Versions Compared

Key

  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.

Table of Contents

Date

8 Aug 2019

See Meeting Recording

Previous Meeting - Next Meeting

Agenda


Item / Topic

Presenter

Description

Discuss sub-data element issueStephen White (Unlicensed)Look at options and vote on approach
Continue review of proposed extensions to Item /wiki/spaces/BPMPLUS/pages/420970781Stephen White (Unlicensed)Walk through metamodel proposal
Review some notational /wiki/spaces/BPMPLUS/pages/420937838Stephen White (Unlicensed)Walk through example diagrams

Participants

Goals

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

  • Address any Situational Data Requirements from the Field Guide and OMG Meetings
  • Discussion all comments on the Item Definition update proposal

  • Update document as appropriate
  • Identify next steps

Notes (raw)

We discussed how different situational data models might differ from each other. A single organization should be able to create multiple situational data models that use consistent terminology.

However, different organizations might create models that have different names and different underlying structures.

That is why the use of semantic references is important. If the data items of a situational data model are linked to external sources, such as SnoMed, then an organization can take knowledge packages created by different sources and implement them consistently within their infrastructure.

We don't have a measure of what is a quality knowledge package. Yet. This is something we should be able to define. Perhaps a checklist? Certainly the semantic binding for all situational data model items would be one test.

Chat Log

There were no chat items on this call


Action items

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

  •  enter action item

Anchor
Meeting Recording
Meeting Recording
Meeting Recording

View file
nameOMG Field Guide Use Case Working Group-20190808.mp4
height150