - "Persuasive"
Make the change
Item 132 [at 6/6.4.1] (M A-S) 0/0/0
Voter Comment
Link to the CMETs section in the ballot.
Disposition & Disposition Comment - "Persuasive"
Add xspecref to CMETs
Item 133 [at 6/6.4.2] (M A-S) 0/0/0
Voter Comment
Use correct term
Disposition & Disposition Comment - "Persuasive"
Make the change
Item 137 [at 6/1.8] (B A-T) 0/0/0
Voter Comment
This maybe one possible statement clarifying the existing text. Regardless the title and the content are not congruent, as the text gives an example of how do an override.
Disposition & Disposition Comment - "Persuasive"
I prefer this wording, too. It also corrects the items negative voted in other votes.
Item 182 [at 6/2.2] (M A-T) 0/0/0
Voter Comment
Disposition & Disposition Comment - "Persuasive"
See item 123 above
Item 183 [at 6/2.2.1] (M A-T) 0/0/0
Voter Comment
Disposition & Disposition Comment - "Persuasive"
See item 123 above
Item 184 [at 6/3.0] (G A-T) 0/0/0
Voter Comment
Disposition & Disposition Comment - "Persuasive"
Make the change
Review Action Items For MnM
Note the following list, and amend the list to assign selected items: