Aug 8, 2019 - Use Case Working Group
- Stephen White (Unlicensed)
Date
8 Aug 2019
Previous Meeting - Next Meeting
Agenda
Item / Topic | Presenter | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Discuss sub-data element issue | Stephen White (Unlicensed) | Look at options and vote on approach |
| Continue review of proposed extensions to Item /wiki/spaces/BPMPLUS/pages/420970781 | Stephen White (Unlicensed) | Walk through metamodel proposal |
| Review some notational /wiki/spaces/BPMPLUS/pages/420937838 | Stephen White (Unlicensed) | Walk through example diagrams |
Participants
Stephen White (Unlicensed); Ken Lord; Sharnita Riley; Keith Salzman; John Svirbely (Unlicensed); Peter Haug; Robert Lario
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