Model Driven Message Interoperability Avatar
  1. OMG Specification

Model Driven Message Interoperability — Open Issues

  • Acronym: MDMI
  • Issues Count: 93
  • Description: Issues not resolved
Open Closed All
Issues not resolved

Issues Summary

Key Issue Reported Fixed Disposition Status
MDMI2_-53 Missing OWL reference MDMI 2.0b1 open
MDMI2_-51 The file Dtc-22-09-06.xmi was corrupted on recovery MDMI 2.0b1 open
MDMI2_-50 Section 1, Scope, has a word entered in subscript MDMI 2.0b1 open
MDMI2_-52 Section 8.4.3 "MDMIDatatype, DataRules – Abstract Syntax" has no text MDMI 2.0b1 open
MDMI2_-35 What was this UML file created for? MDMI 2.0b1 open
MDMI2_-30 “360  View of diverse IT eco-system” seems like an odd choice for a paragraph title MDMI 2.0b1 open
MDMI2_-29 Typo - spacing errors MDMI 2.0b1 open
MDMI2_-33 Normative RDF MDMI 2.0b1 open
MDMI2_-31 Lead in the specification scope needs clarification MDMI 2.0b1 open
MDMI2_-32 In the XMI file there is a bunch of weird DataType MDMI 2.0b1 open
MDMI2_-34 Could not load the UML file with Cameo. MDMI 2.0b1 open
MDMI2_-28 Typo - 6.2.1.1 Please define ‘conceptsentities’ MDMI 2.0b1 open
MDMI2_-27 OWL is not defined or discussed. MDMI 2.0b1 open
MDMI2_-25 RDF, OWL, and other W3 standards should be normative references. MDMI 2.0b1 open
MDMI2_-26 OWL needs further referencing MDMI 2.0b1 open
MDMI2_-23 Comments for each issue resolved should be entered in the red-line document MDMI 2.0b1 open
MDMI2_-24 Some diagrams are unreadable and/or poorly formatted MDMI 2.0b1 open
MDMI2_-11 List of contributors incomplete MDMI 2.0b1 open
MDMI2_-6 The examplename used in the specification is inaccurate MDMI 2.0b1 open
MDMI2_-8 The use of the expression "are synonyms" is incorrect MDMI 2.0b1 open
MDMI2_-7 The term "semantic unit" being introduced as a new term is not required. MDMI 2.0b1 open
MDMI2_-10 Attempting to define the term "near-synonym" violates the standard MDMI 2.0b1 open
MDMI2_-9 The term "Registry" in "Semantic Element Exchange Registry" should be changed to improve descriptiveness MDMI 2.0b1 open
MDMI2_-2 The description of Admit Data Time in the ADT A01 file does not provide enough information to find the data item in the ADT file. MDMI 2.0b1 open
MDMI2_-4 Snomed CT is missing from in Annex A, the Glossary MDMI 2.0b1 open
MDMI2_-1 The term "MDMI Semantic Element" is incorrect. MDMI 2.0b1 open
MDMI2_-3 The examples provided for datum were missing a key concept. MDMI 2.0b1 open
MDMI2_-5 The description of the process for developing the MDMI Healthcare Ontology is not correct. MDMI 2.0b1 open
MDMI2-5 misleading phrase MDMI 2.0b1 open
MDMI2-11 clarification of relationship between MDMI Semantic Element and Business Element MDMI 2.0b1 open
MDMI2-10 change name of example of AdmitDateTime MDMI 2.0b1 open
MDMI2-6 add new condition in he concept of lost information MDMI 2.0b1 open
MDMI2-9 example was not correct MDMI 2.0b1 open
MDMI2-7 typo - extra space MDMI 2.0b1 open
MDMI2-15 removed extra word MDMI 2.0b1 open
MDMI2-14 added term MDMI for clarification MDMI 2.0b1 open
MDMI2-16 Duplicate issue of 32 MDMI 2.0b1 open
MDMI2-13 typo - missing paren MDMI 2.0b1 open
MDMI2-12 typo MDMI 2.0b1 open
MDMI2-29 entered in error MDMI 2.0b1 open
MDMI2-22 Addressed in Issue 21 - duplicate MDMI 2.0b1 open
MDMI2-26 incorrect language MDMI 2.0b1 open
MDMI2-23 Changed wording in bullet 3 to more accurately reflect process MDMI 2.0b1 open
MDMI2-25 Duplicate = see issue 21 MDMI 2.0b1 open
MDMI2-24 changed wording for scope MDMI 2.0b1 open
MDMI2-20 removed ANF MDMI 2.0b1 open
MDMI2-18 added to term temporal in the datum discussion MDMI 2.0b1 open
MDMI2-17 Remove the concept of near-synonyms MDMI 2.0b1 open
MDMI2-19 added snomed ct MDMI 2.0b1 open
MDMI2-30 Added MDMI term for clarification, See Issue 32 for the global change MDMI 2.0b1 open
MDMI2-21 Step 2 was not used MDMI 2.0b1 open
MDMI2-27 changed potentially misleading language MDMI 2.0b1 open
MDMI2-28 changed term of MDCM MDMI 2.0b1 open
MDMI2-32 Global - added MDMI in front of Semantic Element MDMI 2.0b1 open
MDMI2-31 typo - extra space MDMI 2.0b1 open
MDMI2-33 Global - changed name of StatementContext property to ContextConcept MDMI 2.0b1 open
MDMI2-37 duplicate issue MDMI 2.0a1 open
MDMI2-36 duplicate issue MDMI 2.0a1 open
MDMI2-35 Duplicate = see issue 21 MDMI 2.0a1 open
MDMI2-34 Globally -corrected the term for R in the SEER MDMI 2.0b1 open
MDMI2-42 Merged with issue 40 MDMI 2.0a1 open
MDMI2-41 merged with issue 40 MDMI 2.0a1 open
MDMI2-38 Qualifier added to statement MDMI 2.0a1 open
MDMI2-39 improper wording MDMI 2.0a1 open
MDMI2-46 Remove Vital Sign MDMI 2.0a1 open
MDMI2-45 More accurate wording for semantic unit MDMI 2.0a1 open
MDMI2-43 add word The MDMI 2.0a1 open
MDMI2-44 Same change as Issue 8 MDMI 2.0a1 open
MDMI2-47 SEER not defined in Annex A MDMI 2.0a1 open
MDMI2-49 Replaced inaccurate term MDMI 2.0a1 open
MDMI2-52 relationship between Node and MDMISemanticElement MDMI 2.0a1 open
MDMI2-51 Change name of Property Association in Model MDMI 2.0a1 open
MDMI2-53 Corrected of UML Class MDMI 2.0a1 open
MDMI2-50 Deleted word semantics MDMI 2.0a1 open
MDMI2-40 Name changed in example MDMI 2.0a1 open
MDMI2-8 poor and possibly confusing wording MDMI 2.0b1 open
MDMI2-48 Replace depreciated term Referent Index MDMI 2.0a1 open
MDMI2-107 Accidential edit made during modeling - Replaces Issue 52 MDMI 2.0a1 open
MDMI11-11 Standard XMI for MDMI maps MDMI 1.0b2 open
MDMI11-14 The term and class name "Message Element" may cause confusion MDMI 1.0b1 open
MDMI11-13 Description attributes in each class MDMI 1.0b1 open
MDMI11-10 data translation in the prexecns of structure clashes MDMI 1.0b2 open
MDMI11-9 Associations/opposite properties should be used with MDMIDatatype MDMI 1.0b2 open
MDMI11-12 Domain dictionary reference MDMI 1.0b1 open
MDMI11-15 Must all implementations have a design-time activity? MDMI 1.0b1 open
MDMI11-8 Urgent issue - Missing datatype MDMI 1.0b2 open
MDMI11-6 Urgent issue - Property Node::/isSyntacticField is not readOnly in the metamodel and has a default value of false MDMI 1.0b2 open
MDMI11-7 Urgent issue – misspelled property MDMI 1.0b2 open
MDMI11-4 The description and use of MDMIBusinessElementRule is completely unclear MDMI 1.0b2 open
MDMI11-3 Section 8.5.3 MDMI 1.0b2 open
MDMI11-1 Section 8.6.3 makes several references to ‘source’ and ‘target’ SemanticElements MDMI 1.0b2 open
MDMI11-2 It would make sense for the ‘defaultX’ properties of MessageGroup to be optional MDMI 1.0b2 open
MDMI11-5 Property SemanticElementSet::/mesageModelname should have isReadOnly= true MDMI 1.0b2 open

Issues Descriptions

Missing OWL reference

  • Key: MDMI2_-53
  • Status: open  
  • Source: MDIX, Inc. ( Kenneth Lord)
  • Summary:

    No attestation in section 3, Normative References

    OWL is mentioned in the document but has no further reference

  • Reported: MDMI 2.0b1 — Fri, 2 Dec 2022 15:29 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 2 Dec 2022 21:42 GMT

The file Dtc-22-09-06.xmi was corrupted on recovery

  • Key: MDMI2_-51
  • Status: open  
  • Source: MDIX, Inc. ( Kenneth Lord)
  • Summary:

    The file went missing but was recovered. It appears that the recovery munged some of the text.

    Reviewer comments:
    Lots of elements are strangely duplicated, like Bag, SemanticElementSet, Node, SimpleMessageComposite, ToBusinessElement, MessageSyntaxModel, etc. As I recall, this was one of the files that was lost. I think the recovery was an implosive mix.

  • Reported: MDMI 2.0b1 — Thu, 1 Dec 2022 16:17 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 2 Dec 2022 21:42 GMT

Section 1, Scope, has a word entered in subscript

  • Key: MDMI2_-50
  • Status: open  
  • Source: MDIX, Inc. ( Kenneth Lord)
  • Summary:

    In the first line:
    The goal of the MDMI standard is to provide a declarative, model-driven mechanism to perform message data...

    The word "message" is in subscript.

  • Reported: MDMI 2.0b1 — Thu, 1 Dec 2022 16:14 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 2 Dec 2022 21:42 GMT

Section 8.4.3 "MDMIDatatype, DataRules – Abstract Syntax" has no text

  • Key: MDMI2_-52
  • Status: open  
  • Source: MDIX, Inc. ( Kenneth Lord)
  • Summary:

    Text for the section is missing. It only contains an irrelevant caption.

  • Reported: MDMI 2.0b1 — Thu, 1 Dec 2022 16:19 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 2 Dec 2022 21:42 GMT

What was this UML file created for?

  • Key: MDMI2_-35
  • Status: open  
  • Source: MDIX, Inc. ( Kenneth Lord)
  • Summary:

    as above

  • Reported: MDMI 2.0b1 — Fri, 16 Sep 2022 14:23 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 16 Sep 2022 22:42 GMT

“360  View of diverse IT eco-system” seems like an odd choice for a paragraph title

  • Key: MDMI2_-30
  • Status: open  
  • Source: MDIX, Inc. ( Kenneth Lord)
  • Summary:

    6.4.2 “360  View of diverse IT eco-system” seems like an odd choice for a paragraph title. There is no mention of 360 in the body. Perhaps this is better discussed as enterprise-level definitions and reuse.

  • Reported: MDMI 2.0b1 — Thu, 15 Sep 2022 19:10 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 16 Sep 2022 22:42 GMT

Typo - spacing errors

  • Key: MDMI2_-29
  • Status: open  
  • Source: MDIX, Inc. ( Kenneth Lord)
  • Summary:

    There are a bunch of spacing errors (6.4.1 has just one of these) in the document. Word’s grammar checker will find them.

  • Reported: MDMI 2.0b1 — Thu, 15 Sep 2022 19:09 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 16 Sep 2022 22:42 GMT

Normative RDF

  • Key: MDMI2_-33
  • Status: open  
  • Source: MDIX, Inc. ( Kenneth Lord)
  • Summary:

    Should this be identified as an RDF/OWL file?
    I did find documentation in the RDF file, thank you! However, it might not be aligned with your specification. For example, hasAuthorPersonLegalName is in the RDF, but not in the specification or XMI.
    Looking at the RDF itself, I find the following at the beginning that I have questions about:
                    <!ENTITY dct "http://purl.org/dc/terms/">
                    <!ENTITY mdmi-gsm "https://www.omg.org/spec/MDMI/MDMIGenericStatementModel/">
                    <!ENTITY owl "http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#">
                    <!ENTITY rdf "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#">
                    <!ENTITY rdfs "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#">
                    <!ENTITY skos "http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#">
                    <!ENTITY sm "http://www.omg.org/techprocess/ab/SpecificationMetadata/">
                    <!ENTITY xsd "http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#">
     
    Questions:
    1. Should these be in normative references in the spec?
    2. What is the reason for the choices in these standards (annex?)?
    3. Except for the minor reference to OWL, there is no other mention of RDF and these related standards. I’m assuming this is important information that is missing from the specification, given that this is a normative machine-readable file.

