Difference between revisions of "MnM Minutes CC 20110209"
| (3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 45: | Line 45: | ||
Item: 180 Andy Stechishin/Rob Savage 4-0-0 | Item: 180 Andy Stechishin/Rob Savage 4-0-0 | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===Next Reconciliation Call=== | ||
| + | On the next call, we will consider remaining Negatives, many of which need input from McKenzie and Grieve | ||
===Adjournment=== | ===Adjournment=== | ||
After 42 minutes. | After 42 minutes. | ||
| + | ==Dispositions adopted in today's conference call== | ||
| + | In sequence, the following actions were voted today. | ||
| + | ===Item 8 [at 1/1.1] (B Neg-Mi) 4/0/0=== | ||
| + | =====Voter Comment===== | ||
| + | Models: The Foundations of Semantic Interoperability. In section 1.1.1, SAIF terms are starting to replace older terms from prior methodology. As such, seems like the first 5 bullet points could be 'SAIF'ized as well. For SAIF, refinement by constraint is only part of the picture. The ability to plug-and-play atomic pieces/part is fundamental to SAIF. | ||
| + | =====Disposition & Disposition Comment - "Persuasive with mod"===== | ||
| + | Will seek your help in expressing this SAIFly | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===Item 9 [at 1/1.2] (B Neg-Mi) 4/0/0=== | ||
| + | =====Voter Comment===== | ||
| + | I think the transition between paragraphs gets lost here. Which 3 models? RIM, data types, and vocab or structural, behavioral, and CIM? | ||
| + | =====Disposition & Disposition Comment - "Persuasive with mod"===== | ||
| + | Intent is RIM/Vocab/DT. Will attempt to clarify | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===Item 10 [at 1/1.1.1] (B Neg-Mi) 4/0/0=== | ||
| + | =====Voter Comment===== | ||
| + | This has nothing to do with SAIF. And it really doesn't fit in the same category as the other two changes because few people were using the term CIM. | ||
| + | =====Disposition & Disposition Comment - "Persuasive"===== | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===Item 11 [at 2/2.0] (B Neg-Mj) 4/0/0=== | ||
| + | =====Voter Comment===== | ||
| + | The abbreviation changed a couple of years ago. As we move into a more document and services friendly world (who we'd really like to use CMETs), we should stop using the term Message in the acronym. (This appears in several places. All should be fixed.) | ||
| + | =====Disposition & Disposition Comment - "Persuasive"===== | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===Item 12 [at 2/2.1] (B Neg-Mi) 4/0/0=== | ||
| + | =====Voter Comment===== | ||
| + | These sections aren't showing up in the ballot with a "red" icon indicating they are normative. They should be. As well, there is no section labeled as "Requirements for the RIM". They hyperlink points to " Uses of a Reference Information Model (RIM) in Health Informatics" which is flagged as "reference", not "normative". | ||
| + | =====Disposition & Disposition Comment - "Persuasive with mod"===== | ||
| + | Will attempt to fix these and align them with the relevant content for the RIM which has also been corrected. | ||
| + | |||
| + | . Also, I do not believe "Requirements for RIM should be Normative for Core Principles" | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===Item 13 [at 2/2.2] (B Neg-Mi) 4/0/0=== | ||
| + | =====Voter Comment===== | ||
| + | Remove "involved in ballot development". All WGs are responsible for reviewing all harmonization proposals for relevance; whether or not that WG is currently balloting any topics. | ||
| + | =====Disposition & Disposition Comment - "Not persuasive with mod"===== | ||
| + | Current "rules" say that only WGs with an item under current ballot, or a project for future ballot have a vote in Harmonization. I agree that all should review, but NOT all count for voting. Will seek to record this. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===Item 17 [at 2/2.3.2] (B M Neg-Mi) 4/0/0=== | ||
| + | =====Voter Comment===== | ||
| + | Technically, no. In some ITSs, order of serialization is not relevant. | ||
| + | =====Disposition & Disposition Comment - "Persuasive"===== | ||
| + | Use your wording | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===Item 19 [at 2/2.3.2] (B M Neg-Mi) 4/0/0=== | ||
