[New-ITS] Name for a flattened, association-collapsed model derived from an RMIM
Charlie McCay
Charlie at ramseysystems.co.uk
Fri Aug 11 17:38:44 BST 2006
Lloyd
I understood that IM was rejected because we already have lots of
Information Models.
It is yet to be established whether the collapsed model approach, if
endorsed, would be an alternative to or replacement for, the current
ITS. There was a view expressed in INM that maintaining both may not be
the best way to go forwards.
Every model is platform independent to some degree. One take on the
collapsing process would be to say that it was intended to generate
models that were appropriate for implementation using XML, and as such
would be platform specific. Another would be that it was to produce
models that were appropriate for any generic implementation technology
(ie an Abstract Implementation Model), in this case I would agree that
it would be inappropriate to say that the models were platform specific.
One of the issues that we need to explore is whether targeting just XML
for the implementation models makes a significant difference. There are
differing expectations as to what the outcome of that will be.
All the best
Charlie
Charlie McCay, charlie at RamseySystems.co.uk Ramsey Systems Ltd, 23D
Dogpole, Shrewsbury, Shropshire SY1 1ES
tel 01743 232278 / 07808 570172 skype: charliemccay
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lloyd McKenzie [mailto:lloyd at lmckenzie.com]
> Sent: 11 August 2006 17:17
> To: Sato Laura
> Cc: Robert Worden; Charlie McCay; new-its at lists.hl7.org.uk
> Subject: Re: [New-ITS] Name for a
> flattened,association-collapsed model derived from an RMIM
>
> Hi Laura,
>
> The issue is that HL7 can be implemented in both collapsed
> and non-collapsed manners. The model is also platform-independent.
>
>
> Lloyd
>
> Sato Laura wrote:
> > I realise that I'm a little late into this conversation,
> but... what
> > was wrong with Implementable Model - is it the acronym, IM,
> that's too
> > like something else? What I liked about 'implementable' was that it
> > gave the sense of the view for which the model was designed
> for (i.e.
> > implementers). It gave a focus for what it was supposed to
> accomplish.
> >
> > Scanning through the other terms, I don't mind
> Platform-Specific Model,
> > if that's truly what it is (is it?). Transmission Model
> might be okay.
> >
> > Semantically Equivalent Model doesn't say anything to me
> about what it's
> > for, so I'm not crazy about this one.
> >
> > Just my 2p...
> >
> > Regards,
> > Laura
> > _________________________
> > Laura Sato
> > Informatics Standards Lead
> >
> > Communications & Messaging
> > NHS Connecting for Health
> > Mobile: (44) (0)7733 324 338
> > Email: laura.sato at cfh.nhs.uk
> > www.connectingforhealth.nhs.uk
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: new-its-bounces at lists.hl7.org.uk
> > [mailto:new-its-bounces at lists.hl7.org.uk] On Behalf Of Robert Worden
> > Sent: 10 August 2006 18:18
> > To: charlie at ramseysystems.co.uk; Lloyd McKenzie
> > Cc: new-its at lists.hl7.org.uk
> > Subject: [New-ITS] Name for a flattened,association-collapsed model
> > derived from an RMIM
> >
> > Not sure about 'optimised' because:
> >
> > - Optimised implies the best in some sense; but it may not
> yet be the
> > best, just better
> > - The acronym 'OM' somehow is not very snappy - hard to
> read as a word
> > (or a bit Buddhist?).
> >
> > I have two other suggestions:
> >
> > - Transmission Model, or TM (still a bit Buddhist?)
> > - Semantically Equivalent Model, or SEM
> >
> > I like the last because it tells people we are not messing with RIM
> > semantics.
> >
> > Anyway, the acronym is now a variable in the tools, and I
> can change it
> > daily. We could put it to a vote at the WGM.
> >
> > Robert
> >
> > Charteris plc, Charteris House, 39/40 Bartholomew Close, London
> > EC1A 7JN
> >
> > phone: 44 1353 777668; Fax 44 1353 777394;
> mobile: 44 7970
> > 197968
> >
> > *************************** E-mail confidentiality notice
> > *******************************
> >
> > This message is intended for the addressee only. It is private,
> > confidential and may contain
> > information of a proprietary nature. If you have received
> this message
> > in error, please notify
> > us and remove it from your system.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Charlie McCay [mailto:Charlie at ramseysystems.co.uk]
> > Sent: 09 August 2006 17:44
> > To: Lloyd McKenzie
> > Cc: grahame at jivamedical.com; Robert Worden
> > Subject: RE: Steering RMIM reshaping
> >
> > Well -- we were trying to avoid C words -- so "optimized"
> seems the best
> > offering so far
> > All the best
> > Charlie
> >
> >
> > Charlie McCay, charlie at RamseySystems.co.uk Ramsey Systems Ltd, 23D
> > Dogpole, Shrewsbury, Shropshire SY1 1ES
> >
> > tel 01743 232278 / 07808 570172 skype: charliemccay
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Lloyd McKenzie [mailto:lloyd at lmckenzie.com]
> >> Sent: 09 August 2006 17:08
> >> To: Charlie McCay
> >> Cc: grahame at jivamedical.com; Robert Worden
> >> Subject: Re: Steering RMIM reshaping
> >>
> >> Hi Charlie,
> >>
> >> Calling it a "practical" model sends the wrong message about
> >> the existing structure. Executable model suggests that it's
> >> an internal object model, which it isn't.
> >>
> >> What this is is a "collapsed" or "compressed" or "optimized"
> >> or some other transformation type word.
> >>
> >>
> >> Lloyd
> >>
> >> Charlie McCay wrote:
> >>
> >>> So how about practical model or exchange model or executable model
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Charlie McCay, charlie at RamseySystems.co.uk Ramsey Systems Ltd, 23D
> >>> Dogpole, Shrewsbury, Shropshire SY1 1ES
> >>>
> >>> tel 01743 232278 / 07808 570172 skype: charliemccay
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: Lloyd McKenzie [mailto:lloyd at lmckenzie.com]
> >>>> Sent: 09 August 2006 16:22
> >>>> To: Charlie McCay
> >>>> Cc: grahame at jivamedical.com; Robert Worden
> >>>> Subject: Re: Steering RMIM reshaping
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi Charlie,
> >>>>
> >>>> The challenge is that many will read "physical model" in its
> >>>> usual sense, which is persistence model, which we definitely
> >>>> shouldn't be suggesting, let alone imposing.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Lloyd
> >>>>
> >>>> Charlie McCay wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> Hi
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Why not? -- the intent is to provide the model for the physical
> >>>>> exchange (subject to ITS realisation, but that is the
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>> model-reality
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> mapping) -- it is this practical model that is exactly what
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>> we do want
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> from HL7, and that we have been using the logical
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>> information model
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> as a proxy for until now
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Alternative that I do not like as much:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> EM exchange model / executable model
> >>>>>
> >>>>> charlie
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Charlie McCay, charlie at RamseySystems.co.uk Ramsey Systems
> >>>>>
> >> Ltd, 23D
> >>
> >>>>> Dogpole, Shrewsbury, Shropshire SY1 1ES
> >>>>>
> >>>>> tel 01743 232278 / 07808 570172 skype: charliemccay
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>>> From: Lloyd McKenzie [mailto:lloyd at lmckenzie.com]
> >>>>>> Sent: 09 August 2006 16:02
> >>>>>> To: Charlie McCay
> >>>>>> Cc: grahame at jivamedical.com; Robert Worden
> >>>>>> Subject: Re: Steering RMIM reshaping
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Hi Charlie,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I don't want to imply that HL7 defines actual physical
> >>>>>>
> >> models . . .
> >>
> >>>>>> Lloyd
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Charlie McCay wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> How about
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> PM -- Physical/(?Practical?) Model ?
> >>>>>>> PM / PSM (Platform model (Platform Specific Model)
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> All the best
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Charlie
> >>>>>>> Charlie McCay, charlie at RamseySystems.co.uk Ramsey Systems
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>> Ltd, 23D
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>> Dogpole, Shrewsbury, Shropshire SY1 1ES
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> tel 01743 232278 / 07808 570172 skype: charliemccay
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>>>>> From: Lloyd McKenzie [mailto:lloyd at lmckenzie.com]
> >>>>>>>> Sent: 08 August 2006 05:45
> >>>>>>>> To: grahame at jivamedical.com
> >>>>>>>> Cc: Robert Worden; Charlie McCay
> >>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Steering RMIM reshaping
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Except CM is used for CMET. Not sure we need a different
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>> id if the
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> models are just transforms of each other.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Grahame Grieve wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> CM = collapsed model or computable model
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> we could go with that
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Grahame
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Lloyd McKenzie wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> We can't use the word "Message" because we'll presumably
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>> be using
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> this stuff for documents too. How about just
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>> "collapsed model",
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> seeing as that's what it is . . .
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Grahame Grieve wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> we've been using the term implementable model. IM,
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >> I know....
> >>
> >>>>>>>>>>> maybe you could go for "message design"? it's not
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> strictly a model,
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> so we can get away from the "M" part and reduce confusion?
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> cc: Charlie for an opinion
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Grahame
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Robert Worden wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Grahame -
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> I agree that DAM is not the right name, and will tend
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>> to confuse
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> people; we are making something strictly derived from
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> the RMIM and
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> suitable for implementation, which may have DAM-like
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>> names and
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> structure.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> I'll stop calling it a DAM, and make the tools stop
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>> calling it a
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> DAM; but I would like a shorter name than 'reshaped
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> RMIM'. Any suggestions?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> FIM = Familiar Implementation Model? SIM = Shaped
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>> Implementation
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Model?
> >>>>>>>>>>>> As far as I am aware, HL7 doesn't over-use 'F'.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Give me an acronym and I will do a global edit...
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Robert
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Charteris plc, Charteris House, 39/40 Bartholomew
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Close, London
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> EC1A 7JN
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> phone: 44 1353 777668; Fax 44 1353 777394;
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> mobile: 44 7970
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 197968
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> *************************** E-mail confidentiality notice
> >>>>>>>>>>>> *******************************
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> This message is intended for the addressee only. It is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>> private,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> confidential and may contain information of a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> proprietary nature.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> If you have received this message in error, please
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>> notify us and
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> remove it from your system.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>>>>>>>>> From: Grahame Grieve [mailto:grahameg at gmail.com] On
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>> Behalf Of
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Grahame Grieve
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: 07 August 2006 22:18
> >>>>>>>>>>>> To: Robert Worden
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Cc: Lloyd McKenzie
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Steering RMIM reshaping
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> I'm way behind on email. but spotted this.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Robert, we need to stop talking about DAM. There is no
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> correlation
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> between what we are trying to achieve and a real DAM.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> What we want is to do implementation modelling on
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>> the RMIM. We
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> recognise - particularly after talking to Simon Withey
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> last week -
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> that this has nothing to do with the DAM process,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>> except for the
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> naming question.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> (Where by names in the instance should allow
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>> identification back
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> against the DAM, rather than against the RIM. Except
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> unless you are
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> concerned about naming stability, but that's a much
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> harder question
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> indeed)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> will come back to this thread later when I catch up
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Grahame
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Robert Worden wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Lloyd -
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I was thinking that since people should really
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>> produce a DAM on
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> way
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> to their RMIM, rather than the other way round, in some
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> sense the
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> RMIM should be derived from the DAM. But as it is not
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>> a formal
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> derivation,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> it
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> may be that the <derivationSupplier> route is not
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>> appropriate.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> What then is the approved mechanism for adding
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> annotations to a MIF?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> I'm
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> sure I could find it in the schemas, but it's easier to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> ask you...