  • Reported: MDMI 2.0b1 — Fri, 16 Sep 2022 14:21 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 16 Sep 2022 22:42 GMT

Lead in the specification scope needs clarification

  • Key: MDMI2_-31
  • Status: open  
  • Source: MDIX, Inc. ( Kenneth Lord)
  • Summary:

    You are burring the lead in the specification scope. I suggest starting with the Scope section with the remainder of the second paragraph: “The goal of the MDMI standard is to provide a declarative, model-driven mechanism…” The remainder text can then follow as background. A better scope will help with adoption as you will be leading with what the spec is to do.

  • Reported: MDMI 2.0b1 — Thu, 15 Sep 2022 19:11 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 16 Sep 2022 22:42 GMT

In the XMI file there is a bunch of weird DataType

  • Key: MDMI2_-32
  • Status: open  
  • Source: MDIX, Inc. ( Kenneth Lord)
  • Summary:

    In the XMI file there is a bunch of weird DataType with blank names that are not used.

  • Reported: MDMI 2.0b1 — Fri, 16 Sep 2022 14:18 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 16 Sep 2022 22:42 GMT

Could not load the UML file with Cameo.

  • Key: MDMI2_-34
  • Status: open  
  • Source: MDIX, Inc. ( Kenneth Lord)
  • Summary:

    as above

  • Reported: MDMI 2.0b1 — Fri, 16 Sep 2022 14:22 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 16 Sep 2022 22:42 GMT

Typo - 6.2.1.1 Please define ‘conceptsentities’

  • Key: MDMI2_-28
  • Status: open  
  • Source: MDIX, Inc. ( Kenneth Lord)
  • Summary:

    6.2.1.1 Please define ‘conceptsentities’ or fix the typo (missing comma).

  • Reported: MDMI 2.0b1 — Thu, 15 Sep 2022 19:08 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 16 Sep 2022 22:42 GMT

OWL is not defined or discussed.

  • Key: MDMI2_-27
  • Status: open  
  • Source: MDIX, Inc. ( Kenneth Lord)
  • Summary:

    No references are made to the normative machine-readable,  no RDF/OWL hook to hang your propeller cap. OWL is not defined or discussed.

  • Reported: MDMI 2.0b1 — Thu, 15 Sep 2022 19:06 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 16 Sep 2022 22:42 GMT

RDF, OWL, and other W3 standards should be normative references.

  • Key: MDMI2_-25
  • Status: open  
  • Source: MDIX, Inc. ( Kenneth Lord)
  • Summary:

    as above

  • Reported: MDMI 2.0b1 — Thu, 15 Sep 2022 19:05 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 16 Sep 2022 22:42 GMT

OWL needs further referencing

  • Key: MDMI2_-26
  • Status: open  
  • Source: MDIX, Inc. ( Kenneth Lord)
  • Summary:

    OWL seems essential, but there is nothing mentioned about OWL until 8.5.3 and no other references.

  • Reported: MDMI 2.0b1 — Thu, 15 Sep 2022 19:05 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 16 Sep 2022 22:42 GMT

Comments for each issue resolved should be entered in the red-line document

  • Key: MDMI2_-23
  • Status: open  
  • Source: MDIX, Inc. ( Kenneth Lord)
  • Summary:

    as stated

  • Reported: MDMI 2.0b1 — Thu, 15 Sep 2022 19:04 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 16 Sep 2022 22:42 GMT

Some diagrams are unreadable and/or poorly formatted

  • Key: MDMI2_-24
  • Status: open  
  • Source: MDIX, Inc. ( Kenneth Lord)
  • Summary:

    as above

  • Reported: MDMI 2.0b1 — Thu, 15 Sep 2022 19:04 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 16 Sep 2022 22:42 GMT

List of contributors incomplete

  • Key: MDMI2_-11
  • Status: open  
  • Source: MDIX, Inc. ( Kenneth Lord)
  • Summary:

    List of contributors incomplete

  • Reported: MDMI 2.0b1 — Tue, 23 Aug 2022 20:46 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 26 Aug 2022 13:52 GMT

The examplename used in the specification is inaccurate

  • Key: MDMI2_-6
  • Status: open  
  • Source: MDIX, Inc. ( Kenneth Lord)
  • Summary:

    The name, VitalSignObservationActionFocus, in Annex C is inaccurate and the graph description of the correct term is inaccurate.

  • Reported: MDMI 2.0b1 — Tue, 23 Aug 2022 20:43 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 26 Aug 2022 13:52 GMT

The use of the expression "are synonyms" is incorrect

  • Key: MDMI2_-8
  • Status: open  
  • Source: MDIX, Inc. ( Kenneth Lord)
  • Summary:

    The expression "are synonyms" is incorrect. There are other possible conditions that may cause the condition besides the MDMIBusienssElements being synonyms.

  • Reported: MDMI 2.0b1 — Tue, 23 Aug 2022 20:44 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 26 Aug 2022 13:52 GMT

The term "semantic unit" being introduced as a new term is not required.

  • Key: MDMI2_-7
  • Status: open  
  • Source: MDIX, Inc. ( Kenneth Lord)
  • Summary:

    There has already been introduced a term in the document for "semantic unit" and it should be used.

  • Reported: MDMI 2.0b1 — Tue, 23 Aug 2022 20:44 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 26 Aug 2022 13:52 GMT

Attempting to define the term "near-synonym" violates the standard

  • Key: MDMI2_-10
  • Status: open  
  • Source: MDIX, Inc. ( Kenneth Lord)
  • Summary:

    In the standard, each MDMISemanticElement must be unique. Having "near-synonyms" with the same MDMISemantic Element violates this principle.

  • Reported: MDMI 2.0b1 — Tue, 23 Aug 2022 20:46 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 26 Aug 2022 13:52 GMT

The term "Registry" in "Semantic Element Exchange Registry" should be changed to improve descriptiveness

  • Key: MDMI2_-9
  • Status: open  
  • Source: MDIX, Inc. ( Kenneth Lord)
  • Summary:

    With the additional functionality of providing a StatementContext and DataElementConcept to the MDMI Business Element Reference Class, the term registry does not sufficiently express the nature of the SEER.

