MnM Minutes CC 20110302

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

Return to MnM Minutes

Agenda

• Approve Minutes Prior Meeting on 02/16
• Reconcile Core Principles Negative 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

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

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:

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 - "Persuasive with Mod"

Change from:

"The expressed model is the model that contains the type expressed by the class. It is the model that determines the names and structure of the instance. An "expressed model" is always relative to one or more classes expressing that model. It is not a fixed absolute characteristic of any model."

to

"The expressed model is the model that determines the names and structure of the instance. I.e. It governs how the instance is "expressed".

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 - "Persuasive with Mod"

Change from:

"and the type is determined by implication from the association name. For choices, elements of the type name may be pre-coordinated with the association name in the instance."

to:

"and the type (including the particular leaf class in choice hierarchies) is determined by the implication from the association name."

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 - "Persuasive with Mod"

Change from

"Only serializable models with one entry point (SIMs and some LIMs) may be used as expressed models."

to

"Only serializable models with one entry point (SIMs) may be used as expressed models."

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

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 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?

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)

Item 18 [at 2/2.3.2] (B M A-S) 0/0/0

Voter Comment

Sent" is more of a messaging concept.

Item 22 [at 2/2.4.1] (B M A-S) 0/0/0

Voter Comment

Make it clear that DIMs can constrain DIMs.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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)

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

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

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

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

Disposition & Disposition Comment - "Persuasive"

See item 123 above

Item 183 [at 6/2.2.1] (M A-T) 0/0/0

Disposition & Disposition Comment - "Persuasive"

See item 123 above

Item 184 [at 6/3.0] (G A-T) 0/0/0

Disposition & Disposition Comment - "Persuasive"

Make the change

Review Action Items For MnM

Note the following list, and amend the list to assign selected items: