This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here

MnM Minutes CC 20090313

From HL7Wiki
Revision as of 16:57, 13 March 2009 by Danelson (talk | contribs)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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


  • 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


  • Graphical Representation of RMIMs


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.

Return to M&M Minutes List