  • Reported: MDMI 2.0b1 — Tue, 23 Aug 2022 20:45 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 26 Aug 2022 13:52 GMT

The description of Admit Data Time in the ADT A01 file does not provide enough information to find the data item in the ADT file.

  • Key: MDMI2_-2
  • Status: open  
  • Source: MDIX, Inc. ( Kenneth Lord)
  • Summary:

    The term Admit Data Time used in the example is not correct because Admit Date Time has more syntax than it just in the ADT A01 file.

  • Reported: MDMI 2.0b1 — Tue, 23 Aug 2022 20:38 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 26 Aug 2022 13:52 GMT

Snomed CT is missing from in Annex A, the Glossary

  • Key: MDMI2_-4
  • Status: open  
  • Source: MDIX, Inc. ( Kenneth Lord)
  • Summary:

    The term SNOMED CT is used in the Annex C and it is not included in Annex A

  • Reported: MDMI 2.0b1 — Tue, 23 Aug 2022 20:41 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 26 Aug 2022 13:52 GMT

The term "MDMI Semantic Element" is incorrect.

  • Key: MDMI2_-1
  • Status: open  
  • Source: MDIX, Inc. ( Kenneth Lord)
  • Summary:

    The term "MDMI Semantic Element" is incorrect because it represents a proper name and its class name, MDMISemanticElement, should be used.

  • Reported: MDMI 2.0b1 — Tue, 23 Aug 2022 20:37 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 26 Aug 2022 13:52 GMT
  • Attachments:

The examples provided for datum were missing a key concept.

  • Key: MDMI2_-3
  • Status: open  
  • Source: MDIX, Inc. ( Kenneth Lord)
  • Summary:

    The examples provided for the term datum were missing a key concept of time.

  • Reported: MDMI 2.0b1 — Tue, 23 Aug 2022 20:40 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 26 Aug 2022 13:52 GMT

The description of the process for developing the MDMI Healthcare Ontology is not correct.

  • Key: MDMI2_-5
  • Status: open  
  • Source: MDIX, Inc. ( Kenneth Lord)
  • Summary:

    The description of the Step 2 process in Annex C for developing the MDMI Healthcare Ontology is incorrect.

  • Reported: MDMI 2.0b1 — Tue, 23 Aug 2022 20:41 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 26 Aug 2022 13:52 GMT

misleading phrase

  • Key: MDMI2-5
  • Status: open  
  • Source: MDIX, Inc. ( Kenneth Lord)
  • Summary:

    Issue: The term of smallest semantic enitities is ambiguous.

    Proposed Resolution: The term is replaced with the term business concept which is defined.

  • Reported: MDMI 2.0b1 — Tue, 17 Aug 2021 14:46 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 15 Dec 2021 21:19 GMT

clarification of relationship between MDMI Semantic Element and Business Element

  • Key: MDMI2-11
  • Status: open  
  • Source: MDIX, Inc. ( Kenneth Lord)
  • Summary:

    The principle that the mapping between the MDMI Semantic Element and the MDMI Business Element is not as clear as it should be.

  • Reported: MDMI 2.0b1 — Tue, 17 Aug 2021 15:14 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 15 Dec 2021 21:19 GMT

change name of example of AdmitDateTime

  • Key: MDMI2-10
  • Status: open  
  • Source: MDIX, Inc. ( Kenneth Lord)
  • Summary:

    The use of AdmitDateTime is not valid as it is ambiguous. It is not a business concept because the context is missing.

  • Reported: MDMI 2.0b1 — Tue, 17 Aug 2021 15:10 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 15 Dec 2021 21:19 GMT

add new condition in he concept of lost information

  • Key: MDMI2-6
  • Status: open  
  • Source: MDIX, Inc. ( Kenneth Lord)
  • Summary:

    smallest semantic entities is undefined and in the same paragraph the condition of losing semantic meaning results in having only generic data-type values which is incorrect.

  • Reported: MDMI 2.0b1 — Tue, 17 Aug 2021 14:52 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 15 Dec 2021 21:19 GMT

example was not correct

  • Key: MDMI2-9
  • Status: open  
  • Source: MDIX, Inc. ( Kenneth Lord)
  • Summary:

    Issue: The example of Admit Date/Time is ambiguous. It does not provide the context; Admin DateTime to what?

    Proposed Solution; Provide the content in the example which is Encounter. There the example is EncounterDateTime

  • Reported: MDMI 2.0b1 — Tue, 17 Aug 2021 15:08 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 15 Dec 2021 21:19 GMT

typo - extra space

  • Key: MDMI2-7
  • Status: open  
  • Source: MDIX, Inc. ( Kenneth Lord)
  • Summary:

    Issue: extra space between "Element" and "to".

    Proposed Resolution: removed extra space

  • Reported: MDMI 2.0b1 — Tue, 17 Aug 2021 14:56 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 15 Dec 2021 21:19 GMT

removed extra word

  • Key: MDMI2-15
  • Status: open  
  • Source: MDIX, Inc. ( Kenneth Lord)
  • Summary:

    Issue: The term "ToMDMISemanticElement Semantic class" is not correct.

    Proposed Resolution: Removed the word semantic in front of class.

  • Reported: MDMI 2.0b1 — Tue, 17 Aug 2021 15:28 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 15 Dec 2021 21:19 GMT

added term MDMI for clarification

  • Key: MDMI2-14
  • Status: open  
  • Source: MDIX, Inc. ( Kenneth Lord)
  • Summary:

    Issue: the term semantic elements is ambiguous and could be interpreted by different individuals based on their perspective.

  • Reported: MDMI 2.0b1 — Tue, 17 Aug 2021 15:24 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 15 Dec 2021 21:19 GMT

Duplicate issue of 32

  • Key: MDMI2-16
  • Status: open  
  • Source: MDIX, Inc. ( Kenneth Lord)
  • Summary:

    Issue: The term Semantic Element is ambiguous as it could be interpreted as a formal term.

    Proposed Resolution: The term Semantic Element has been change to MDMI Semantic Element which has a specific meaning in the context of the standard and it refers to the name of the class in the MDMI meta-model.

