Mar 7, 2019 - Use Case Working Group
- Stephen White (Unlicensed)
Date
7 Mar 2019
Previous Meeting - Next Meeting
Agenda
Item / Topic | Presenter | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Review proposed extensions to Item /wiki/spaces/BPMPLUS/pages/420970781 | Stephen White (Unlicensed) | Walk through metamodel proposal |
Participants
Goals
List goals for this meeting (e.g., Set design priorities for FY19):
Discussion all comments on the Item Definition update proposal
- Update document as appropriate
- Identify next steps
Notes (raw)
We will be using the approach of the BMI harmonization effort.
Item Definition would be the first test of harmonization
The current metamodel drafts are not compliant with the harmonization effort.
Steve will clean it up.
Is the Item Def work a separate common package or just overloads on the other BPM+ specs?
Considering the notational aspect, it is probably a separate (sub) package.
At some point we will have to bring in the other BMI people working on the harmonization - when we have a better draft.
We should look at CMIS in terms of dealing with document management? Would it be enough for the provenance requirements?
We are considering a separate modeling capability for the SCP modelers - just for the data (situational data)
This would be a concrete visual language
We would have to update the BPM+ specs to allow for reference into the separate data model.
Action items
Add action items to close the loop on open questions or discussion topics:
- Steve to conform the proposed metamodels to the the current harmonization approach (and continue review next week)