Jan 24, 2019 - Use Case Working Group
- Stephen White (Unlicensed)
- Denis Gagne
Date
24 Jan 2019
Previous Meeting - Next Meeting
Agenda
Item / Topic | Presenter | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Review Comments on /wiki/spaces/BPMPLUS/pages/416317453 | Stephen White (Unlicensed) | Walk through comments added by Denis and Ken. |
Review proposed modeling notation for /wiki/spaces/BPMPLUS/pages/420937838 | If there is time, walk through comments added by Denis and Ken. | |
| Review proposed extensions to Item /wiki/spaces/BPMPLUS/pages/420970781 | Stephen White (Unlicensed) | If there is time, walk through comments added by Denis and Ken. |
Participants
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