  • Reported: MDMI 2.0b1 — Tue, 17 Aug 2021 15:30 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 15 Dec 2021 21:19 GMT

typo - missing paren

  • Key: MDMI2-13
  • Status: open  
  • Source: MDIX, Inc. ( Kenneth Lord)
  • Summary:

    Issue: There is a missing closing parenthesis after LOCAL

    Proposed resolution: Paren added

  • Reported: MDMI 2.0b1 — Tue, 17 Aug 2021 15:19 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 15 Dec 2021 21:19 GMT

typo

  • Key: MDMI2-12
  • Status: open  
  • Source: MDIX, Inc. ( Kenneth Lord)
  • Summary:

    There is an extra space after "NORMAL"

  • Reported: MDMI 2.0b1 — Tue, 17 Aug 2021 15:18 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 15 Dec 2021 21:19 GMT

entered in error

  • Key: MDMI2-29
  • Status: open  
  • Source: MDIX, Inc. ( Kenneth Lord)
  • Summary:

    changed two to three and shouldn't have

  • Reported: MDMI 2.0b1 — Tue, 17 Aug 2021 19:48 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 15 Dec 2021 21:19 GMT

Addressed in Issue 21 - duplicate

  • Key: MDMI2-22
  • Status: open  
  • Source: MDIX, Inc. ( Kenneth Lord)
  • Summary:

    see issue 21.

  • Reported: MDMI 2.0b1 — Tue, 17 Aug 2021 18:49 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 15 Dec 2021 21:19 GMT

incorrect language

  • Key: MDMI2-26
  • Status: open  
  • Source: MDIX, Inc. ( Kenneth Lord)
  • Summary:

    There is an extraneous "are" in front of synonyms.

  • Reported: MDMI 2.0b1 — Tue, 17 Aug 2021 19:37 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 15 Dec 2021 21:19 GMT

Changed wording in bullet 3 to more accurately reflect process

  • Key: MDMI2-23
  • Status: open  
  • Source: MDIX, Inc. ( Kenneth Lord)
  • Summary:

    Language missing that the development he MDMI Healthcare Concept Model was an iterative process.

  • Reported: MDMI 2.0b1 — Tue, 17 Aug 2021 18:52 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 15 Dec 2021 21:19 GMT

Duplicate = see issue 21

  • Key: MDMI2-25
  • Status: open  
  • Source: MDIX, Inc. ( Kenneth Lord)
  • Summary:

    Issue have been entered in Issue 21

  • Reported: MDMI 2.0b1 — Tue, 17 Aug 2021 18:56 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 15 Dec 2021 21:19 GMT

changed wording for scope

  • Key: MDMI2-24
  • Status: open  
  • Source: MDIX, Inc. ( Kenneth Lord)
  • Summary:

    Scope described was not appropriate for the FTF.

  • Reported: MDMI 2.0b1 — Tue, 17 Aug 2021 18:53 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 15 Dec 2021 21:19 GMT

removed ANF

  • Key: MDMI2-20
  • Status: open  
  • Source: MDIX, Inc. ( Kenneth Lord)
  • Summary:

    Issue: ANF was not used as a reference Model. It was inappropriate as a reference model for the SEER content.

    Proposed Resolution: Remove all references to ANF. Section 0.6.1

  • Reported: MDMI 2.0b1 — Tue, 17 Aug 2021 18:17 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 15 Dec 2021 21:19 GMT

added to term temporal in the datum discussion

  • Key: MDMI2-18
  • Status: open  
  • Source: MDIX, Inc. ( Kenneth Lord)
  • Summary:

    Issue: The concept of a datum having a temporal concept (start time and end time) was missing.

    Proposed Resolution: Added the term temporal

  • Reported: MDMI 2.0b1 — Tue, 17 Aug 2021 18:13 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 15 Dec 2021 21:19 GMT

Remove the concept of near-synonyms

  • Key: MDMI2-17
  • Status: open  
  • Source: MDIX, Inc. ( Kenneth Lord)
  • Summary:

    The concept of "near-synonym" mappings can lead to ambiguities and, in healthcare, possible patient safety issue.

  • Reported: MDMI 2.0b1 — Tue, 17 Aug 2021 15:41 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 15 Dec 2021 21:19 GMT

added snomed ct

  • Key: MDMI2-19
  • Status: open  
  • Source: MDIX, Inc. ( Kenneth Lord)
  • Summary:

    The reference to SNOMED CT was missing in Annex A

  • Reported: MDMI 2.0b1 — Tue, 17 Aug 2021 18:15 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 15 Dec 2021 21:19 GMT

Added MDMI term for clarification, See Issue 32 for the global change

  • Key: MDMI2-30
  • Status: open  
  • Source: MDIX, Inc. ( Kenneth Lord)
  • Summary:

    Issue: the term semantic element is not defined and could be interpreted incorrectly.

    Proposed Resolution: This reference is to the MDMISemanticElement and the word MDMI has been added.

  • Reported: MDMI 2.0b1 — Tue, 17 Aug 2021 21:17 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 15 Dec 2021 21:19 GMT

Step 2 was not used

  • Key: MDMI2-21
  • Status: open  
  • Source: MDIX, Inc. ( Kenneth Lord)
  • Summary:

    The FTF did not use Step 2 in developing the MDMI Healthcare Concept Model.

  • Reported: MDMI 2.0b1 — Tue, 17 Aug 2021 18:47 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 15 Dec 2021 21:19 GMT

changed potentially misleading language

  • Key: MDMI2-27
  • Status: open  
  • Source: MDIX, Inc. ( Kenneth Lord)
  • Summary:

    Present language is misleading as it is not accurate.

  • Reported: MDMI 2.0b1 — Tue, 17 Aug 2021 19:39 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 15 Dec 2021 21:19 GMT

changed term of MDCM

  • Key: MDMI2-28
  • Status: open  
  • Source: MDIX, Inc. ( Kenneth Lord)
  • Summary:

    As this term in used in Annex B which is informative about a healthcare example, the term MDCM should be move specific.

  • Reported: MDMI 2.0b1 — Tue, 17 Aug 2021 19:45 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 15 Dec 2021 21:19 GMT

Global - added MDMI in front of Semantic Element

  • Key: MDMI2-32
  • Status: open  
  • Source: MDIX, Inc. ( Kenneth Lord)
  • Summary:

    The term semantic element can be interpreted by differently by different readers of the standard. In the MDMI standard the term semantic elements is the MDMISemanticElement in the MDMI meta-model.

