|
|
| (9 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | <!--
| + | [[Category:2011 MnM Minutes]]__NOTOC__ |
| − | EDITORS - When converting the content from Agenda to minutes:
| |
| − | 1) Delete the string "|Agenda Template" from
| |
| − | [[Category:2011 MnM Minutes|Agenda Template]] below
| |
| − | 2) Delete the Logistics template reference
| |
| − | {{:MnM Conference Call Logistics}} below
| |
| − | -->[[Category:2011 MnM Minutes|Agenda Template]]__NOTOC__
| |
| | =M&M Conference Call 4:00PM Eastern Time (Date above)= | | =M&M Conference Call 4:00PM Eastern Time (Date above)= |
| − | {{:MnM Conference Call Logistics}}
| |
| | [[:Category:2011 MnM Minutes|Return to MnM Minutes]] | | [[:Category:2011 MnM Minutes|Return to MnM Minutes]] |
| | ==Agenda== | | ==Agenda== |
| − | *Approve [[MnM_Minutes_CC_20110223| Minutes Prior Meeting on 02/23]] | + | *Approve [[MnM_Minutes_CC_20110216| Minutes Prior Meeting on 02/16]] |
| | * Reconcile Core Principles Negative Votes | | * Reconcile Core Principles Negative Votes |
| | * Reconcile Core Principles "A*" Votes | | * Reconcile Core Principles "A*" Votes |
| | + | * Plan response to ITS Project Proposal for Data Tapes ITS R2B (Show on GoToMeeting) |
| | + | * Quick Scan of PSS for Artifact Definition |
| | | | |
| − | ==Approve Agenda and [[MnM_Minutes_CC_20110223| Minutes Prior Meeting on 02/23]]== | + | ==Attendees== |
| | + | Beeler, Stechishin, Kreisler, Seppala, McKenzie, Natarajan |
| | + | ==Approve Agenda and [[MnM_Minutes_CC_20110216| Minutes Prior Meeting on 02/16]]== |
| | + | :Agenda approval - Andy/Ravi 5-0-0 |
| | + | :Minutes approval - Gregg/Lloyd 5-0-0 |
| | | | |
| | ==Reconcile Core Principles Negative Votes== | | ==Reconcile Core Principles Negative Votes== |
| | Proposed actions in [http://www.hl7.org/documentcenter/ballots/2010SEP/reconciliation/recon_v3_cppv3models_r1_n4_2010sep.xls Spread sheet on Ballot Desktop] | | Proposed actions in [http://www.hl7.org/documentcenter/ballots/2010SEP/reconciliation/recon_v3_cppv3models_r1_n4_2010sep.xls Spread sheet on Ballot Desktop] |
| − |
| |
| − | <big>'''Filter:'''</big> Section='''4.1''' and '''3.4.1.1'''; Vote and type='''Neg-Mi'''; For = '''0'''
| |
| | | | |
| | [http://www.hl7.org/v3ballot2010sep/html/infrastructure/coreprinciples/v3modelcoreprinciples.htm Document Being Reconciled] | | [http://www.hl7.org/v3ballot2010sep/html/infrastructure/coreprinciples/v3modelcoreprinciples.htm Document Being Reconciled] |
| | | | |
| − | 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:
| + | Changes documented in [http://www.hl7.org/documentcenter/ballots/2010SEP/reconciliation/recon_v3_cppv3models_r1_n4_2010sep.xls spread sheet]. |
| − | | |
| − | ===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==
| |
| − | | |
| − | <big>'''Filter:'''</big> 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 <br/> 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==
| |
| − | | |
| − | <big>'''Filter:'''</big> 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==
| |
| − | | |
| − | <big>'''Filter:'''</big> 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==
| |
| − | | |
| − | <big>'''Filter:'''</big> 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==
| |
| − | | |
| − | <big>'''Filter:'''</big> 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===
| + | Items 33, 34, 35, 40 - Lloyd/Robb 5-0-0 |
| − | =====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=== | + | ==Reconcile Core Principles A-* Votes== |
| − | =====Voter Comment=====
| + | Changes documented in [http://www.hl7.org/documentcenter/ballots/2010SEP/reconciliation/recon_v3_cppv3models_r1_n4_2010sep.xls spread sheet]. |
| − | 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===
| + | Items 1 - 7 Andy/Lloyd 5-0-0 |
| − | =====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===
| + | Remaining items Austin/Ravi 5-0-0 |
| − | =====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=== | + | ==Review/Update MnM of Project Scope for SAIF Artifact Definition== |
| − | =====Voter Comment=====
| + | We reviewed the document that had been updated by Lloyd. This was the version that had been discussed previously in a joint conference call with Project Services. Minor edits were made to the document in clarifying the scope and responsibilities. The [http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/download/docmanfileversion/6174/8092/SAIFArtifactDefinitionProjectScopev03.doc Revised PSS has been posted] and will be forwarded to TSC for its review. |
| − | 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===
| + | The changes were approved: Austin/Andy 5-0-0 |
| − | =====Voter Comment===== | + | ==Plan response to ITS Project Proposal for Data Tapes ITS R2B == |
| − | Use correct term
| + | ITS Work Group is preparing to advance a Project Scope for a project to: |
| − | =====Disposition & Disposition Comment - "Persuasive"=====
| + | :"This project will develop ITS specifications for HL7 v3 messages and documents, that are wire-backwards-compatible to existing ITS Structures R1.1, and abstract data types R2 while to the maximum extent possible adopting all changes and new features that are being introduced by semantic and abstract specifications, such as the RIM and abstract data types..." |
| − | Make the change
| |
| | | | |
| − | ===Item 137 [at 6/1.8] (B A-T) 0/0/0===
| + | The version reviewed was not believed to be the final version, but it is expected that this may come up for review in the Foundation And Technology SD before the next MnM meeting. There were lively discussions about the project and its intentions. |
| − | =====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===
| + | Based on the group's understanding of the proposal, the following major concerns were raised, and the co-chairs were urged to raise them in discussion at the SD: |
| − | =====Voter Comment=====
| |
| − | =====Disposition & Disposition Comment - "Persuasive"=====
| |
| − | See item 123 above
| |
| | | | |
| − | ===Item 183 [at 6/2.2.1] (M A-T) 0/0/0===
| + | *HL7 needs to avoid sponsoring two incompatible "normative" ways to implement data types (DT) R2 (also the ISO data types) in the long term. |
| − | =====Voter Comment=====
| |
| − | =====Disposition & Disposition Comment - "Persuasive"=====
| |
| − | See item 123 above
| |
| | | | |
| − | ===Item 184 [at 6/3.0] (G A-T) 0/0/0===
| + | * The complete capability of DT R2 should be the only viable target for the future, and relatively soon. The proposed ITS's do '''not''' strive to implement all features of DT R2. |
| − | =====Voter Comment=====
| |
| − | =====Disposition & Disposition Comment - "Persuasive"=====
| |
| − | Make the change
| |
| | | | |
| | + | *If this is a bridge specification to allow a smooth transition, it should be sunset at some point. |
| | | | |
| − | {{:MnM Action Items from 201005}}
| + | *It is our understanding that there are elements of the proposed ITS that will '''not'' be backwards compatible, what are they, and how can one claim this is backwards compatible? |
| | | | |
| − | ==Adjournment== | + | * We believe there is a need to '''limit''' this to those circumstances where there is an '''extant, demonstrable implementation of the earlier standard that justifies such backwards compatibility'''. It should never be used for new, unrelated endeavors. |
| | + | |
| | + | ==Adjourned after 75 minutes== |