| + | =====Voter Comment===== | ||
| + | This bullet has nothing to do with the serialization algorithm. This is about validation, which is separate entirely. Drop this or move it. | ||
| + | =====Disposition & Disposition Comment - "Persuasive"===== | ||
| + | Drop bullet | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===Item 20 [at 2/2.3.3] (B M Neg-Mi) 4/0/0=== | ||
| + | =====Voter Comment===== | ||
| + | Technically, the names of associations and attributes must be unique within each other as well. I.e. You can't have an outbound association and an attribute with the same name. | ||
| + | =====Disposition & Disposition Comment - "Persuasive"===== | ||
| + | Combine to bullets to read "The names of all attributes and associations within a class must be unique within the single attribute-association namespace defined by that class." | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===Item 21 [at 2/2.4.1] (B M Neg-Mj) 4/0/0=== | ||
| + | =====Voter Comment===== | ||
| + | All v3 models are "design". What sets a DIM apart is that it is intended to represent the information in a particular domain. It also pairs with the Domain Analysis Model (DAM). Heck, even the defintion provided says "to meet the requirements of a particular problem domain". Domain does not have to refer to "publishing domain", though it usually does. All that matters is that it's purpose is representting some domain of knowledge, rather than serializing information. The name "Domain Information Model" in the MIF and always has been. Please change the name back. | ||
| + | =====Disposition & Disposition Comment - "Not persuasive with mod"===== | ||
| + | Term was based on HDF and perceived expectation that this will be the SAIF name, too. | ||
| + | |||
| + | We are ping-ponging this one. I believe hI had negative vote the other way a couple of cycles back. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Accept the "SAIF" term only. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===Item 114 [at 6/6.1] (B Neg-Mi) 4/0/0=== | ||
| + | =====Voter Comment===== | ||
| + | A generalization isn't necessarily a parent. It could be any ancestor. | ||
| + | =====Disposition & Disposition Comment - "Persuasive"===== | ||
| + | use word "ancestor" | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===Item 116 [at 6/6.1] (B Neg-Mi) 4/0/0=== | ||
| + | =====Voter Comment===== | ||
| + | Sentence that starts with "as a discussions the prior…." doesn't make sense. | ||
| + | =====Disposition & Disposition Comment - "Persuasive with mod"===== | ||
| + | Change to: "After reviewing propposals to correct or replace the prior mechanism, that mechanism was deprecated in March 2010, and the mechanism described here was adopted for use with all future models." | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===Item 117 [at 6/6.1] (B Neg-Mi) 4/0/0=== | ||
| + | =====Voter Comment===== | ||
| + | Sentence that starts with "In this example, when using…." doesn't make sense (there is wording missing in the middle). | ||
| + | =====Disposition & Disposition Comment - "Persuasive with mod"===== | ||
| + | How about: "In this example, when using the current (new) context control structure, one can accomplish the equivalent of a participation "override" (from the prior context control structure) by blocking conduction of the "PRF" participation code in the ActRelationship leading to the descendant, and assigning a new performer Participation to the descendant." | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===Item 124 [at 6/6.2.2] (M Neg-Mi) 4/0/0=== | ||
| + | =====Voter Comment===== | ||
| + | It need not be back to a particular time. As well, existing wording was awkrward. | ||
| + | =====Disposition & Disposition Comment - "Persuasive"===== | ||
| + | Use your proposed text. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===Item 144 [at 3/4.0] (M Neg-Mi) 4/0/0=== | ||
| + | =====Voter Comment===== | ||
| + | 0 | ||
| + | =====Disposition & Disposition Comment - "Persuasive with mod"===== | ||
| + | Actual correction should read: "The type is a tuple: the name of the model, and the name of the type/constraint definition in the mode." | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===Item 145 [at 3/4.1] (M Neg-Mi) 4/0/0=== | ||