  • Reported: MDMI 2.0b1 — Tue, 17 Aug 2021 21:22 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 15 Dec 2021 21:19 GMT

typo - extra space

  • Key: MDMI2-31
  • Status: open  
  • Source: MDIX, Inc. ( Kenneth Lord)
  • Summary:

    Issue: extra space between Element and to

  • Reported: MDMI 2.0b1 — Tue, 17 Aug 2021 21:19 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 15 Dec 2021 21:19 GMT

Global - changed name of StatementContext property to ContextConcept

  • Key: MDMI2-33
  • Status: open  
  • Source: MDIX, Inc. ( Kenneth Lord)
  • Summary:

    In MDMI 2.0, we added two properties in the MDMI Business Element Reference Class; the StatementContext property and the DataElementConcept property. The name StatementContext is too limiting as there are concepts in the SEER the not only as defined in a "speech act" but can also be used to define a semantic of a more broader concept of Situation.

  • Reported: MDMI 2.0b1 — Tue, 17 Aug 2021 21:52 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 15 Dec 2021 21:19 GMT

duplicate issue

  • Key: MDMI2-37
  • Status: open  
  • Source: MDIX, Inc. ( Kenneth Lord)
  • Summary:

    Because of prior changes, change all references to Step 4 to Step 3. This includes sub-steps.

  • Reported: MDMI 2.0a1 — Mon, 23 Aug 2021 16:01 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 15 Dec 2021 21:19 GMT

duplicate issue

  • Key: MDMI2-36
  • Status: open  
  • Source: MDIX, Inc. ( Kenneth Lord)
  • Summary:

    Needed to occur because of deleting Step 2

  • Reported: MDMI 2.0a1 — Mon, 23 Aug 2021 15:56 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 15 Dec 2021 21:19 GMT

Duplicate = see issue 21

  • Key: MDMI2-35
  • Status: open  
  • Source: MDIX, Inc. ( Kenneth Lord)
  • Summary:

    In Annex B which is informative.

    Present Step 2 has been deleted

    O

  • Reported: MDMI 2.0a1 — Mon, 23 Aug 2021 15:53 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 15 Dec 2021 21:19 GMT

Globally -corrected the term for R in the SEER

  • Key: MDMI2-34
  • Status: open  
  • Source: MDIX, Inc. ( Kenneth Lord)
  • Summary:

    The acronym SEER is not defined in the document and the term repository was used instead of registry.

  • Reported: MDMI 2.0b1 — Tue, 17 Aug 2021 21:58 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 15 Dec 2021 21:19 GMT

Merged with issue 40

  • Key: MDMI2-42
  • Status: open  
  • Source: MDIX, Inc. ( Kenneth Lord)
  • Summary:

    The resolution of this issue is correlated to issue # 41 because the issue and the resolution of both issues have dependencies.

    Issue: The name of the Business Element in the example beginning on the bottom of page 52 was VitalSignObservationActionFocus. Based on the work of the FTF, this name is not appropriate and should not be used. The name is inappropriate because Vital Sign Observation term as the ContentConcept property (formerly the StatementConcept Property) should be ObservationActivity. The name is also not appropriate because the term for the DataElementConcept Property, formerly ActionFocus, should be ContextFocus based on advice of the SMEs in the FTF.

  • Reported: MDMI 2.0a1 — Mon, 23 Aug 2021 18:20 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 15 Dec 2021 21:19 GMT

merged with issue 40

  • Key: MDMI2-41
  • Status: open  
  • Source: MDIX, Inc. ( Kenneth Lord)
  • Summary:

    he resolution of this issue is correlated to issue # 42 because the issue and the resolution of both issues have dependencies.

    Issue: The name of the Business Element in the example beginning on the bottom of page 52 was VitalSignObservationActionFocus. Based on the work of the FTF, this name is not appropriate and should not be used.

    Proposed Resolution: The name is inappropriate because Vital Sign Observation term as the ContextConcept property (formerly the StatementConcept Property) should be ObservationActivity. The name is also not appropriate because the term for the DataElementConcept Property, formerly ActionFocus, should be ContextFocus based on advice of the SMEs in the FTF.

  • Reported: MDMI 2.0a1 — Mon, 23 Aug 2021 18:18 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 15 Dec 2021 21:19 GMT

Qualifier added to statement

  • Key: MDMI2-38
  • Status: open  
  • Source: MDIX, Inc. ( Kenneth Lord)
  • Summary:

    Presently the wording of "MDMI Business Elements are synonyms" is not correct.

  • Reported: MDMI 2.0a1 — Mon, 23 Aug 2021 16:37 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 15 Dec 2021 21:19 GMT

improper wording

  • Key: MDMI2-39
  • Status: open  
  • Source: MDIX, Inc. ( Kenneth Lord)
  • Summary:

    having the word "are" in first sentence leading off this section could be misleading and is not proper English.

  • Reported: MDMI 2.0a1 — Mon, 23 Aug 2021 16:42 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 15 Dec 2021 21:19 GMT

Remove Vital Sign

  • Key: MDMI2-46
  • Status: open  
  • Source: MDIX, Inc. ( Kenneth Lord)
  • Summary:

    Related to Issues 41 and 42

    Issue: Graph description is incorrect as the ContextConcept is not VitalSignObservation.

    Proposed Resolution: Removed words vital sign.

  • Reported: MDMI 2.0a1 — Thu, 26 Aug 2021 10:34 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 15 Dec 2021 21:19 GMT

More accurate wording for semantic unit

  • Key: MDMI2-45
  • Status: open  
  • Source: MDIX, Inc. ( Kenneth Lord)
  • Summary:

    The term "a semantic unit" is ambiguous and does not convey the concept appropriately.

  • Reported: MDMI 2.0a1 — Wed, 25 Aug 2021 15:36 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 15 Dec 2021 21:19 GMT

add word The

  • Key: MDMI2-43
  • Status: open  
  • Source: MDIX, Inc. ( Kenneth Lord)
  • Summary:

    The word "The" is missing before "KBS Team"

  • Reported: MDMI 2.0a1 — Wed, 25 Aug 2021 14:39 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 15 Dec 2021 21:19 GMT

Same change as Issue 8

  • Key: MDMI2-44
  • Status: open  
  • Source: MDIX, Inc. ( Kenneth Lord)
  • Summary:

    Issue: The term smallest semantic unit is undefined in the document and it is ambiguous.

    Proposed Resolution: Replace the phase with the phase "business concept" which is used in the description of the term MDMI Business Element and is appropriate in this context.

