Date

24 Jan 2019

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	Stephen White (Unlicensed)	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.

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

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?

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