Date
23 May 2019
Previous Meeting - Next Meeting
Agenda
Item / Topic | Presenter | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Continue review of proposed extensions to Item Definition metamodel | Stephen White (Unlicensed) | Walk through metamodel proposal |
| Discuss use of MDMI | @Ken Lord | How does MDMI help with links to ontologies and sources of truth |
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)
@Ken Lord couldn't make the call, so we didn't discuss MDMI in any detail. We will try again next week.We discussed SDMN in the context of the Common package (CBMN) model (used to harmonize BPMN, CMMN, and DMN).
The common package will be used to overload (update) any BPM+ elements. SDMN would not do this, but SDMN would be a separate spec with its own lifecycle.
KPMN would also be a separate spec with its own lifecycle.
Thus, if all the specs are accepted by the BMI, then there would be 6 different specs with their own lifecycles.
In this context, SDMN would fully define ItemDefinition and CBMN would also have the same ItemDefinition structure to overload the BPM+ specs.
We also discussed the SDMN Attachment class, which is intended to be used to link with external sources of truth. We renamed it SemanticReference and added a codeSystem property.
The Code System would be an enumeration of relevant code systems, such as SnoMed or LOINC. However, these particular code systems are health care specific.
We need to find a way to make the enumeration domain-independent but allow domains to insert there own lists and to extend them as necessary.
Does anyone know how to do this in the UML metamodel?
Action items
Add action items to close the loop on open questions or discussion topics:
- enter action item