  • Reported: MDMI 2.0a1 — Wed, 25 Aug 2021 15:24 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 15 Dec 2021 21:19 GMT

SEER not defined in Annex A

  • Key: MDMI2-47
  • Status: open  
  • Source: MDIX, Inc. ( Kenneth Lord)
  • Summary:

    the term SEER was not defined in Annex A.

  • Reported: MDMI 2.0a1 — Thu, 26 Aug 2021 10:56 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 15 Dec 2021 21:19 GMT

Replaced inaccurate term

  • Key: MDMI2-49
  • Status: open  
  • Source: MDIX, Inc. ( Kenneth Lord)
  • Summary:

    The term MHDM is not defined and inaccurate.

  • Reported: MDMI 2.0a1 — Fri, 27 Aug 2021 02:52 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 15 Dec 2021 21:19 GMT

relationship between Node and MDMISemanticElement

  • Key: MDMI2-52
  • Status: open  
  • Source: MDIX, Inc. ( Kenneth Lord)
  • Summary:

    Relationship is missing in MagicDraw diagram. It appears to have been the result of an editing error as is has shown up in all versions of 8.2 I see in document.

  • Reported: MDMI 2.0a1 — Fri, 27 Aug 2021 18:06 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 15 Dec 2021 21:19 GMT

Change name of Property Association in Model

  • Key: MDMI2-51
  • Status: open  
  • Source: MDIX, Inc. ( Kenneth Lord)
  • Summary:

    Issue: the present name of the association is repository.

    Proposed Resolution: The name of the association should be changed to registry based on other proposed resolutions

  • Reported: MDMI 2.0a1 — Fri, 27 Aug 2021 18:03 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 15 Dec 2021 21:19 GMT

Corrected of UML Class

  • Key: MDMI2-53
  • Status: open  
  • Source: MDIX, Inc. ( Kenneth Lord)
  • Summary:

    the SemanticElement is used in the UML model

  • Reported: MDMI 2.0a1 — Fri, 27 Aug 2021 21:22 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 15 Dec 2021 21:19 GMT

Deleted word semantics

  • Key: MDMI2-50
  • Status: open  
  • Source: MDIX, Inc. ( Kenneth Lord)
  • Summary:

    Not an issue .... original language acceptable

  • Reported: MDMI 2.0a1 — Fri, 27 Aug 2021 02:54 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 15 Dec 2021 21:19 GMT

Name changed in example

  • Key: MDMI2-40
  • Status: open  
  • Source: MDIX, Inc. ( Kenneth Lord)
  • Summary:

    In the Annex B, based on the work in the FTF the term VitalSignObservationActionFocus is not valid.

  • Reported: MDMI 2.0a1 — Mon, 23 Aug 2021 18:12 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 15 Dec 2021 21:19 GMT

poor and possibly confusing wording

  • Key: MDMI2-8
  • Status: open  
  • Source: MDIX, Inc. ( Kenneth Lord)
  • Summary:

    The term smallest semantic unit is undefined in the document and it is ambiguous.

  • Reported: MDMI 2.0b1 — Tue, 17 Aug 2021 15:02 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 15 Dec 2021 21:19 GMT

Replace depreciated term Referent Index

  • Key: MDMI2-48
  • Status: open  
  • Source: MDIX, Inc. ( Kenneth Lord)
  • Summary:

    Issue: the term Referent Index appeared in the document. It was deprecated in the 2.0 submission.

    Proposed Resolution: Changed the term Referent Index to SEER.

  • Reported: MDMI 2.0a1 — Thu, 26 Aug 2021 13:36 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 15 Dec 2021 21:19 GMT

Accidential edit made during modeling - Replaces Issue 52

  • Key: MDMI2-107
  • Status: open  
  • Source: MDIX, Inc. ( Kenneth Lord)
  • Summary:

    During the FTF process, there was one change made to the name of a property in a class and there were one or two changes made to class names to remove possible ambiguities. In addition, as different modeling tools used to develop the diagrams throughout the 2.0 process, new diagrams were generated for Section 8. At some point during the review process, it was discovered that an important relationship was missing.

  • Reported: MDMI 2.0a1 — Mon, 27 Sep 2021 15:25 GMT
  • Updated: Mon, 27 Sep 2021 15:25 GMT

Standard XMI for MDMI maps

  • Key: MDMI11-11
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14195
  • Status: open  
  • Source: SemantX, Inc. ( Mark Eisner)
  • Summary:

    Currently there are (usually) subtle differences in the XMI files created by different design tools. If runtime engines are going to successfully read MDMI maps, then the standard has to specify a standard format for the XMI for a map
    Discussion:
    It is agreed that the XMI format of an MDMI map must be consistent. However there are ongoing activities both within OMG and ISO 20022 to more generally define a consistent XMI standard. The MDMI FTF would like to assess the potential of these other formats before defining an XMI format standard just for MDMI.

  • Reported: MDMI 1.0b2 — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 23:05 GMT

The term and class name "Message Element" may cause confusion

  • Key: MDMI11-14
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14154
  • Status: open  
  • Source: SemantX, Inc. ( Mark Eisner)
  • Summary:

    The MDMI specification identifies the semantic unit in a message to be a Message MessageElement and MessageElementSet. The term Message Element and associated class names may be confused with the term Message Element in The ISO 20022 specification for those using the specification for financial service mapping. Since the central hub dictionary used in these mappings will most likely be the ISO 20022 data dictionary.

  • Reported: MDMI 1.0b1 — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 23:05 GMT

Description attributes in each class

  • Key: MDMI11-13
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14153
  • Status: open  
  • Source: SemantX, Inc. ( Mark Eisner)
  • Summary:

    For better documentation, there is no reason why there should not be a description attribute for each class but this must be integrated into any table or spreadsheet UI.

  • Reported: MDMI 1.0b1 — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 23:05 GMT

data translation in the prexecns of structure clashes

  • Key: MDMI11-10
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14571
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Open Mapping Software ( Robert Worden)
  • Summary:

    we beleive the MDMI 1.0 spec has only limited ability to support data translation in the presence of structure clashes bewtween source and target data structures. We suggest ways in which this could be tackled.

