From: owner-vocab@lists.hl7.org [mailto:owner-vocab@lists.hl7.org] On Behalf Of Ann Wrightson (Informing Healthcare)
Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2010 8:20 AM
To: Services Oriented Architecture; tooling; MNM List; HL7 Vocabulary List; editors; strucdoc; templates
Cc: Jane Curry
Subject: RE: Static Model Designer - validation requirements document
Lloyd,
I think you raise a serious issue here. As a potential user of the SMD, I can see an uncomfortable sort of risk in a situation where something as fundamental to practical modelling as the model constraints simply "can change at any harmonization meeting". How would the harmonization meeting take into account the potential impact of proposed changes on modelling tool users who already have a body of models?
As a wider issue, how can HL7v3 modelling ever grow beyond a cottage industry for WGM volunteers if the modelling material is not stable?
Regards,
Ann W.
Ann M Wrightson
Technical Architect / Pensaer TG
Informing Healthcare / Hysbysu Gofal Iechyd
Part of the NHS Wales Informatics Service / Rhan o Wasanaeth Gwybodeg GIG Cymru
Tel: 01745 448232 (Llanelwy) / 01656 678100 (Bridgend)
Mobile/Symudol: 07535 481797
From: owner-soa@lists.hl7.org [mailto:owner-soa@lists.hl7.org] On Behalf Of Lloyd McKenzie
Sent: 26 April 2010 17:08
To: Services Oriented Architecture; tooling; MNM List; HL7 Vocabulary List; editors; strucdoc; templates
Cc: Jane Curry
Subject: Re: Static Model Designer - validation requirements document
I'm concerned that many of these rules are for constraints currently maintained in the MIF for vocabulary or the RIM. Any one of these constraints can change at any harmonization meeting and therefore should never be hard-coded within a system. I would much rather see "formal" encodings of these rules submitted as harmonization proposals so that the tools can properly be driven from the source-of-truth artifacts.
--------------------------------------
Lloyd McKenzie
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
