MnM Minutes CC 20080926

Agenda

• Approval of minutes
  • Conference Call September 5
  • Vancouver WGM
• Review Project Scope Statement for RIM Balloting (Beeler, Deadline is 9/28)
• Continue Versioning Discussion from Vancouver
  • 20080918 Informal Versioning Discussion
• Verify Conference call & Harmonization schedule
• Other TBD

Attendees

Shakir, McKenzie, Beeler, Stechishin, Seppala, Nelson, Kreisler, Spronk, Neat, Parker, Coller

Minutes

Approval of Minutes

• September 5 minutes
  • Beeler/Stechishin - unanimous
• Vancouver WGM minutes
  • To be approved at a future date

Approval of Project Scope Statement for RIM Balloting

• Beeler/Nelson unanimous

Verify Conference call & Harmonization schedule

• The committee reviewed the upcoming MnM schedule. No objections or concerns were raised.

Questions from AMS re: submitting harmonization proposals

• For questions about submitting vocabulary submissions, he was directed to the "Vocabulary Maintenance Language (Value Set Revision)" on the wiki.
• He asked if it is possible to have a different value set for a qualifier than for a base code. -> Currently this is only supported in MIF.
• He asked how to restrict ActStatus? -> Propose a new valueSet.

Versioning

• Lloyd
  • Versioning artifact ids does not buy us a lot.
  • Versioning of packages is more useful
  • Rather than having artifact versions for interactions, say I'm using NE2006.

• Woody
  • This tends to leave out the pre-adopters

• Lloyd
  • This is addressed by having ballot editions

• Woody
  • Conformance to a given edition or ballot is sufficient.

• Lloyd
  • If we identify the edition or ballot, separately identifying the versions of the artifacts is redundant. The way that we are currently specifying the version on artifacts is not sufficient.

• Woody
  • How do we know if something has changed between editions or ballots?
  • Do we want to keep assigning version ids to artifacts (this has been useful for CMETs)

• Lloyd
  • We could use ARTIFACT_ID[DATE] to reference specific artifacts

• Woody
  • Tooling would have to be changed to support this

• Gregg
  • Aren't CMETs always bound by name (not version)?

• Lloyd
  • Yes

• Gregg
  • How do we reference a specific version of a CMET?

• Lloyd
  • Versions of the same CMET should be compatible

• Woody
  • We need to draft a proposed solution that addresses the multiple constituents.

Action: Lloyd will lead the effort to draft a proposal. Woody will participate. Lloyd will solicate other participation.

Return to M&M Minutes List