  • Reported: MDMI 1.0b2 — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 23:05 GMT

Associations/opposite properties should be used with MDMIDatatype

  • Key: MDMI11-9
  • Legacy Issue Number: 15361
  • Status: open  
  • Source: 88solutions ( Pete Rivett)
  • Summary:

    These are important for impact analysis and management purposes. The following should be drawn as associations and have opposite properties:

    • SemanticElement::datatype
    • DataRule::datatype
    • MDMIBusinessElementReference::referenceDatatype
  • Reported: MDMI 1.0b2 — Thu, 1 Jul 2010 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 23:05 GMT

Domain dictionary reference

  • Key: MDMI11-12
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14143
  • Status: open  
  • Source: SemantX, Inc. ( Mark Eisner)
  • Summary:

    A key concept of MDMI is that it requires a domain dictionary as a hub in its "hub and spoke design". The current specification does not associate a Message Model with a domain dictionary. If the specification is to work, such a reference will be important. Otherwise, the specification will not be clear and maps may be ambiguous.

  • Reported: MDMI 1.0b1 — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 23:05 GMT

Must all implementations have a design-time activity?

  • Key: MDMI11-15
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12636
  • Status: open  
  • Source: SWIFT ( Frank Vandamme)
  • Summary:

    Current text
    In particular, an implementation needs to support a design-time activity with all of the steps involved in generating the conversion maps, and the runtime application of the generated maps to a source physical message in order to create a target physical message.
    New text
    SEE QUESTIONS & COMMENTS IN NEXT COLUMN
    Rationale
    Must all implementations have a design-time activity? Don't we expect to have more implementations that use the conversion maps than implementations that can create the maps?

  • Reported: MDMI 1.0b1 — Tue, 8 Jul 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 23:05 GMT

Urgent issue - Missing datatype

  • Key: MDMI11-8
  • Legacy Issue Number: 15358
  • Status: open  
  • Source: 88solutions ( Pete Rivett)
  • Summary:

    The property SemanticElement::datatype has no type itself in the metamodel or UML diagram. According to 8.3.4 (property 4) it should be MDMIDatatype so this is arguably an editorial change.

    Likewise MDMIBusinessElementReference::referenceDatatype has the same problem (missing from the model but documented as Property 5 of 8.5.3.)

    However it is a fundamental problem with use of the normative metamodel and should be fixed as an urgent issue.

    Figures 8.1, 8.2, 8.4, 8.8 also need updating.

    Oddly Figure 8.5 is OK (indicating that it is out of date with the metamodel so may be missing other changes. E.g. the property ToBusinessElement::description is missing its datatype of String).

    Likewise 8.6 is OK in that respect but is out of date with respect to the metamodel: datatypes of int and bool are shown instead of Integer and Boolean correctly used in the metamodel

  • Reported: MDMI 1.0b2 — Thu, 1 Jul 2010 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 23:05 GMT

Urgent issue - Property Node::/isSyntacticField is not readOnly in the metamodel and has a default value of false

  • Key: MDMI11-6
  • Legacy Issue Number: 15360
  • Status: open  
  • Source: 88solutions ( Pete Rivett)
  • Summary:

    Since it is derived from fieldName presumably this means that on creation fieldName is always set to null! I don’t think this effect was intended, so /isSyntacticField should have isReadOnly=true and not have a default.

  • Reported: MDMI 1.0b2 — Thu, 1 Jul 2010 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 23:05 GMT

Urgent issue – misspelled property

  • Key: MDMI11-7
  • Legacy Issue Number: 15359
  • Status: open  
  • Source: 88solutions ( Pete Rivett)
  • Summary:

    In the metamodel Choice::contraint is mis-spelled. It is correct in 8.2.6 but not Figures 8.1 and 8.8.

  • Reported: MDMI 1.0b2 — Thu, 1 Jul 2010 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 23:05 GMT

The description and use of MDMIBusinessElementRule is completely unclear

  • Key: MDMI11-4
  • Legacy Issue Number: 15365
  • Status: open  
  • Source: 88solutions ( Pete Rivett)
  • Summary:

    The description and use of MDMIBusinessElementRule is completely unclear. All we have, in 8.5.7 is “some business rules may have to be specified within a map to make sure that the mapping is correct”.

  • Reported: MDMI 1.0b2 — Thu, 1 Jul 2010 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 23:05 GMT

Section 8.5.3

  • Key: MDMI11-3
  • Legacy Issue Number: 15364
  • Status: open  
  • Source: 88solutions ( Pete Rivett)
  • Summary:

    Section 8.5.3 states that a Dictionary is required to have a function that returns a unique id for any use of the ‘same’ business element. However it’s not clear what ‘same’ means here – and this is key to the whole MDMI process. It would help if the operation signature and semantics were to be specified in MOF as part of the metamodel.

  • Reported: MDMI 1.0b2 — Thu, 1 Jul 2010 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 23:05 GMT

Section 8.6.3 makes several references to ‘source’ and ‘target’ SemanticElements

  • Key: MDMI11-1
  • Legacy Issue Number: 15366
  • Status: open  
  • Source: 88solutions ( Pete Rivett)
  • Summary:

    Section 8.6.3 makes several references to ‘source’ and ‘target’ SemanticElements. However the metamodel does not use these terms – but ‘context’ (which I presume is ‘source’) and ‘relatedSemanticElement’ (which I presume is ‘target’). The descriptions of the properties sourceIsInstance and targetIsInstance are confusing, do not make sense, and in some cases are outright wrong (e.g. “the relatedSemanticElement owns the relationship by composition”). The scope when sourceInstance=’false’ is unclear – is it all instances of the semanticElement class in the message? The known universe?

  • Reported: MDMI 1.0b2 — Thu, 1 Jul 2010 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 23:05 GMT

It would make sense for the ‘defaultX’ properties of MessageGroup to be optional

  • Key: MDMI11-2
  • Legacy Issue Number: 15363
  • Status: open  
  • Source: 88solutions ( Pete Rivett)
  • Summary:

    It would make sense for the ‘defaultX’ properties of MessageGroup to be optional

  • Reported: MDMI 1.0b2 — Thu, 1 Jul 2010 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 23:05 GMT

Property SemanticElementSet::/mesageModelname should have isReadOnly= true

  • Key: MDMI11-5
  • Legacy Issue Number: 15362
  • Status: open  
  • Source: 88solutions ( Pete Rivett)
  • Summary:

    Property SemanticElementSet::/mesageModelname should have isReadOnly= true

  • Reported: MDMI 1.0b2 — Thu, 1 Jul 2010 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 23:05 GMT