Page Comparison

Date

24 Jan 2019

See Meeting Recording

Previous Meeting - Next Meeting

Agenda

• Stephen White (Unlicensed); Denis Gagne; Robert Lario; Peter Haug; Sharnita Riley

Goals

List goals for this meeting (e.g., Set design priorities for FY19):

• Discussion all comments on the Situational Data Requirements

• Update document as appropriate
• Identify next steps

Notes (raw)

Should SCP models have a strong linking (in terms of data elements) or be loosely coupled?What does loosely coupled exactly mean?

i.e., is copy by value or reference a mechanism in the standards or an independent tooling feature?

Maybe there is a layer above the BPM+ models that creates the linking.

How does MDMI DD fit in? 

Semantic binding requirements:

We need more details about the structure of the binding.

Producer would be an authoritative source 

e.g., Code set, version, and construct 

Not just a URI 

Just use SOLOR? could we specify this for the Field Guide

Make it a lot easier 

We need to allow other sources besides SOLOR.

Semantic binding is a lot of work, but it has tremendous value .

A code can only be deprecated, it can never be removed 

Dealing with deprecated items 

Versioning of the models 

Version 2 of the models will have to verify?

Change to M&S?

Action items

Add action items to close the loop on open questions or discussion topics:

•  Stephen White (Unlicensed) to convert Situational Data Requirements to a Table that allows us to categorized the type of requirement and list potential approaches for solutions

Anchor
Meeting Recording Meeting Recording

Meeting Recording