| + | =====Voter Comment===== | ||
| + | Types of models = structural and behavioral, I think Model Types are designed to connunicate something different (even the heading of this section os Model Types) | ||
| + | =====Disposition & Disposition Comment - "Persuasive with mod"===== | ||
| + | Propose: (a) change title to "Kinds of Type Models for Classes", and (b) change sentence to "As a consequence, there are three kinds of type models applicable to classes - ecpressed models, implied models, and applied models - as:" | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===Item 180 [at 6/1.0] (B Neg-Mi) 4/0/0=== | ||
| + | =====Voter Comment===== | ||
| + | I think this is what is later referred to as 'vocabulary based'. If so, there should be a statement in this section that this is called vocabulary based. If that is not the case, then something needs to be clarified. | ||
| + | =====Disposition & Disposition Comment - "Not persuasive"===== | ||
| + | No. Thius is defining the context that MIGHT be conducted. This whole section is about vocabulary-based as stated in the sentence that preceds the list. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===Item 198 [at 1/1.1] (B Neg-Mi) 4/0/0=== | ||
| + | =====Voter Comment===== | ||
| + | Models: The Foundations of Semantic Interoperability. In section 1.1.1, SAIF terms are starting to replace older terms from prior methodology. As such, seems like the first 5 bullet points could be 'SAIF'ized as well. For SAIF, refinement by constraint is only part of the picture. The ability to plug-and-play atomic pieces/part is fundamental to SAIF. | ||
| + | =====Disposition & Disposition Comment - "Persuasive with mod"===== | ||
| + | See Item 8. BUT what is the embedded word doc? It seems to apply to something else. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===Item 199 [at 1/1.2] (B Neg-Mi) 4/0/0=== | ||
| + | =====Voter Comment===== | ||
| + | I think the transition between paragraphs gets lost here. Which 3 models? RIM, data types, and vocab or structural, behavioral, and CIM? | ||
| + | =====Disposition & Disposition Comment - "Persuasive with mod"===== | ||
| + | Duplicate to Item 9 | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===Item 202 [at 2/2.2] (B Neg-Mi) 4/0/0=== | ||
| + | =====Voter Comment===== | ||
| + | Remove "involved in ballot development". All WGs are responsible for reviewing all harmonization proposals for relevance; whether or not that WG is currently balloting any topics. | ||
| + | =====Disposition & Disposition Comment - "Not persuasive with mod"===== | ||
| + | Duplicates item 13 above. | ||
Latest revision as of 00:11, 10 February 2011
M&M Conference Call 4:00PM Eastern Time (Date above)
Agenda
- Approve Agenda and Minutes Prior Meeting on Feb 2
- Approve WGM MInutes from Sydney
- Core Principles Ballot Reconciliation
Attendees
Stechishin, Pech, Beeler, Seppala, Savage
Approve Agenda and Minutes Prior Meeting on Feb 2
- Agenda approved - Andy/Rob unanimous
- February 2 minutes approved - Gregg/Brian Unanimous
Approve WGM MInutes from Sydney
- Sydney WGM minutes approved - Andy/Rob - 3-0-1
Core Principles Ballot Reconciliation
Sources
Proposed actions were found in Spread sheet on Ballot Desktop
Process
Proposed "dispositions" and and "disposition comments" were provided in the source spread sheet. In a few cases, the "disposition comment" was amended before the motion and vote.
For a handful of items that duplicated other line items, the duplication was noted, and the "disposition" and "vote" were copied from the item that had previously been voted upon.
Voting on "Persuasive" and "Persuasive with Mod" actions
Items: 8,9,10,11 -- Andy Stechishin/Rob Savage 4-0-0
Items: 12, 17,19, 20, 114 -- Andy Stechishin/Rob Savage 4-0-0
Items: 116, 117,124 Andy Stechishin/Brian Pech 4-0-0
Items: 144, 145, 198 Rob Savage/Andy Stechishin 4-0-0
Voting on "Not Persuasive" and "Not Persuasive with Mod" actions
Item: 13 Brian Pech/Rob Savage 4-0-0
Item: 21 Rob Savage/Andy Stechishin 4-0-0
Item: 180 Andy Stechishin/Rob Savage 4-0-0
Next Reconciliation Call
On the next call, we will consider remaining Negatives, many of which need input from McKenzie and Grieve
Adjournment
After 42 minutes.
Dispositions adopted in today's conference call
In sequence, the following actions were voted today.
Item 8 [at 1/1.1] (B Neg-Mi) 4/0/0
Voter Comment
Models: The Foundations of Semantic Interoperability. In section 1.1.1, SAIF terms are starting to replace older terms from prior methodology. As such, seems like the first 5 bullet points could be 'SAIF'ized as well. For SAIF, refinement by constraint is only part of the picture. The ability to plug-and-play atomic pieces/part is fundamental to SAIF.
Disposition & Disposition Comment - "Persuasive with mod"
Will seek your help in expressing this SAIFly
Item 9 [at 1/1.2] (B Neg-Mi) 4/0/0
Voter Comment
I think the transition between paragraphs gets lost here. Which 3 models? RIM, data types, and vocab or structural, behavioral, and CIM?
Disposition & Disposition Comment - "Persuasive with mod"
Intent is RIM/Vocab/DT. Will attempt to clarify
Item 10 [at 1/1.1.1] (B Neg-Mi) 4/0/0
Voter Comment
This has nothing to do with SAIF. And it really doesn't fit in the same category as the other two changes because few people were using the term CIM.
Disposition & Disposition Comment - "Persuasive"
Item 11 [at 2/2.0] (B Neg-Mj) 4/0/0
Voter Comment
The abbreviation changed a couple of years ago. As we move into a more document and services friendly world (who we'd really like to use CMETs), we should stop using the term Message in the acronym. (This appears in several places. All should be fixed.)
Disposition & Disposition Comment - "Persuasive"
Item 12 [at 2/2.1] (B Neg-Mi) 4/0/0
Voter Comment
These sections aren't showing up in the ballot with a "red" icon indicating they are normative. They should be. As well, there is no section labeled as "Requirements for the RIM". They hyperlink points to " Uses of a Reference Information Model (RIM) in Health Informatics" which is flagged as "reference", not "normative".
Disposition & Disposition Comment - "Persuasive with mod"
Will attempt to fix these and align them with the relevant content for the RIM which has also been corrected.
. Also, I do not believe "Requirements for RIM should be Normative for Core Principles"
Item 13 [at 2/2.2] (B Neg-Mi) 4/0/0
Voter Comment
Remove "involved in ballot development". All WGs are responsible for reviewing all harmonization proposals for relevance; whether or not that WG is currently balloting any topics.
Disposition & Disposition Comment - "Not persuasive with mod"
Current "rules" say that only WGs with an item under current ballot, or a project for future ballot have a vote in Harmonization. I agree that all should review, but NOT all count for voting. Will seek to record this.
Item 17 [at 2/2.3.2] (B M Neg-Mi) 4/0/0
Voter Comment
Technically, no. In some ITSs, order of serialization is not relevant.
Disposition & Disposition Comment - "Persuasive"
Use your wording
Item 19 [at 2/2.3.2] (B M Neg-Mi) 4/0/0
Voter Comment
This bullet has nothing to do with the serialization algorithm. This is about validation, which is separate entirely. Drop this or move it.
Disposition & Disposition Comment - "Persuasive"
Drop bullet
Item 20 [at 2/2.3.3] (B M Neg-Mi) 4/0/0
Voter Comment
Technically, the names of associations and attributes must be unique within each other as well. I.e. You can't have an outbound association and an attribute with the same name.
Disposition & Disposition Comment - "Persuasive"
Combine to bullets to read "The names of all attributes and associations within a class must be unique within the single attribute-association namespace defined by that class."
Item 21 [at 2/2.4.1] (B M Neg-Mj) 4/0/0
Voter Comment
All v3 models are "design". What sets a DIM apart is that it is intended to represent the information in a particular domain. It also pairs with the Domain Analysis Model (DAM). Heck, even the defintion provided says "to meet the requirements of a particular problem domain". Domain does not have to refer to "publishing domain", though it usually does. All that matters is that it's purpose is representting some domain of knowledge, rather than serializing information. The name "Domain Information Model" in the MIF and always has been. Please change the name back.