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> :-)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Robert
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Charteris plc, Charteris House, 39/40 Bartholomew
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Close, London
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> EC1A 7JN
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> phone: 44 1353 777668; Fax 44 1353 777394;
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> mobile: 44 7970
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 197968
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> *************************** E-mail
> confidentiality notice
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> *******************************
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> This message is intended for the addressee only. It
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>> is private,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> confidential and may contain information of a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> proprietary nature.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> If you have received this message in error, please
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> notify us and
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> remove it from your system.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> From: Lloyd McKenzie [mailto:lloyd at lmckenzie.com] Sent:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> 07 August
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 2006 19:43
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> To: Robert Worden
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Cc: grahame at kestral.com.au
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Steering RMIM reshaping
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Robert,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Relationships between a static model and a DAM would be
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> mappings,
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> not derivations. StaticModelDerivationId is not a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>> spare. In the
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> current hierarchy, we can derive from the RIM, R-MIM
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> and HMD but
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> in theory we could derive from 20 different models.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> (And there's
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> no ordering
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> either,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> the RIM could be the first one listed or the seventh.)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The basic question is whether you construct your
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> DAM from a
> >>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> collapsed static model (as we do in Canada), or whether
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> you want
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> to create your DAMs and DIMs separately and map
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>> them. If the
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> latter, I don't think
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> you
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> could do this in an automated way.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Lloyd
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Robert Worden wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Grahame -
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> You asked the other day for suggestions as to how
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>> the current
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> proof-of-concept RMIM reshaping tool might be
> steered by
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> annotations in the RMIM MIF, rather than by user
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> input. Here is a
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> first punt to get thinking going.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The simplest suggestion I can make is to add to the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <derivationSupplier> elements another one which says
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>> how this
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> RMIM
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> was
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> derived (or might have been derived) from a DAM. These
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> would look
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> like:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <derivationSupplier staticModelDerivationId="4"
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> className="DAMClass" attributeName="DAMProperty"/>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> (I don't know if staticModelDerivationId="4" is spare;
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> but choose
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> one
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that is). These can go on elements for classes,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> associations, and
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> properties to say in effect
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> * Rename this class to a DAM class name
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> * Rename this association (with perhaps other
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> attributes saying
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'collapse it' or 'leave it out')
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> * Rename this property to a DAM property name (or
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> some value
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaning 'leave it out')
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you wanted, you would not even have to say
> explicitly
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'collapse an
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> association' - because if the DAM class names are
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>> the same on
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> either side of it, that means collapse it.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> This proposal would not yet address a combination of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> restricting
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and reshaping an RMIM.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> It would imply you cannot collapse across a CMET
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> boundary, which
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I gather from our discussion the other day you would
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> like to do.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Or maybe you can, by telling the association to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>> the CMET to
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> collapse itself? Have not thought it through yet. I
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>> know there
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> are issues
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> about
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> CMETs with a choice at the top - any chance you
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>> could send a
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> simple diagram to illustrate the problem as you see it?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyway, if we come up with any scheme like the above,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> it should
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> be straightforward to implement in the tool.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Robert
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Charteris plc, Charteris House, 39/40 Bartholomew
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Close, London
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> EC1A
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 7JN
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> phone: 44 1353 777668; Fax 44 1353 777394; mobile: 44
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> 7970 197968
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> *************************** E-mail
> confidentiality notice
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> *******************************
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> This message is intended for the addressee only. It is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> private,
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> confidential and may contain information of a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> proprietary nature.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you have received this
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> message
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> in error, please notify
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> us and remove it from your system.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> _________________________________________________________________
> >>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> This message from Charteris plc has been checked
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>> for viruses
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.charteris.com/
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> _________________________________________________________________
> >>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> This message to Charteris plc has been checked
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> for viruses
> >>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.charteris.com/
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> _________________________________________________________________
> >>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> This message from Charteris plc has been checked
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>> for viruses
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.charteris.com/
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>
> >>
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > This message to Charteris plc has been checked for viruses
> > http://www.charteris.com/
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > This message from Charteris plc has been checked for viruses
> > http://www.charteris.com/
> > _______________________________________________
> > New-ITS mailing list
> > New-ITS at lists.hl7.org.uk
> > http://lists.hl7.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/new-its
> >
> > This e-mail is confidential and privileged. If you are not
> the intended recipient please accept our apologies; please do
> not disclose, copy or distribute information in this e-mail
> or take any action in reliance on its contents: to do so is
> strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. Please inform us
> that this message has gone astray before deleting it. Thank
> you for your co-operation.
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
More information about the New-ITS
mailing list