Disposition & Disposition Comment - "Not persuasive with mod"
Term was based on HDF and perceived expectation that this will be the SAIF name, too.
We are ping-ponging this one. I believe hI had negative vote the other way a couple of cycles back.
Accept the "SAIF" term only.
Item 114 [at 6/6.1] (B Neg-Mi) 4/0/0
Voter Comment
A generalization isn't necessarily a parent. It could be any ancestor.
Disposition & Disposition Comment - "Persuasive"
use word "ancestor"
Item 116 [at 6/6.1] (B Neg-Mi) 4/0/0
Voter Comment
Sentence that starts with "as a discussions the prior…." doesn't make sense.
Disposition & Disposition Comment - "Persuasive with mod"
Change to: "After reviewing propposals to correct or replace the prior mechanism, that mechanism was deprecated in March 2010, and the mechanism described here was adopted for use with all future models."
Item 117 [at 6/6.1] (B Neg-Mi) 4/0/0
Voter Comment
Sentence that starts with "In this example, when using…." doesn't make sense (there is wording missing in the middle).
Disposition & Disposition Comment - "Persuasive with mod"
How about: "In this example, when using the current (new) context control structure, one can accomplish the equivalent of a participation "override" (from the prior context control structure) by blocking conduction of the "PRF" participation code in the ActRelationship leading to the descendant, and assigning a new performer Participation to the descendant."
Item 124 [at 6/6.2.2] (M Neg-Mi) 4/0/0
Voter Comment
It need not be back to a particular time. As well, existing wording was awkrward.
Disposition & Disposition Comment - "Persuasive"
Use your proposed text.
Item 144 [at 3/4.0] (M Neg-Mi) 4/0/0
Voter Comment
0
Disposition & Disposition Comment - "Persuasive with mod"
Actual correction should read: "The type is a tuple: the name of the model, and the name of the type/constraint definition in the mode."
Item 145 [at 3/4.1] (M Neg-Mi) 4/0/0
Voter Comment
Types of models = structural and behavioral, I think Model Types are designed to connunicate something different (even the heading of this section os Model Types)
Disposition & Disposition Comment - "Persuasive with mod"
Propose: (a) change title to "Kinds of Type Models for Classes", and (b) change sentence to "As a consequence, there are three kinds of type models applicable to classes - ecpressed models, implied models, and applied models - as:"
Item 180 [at 6/1.0] (B Neg-Mi) 4/0/0
Voter Comment
I think this is what is later referred to as 'vocabulary based'. If so, there should be a statement in this section that this is called vocabulary based. If that is not the case, then something needs to be clarified.
Disposition & Disposition Comment - "Not persuasive"
No. Thius is defining the context that MIGHT be conducted. This whole section is about vocabulary-based as stated in the sentence that preceds the list.
Item 198 [at 1/1.1] (B Neg-Mi) 4/0/0
Voter Comment
Models: The Foundations of Semantic Interoperability. In section 1.1.1, SAIF terms are starting to replace older terms from prior methodology. As such, seems like the first 5 bullet points could be 'SAIF'ized as well. For SAIF, refinement by constraint is only part of the picture. The ability to plug-and-play atomic pieces/part is fundamental to SAIF.
Disposition & Disposition Comment - "Persuasive with mod"
See Item 8. BUT what is the embedded word doc? It seems to apply to something else.
Item 199 [at 1/1.2] (B Neg-Mi) 4/0/0
Voter Comment
I think the transition between paragraphs gets lost here. Which 3 models? RIM, data types, and vocab or structural, behavioral, and CIM?
Disposition & Disposition Comment - "Persuasive with mod"
Duplicate to Item 9
Item 202 [at 2/2.2] (B Neg-Mi) 4/0/0
Voter Comment
Remove "involved in ballot development". All WGs are responsible for reviewing all harmonization proposals for relevance; whether or not that WG is currently balloting any topics.
Disposition & Disposition Comment - "Not persuasive with mod"
Duplicates item 13 above.
