Model Driven Message Interoperability Avatar
  1. OMG Specification

Model Driven Message Interoperability — Closed Issues

  • Acronym: MDMI
  • Issues Count: 28
  • Description: Issues resolved by a task force and approved by Board
Closed All
Issues resolved by a task force and approved by Board

Issues Summary

Key Issue Reported Fixed Disposition Status
MDMI2_-29 Typo - spacing errors MDMI 2.0b1 MDMI 2.0 Resolved closed
MDMI2_-32 In the XMI file there is a bunch of weird DataType MDMI 2.0b1 MDMI 2.0 Resolved closed
MDMI2_-26 OWL needs further referencing MDMI 2.0b1 MDMI 2.0 Resolved closed
MDMI2_-23 Comments for each issue resolved should be entered in the red-line document MDMI 2.0b1 MDMI 2.0 Resolved closed
MDMI2_-24 Some diagrams are unreadable and/or poorly formatted MDMI 2.0b1 MDMI 2.0 Deferred closed
MDMI2_-34 Could not load the UML file with Cameo. MDMI 2.0b1 MDMI 2.0 Closed; Out Of Scope closed
MDMI2_-11 List of contributors incomplete MDMI 2.0b1 MDMI 2.0 Resolved closed
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 MDMI 2.0 Resolved closed
MDMI2_-4 Snomed CT is missing from in Annex A, the Glossary MDMI 2.0b1 MDMI 2.0 Resolved closed
MDMI2_-1 The term "MDMI Semantic Element" is incorrect. MDMI 2.0b1 MDMI 2.0 Resolved closed
MDMI2_-3 The examples provided for datum were missing a key concept. MDMI 2.0b1 MDMI 2.0 Resolved closed
MDMI2_-51 The file Dtc-22-09-06.xmi was corrupted on recovery MDMI 2.0b1 MDMI 2.0 Resolved closed
MDMI2_-5 The description of the process for developing the MDMI Healthcare Ontology is not correct. MDMI 2.0b1 MDMI 2.0 Resolved closed
MDMI2_-50 Section 1, Scope, has a word entered in subscript MDMI 2.0b1 MDMI 2.0 Resolved closed
MDMI2_-53 Missing OWL reference MDMI 2.0b1 MDMI 2.0 Resolved closed
MDMI2_-52 Section 8.4.3 "MDMIDatatype, DataRules – Abstract Syntax" has no text MDMI 2.0b1 MDMI 2.0 Resolved closed
MDMI2_-33 Normative RDF MDMI 2.0b1 MDMI 2.0 Closed; No Change closed
MDMI2_-31 Lead in the specification scope needs clarification MDMI 2.0b1 MDMI 2.0 Resolved closed
MDMI2_-30 “360  View of diverse IT eco-system” seems like an odd choice for a paragraph title MDMI 2.0b1 MDMI 2.0 Resolved closed
MDMI2_-25 RDF, OWL, and other W3 standards should be normative references. MDMI 2.0b1 MDMI 2.0 Resolved closed
MDMI2_-28 Typo - 6.2.1.1 Please define ‘conceptsentities’ MDMI 2.0b1 MDMI 2.0 Resolved closed
MDMI2_-27 OWL is not defined or discussed. MDMI 2.0b1 MDMI 2.0 Closed; No Change closed
MDMI2_-35 What was this UML file created for? MDMI 2.0b1 MDMI 2.0 Closed; No Change closed
MDMI2_-6 The examplename used in the specification is inaccurate MDMI 2.0b1 MDMI 2.0 Resolved closed
MDMI2_-8 The use of the expression "are synonyms" is incorrect MDMI 2.0b1 MDMI 2.0 Resolved closed
MDMI2_-10 Attempting to define the term "near-synonym" violates the standard MDMI 2.0b1 MDMI 2.0 Resolved closed
MDMI2_-7 The term "semantic unit" being introduced as a new term is not required. MDMI 2.0b1 MDMI 2.0 Resolved closed
MDMI2_-9 The term "Registry" in "Semantic Element Exchange Registry" should be changed to improve descriptiveness MDMI 2.0b1 MDMI 2.0 Resolved closed

Issues Descriptions

Typo - spacing errors

  • Key: MDMI2_-29
  • Status: closed  
  • 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
  • Disposition: Resolved — MDMI 2.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Remove extra spaces

    as above

  • Updated: Tue, 28 Mar 2023 17:32 GMT

In the XMI file there is a bunch of weird DataType

  • Key: MDMI2_-32
  • Status: closed  
  • 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
  • Disposition: Resolved — MDMI 2.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Fix datatype issues

    as above

  • Updated: Tue, 28 Mar 2023 17:32 GMT

OWL needs further referencing

  • Key: MDMI2_-26
  • Status: closed  
  • 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
  • Disposition: Resolved — MDMI 2.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Add OWL to glossary

    Add OWL to glossary

  • Updated: Tue, 28 Mar 2023 17:32 GMT

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

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

    as stated

  • Reported: MDMI 2.0b1 — Thu, 15 Sep 2022 19:04 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MDMI 2.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Add comments to red-line document

    as above

  • Updated: Tue, 28 Mar 2023 17:32 GMT

Some diagrams are unreadable and/or poorly formatted

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

    as above

  • Reported: MDMI 2.0b1 — Thu, 15 Sep 2022 19:04 GMT
  • Disposition: Deferred — MDMI 2.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Clarify graphics as able

    Unable to change some graphics that are too big to fit a standard page legibly.

  • Updated: Tue, 28 Mar 2023 17:32 GMT

Could not load the UML file with Cameo.

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

    as above

  • Reported: MDMI 2.0b1 — Fri, 16 Sep 2022 14:22 GMT
  • Disposition: Closed; Out Of Scope — MDMI 2.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Make corrections for loading into Cameo

    as above but there is no access to Cameo

  • Updated: Tue, 28 Mar 2023 17:32 GMT

List of contributors incomplete

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

    List of contributors incomplete

  • Reported: MDMI 2.0b1 — Tue, 23 Aug 2022 20:46 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MDMI 2.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Add missing contributor name

    Gargi Gajjar contributed to the Finalization Task Force. Her name was added to the list of contributors

  • Updated: Tue, 28 Mar 2023 17:32 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: closed  
  • 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
  • Disposition: Resolved — MDMI 2.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Add the term "message" to further specify data use

    Change " in a HL7 V2.8.2 ADT-A01 there is a field representing Admit Date/Time." to "in a HL7 V2.8.2 ADT-A01 message there is a segment that has is a field representing Admit Date/Time". The change specifies the structure of where a data item of Admit Date/Time would be located for those familiar with HL7 V2.8.2 message model.

  • Updated: Tue, 28 Mar 2023 17:32 GMT

Snomed CT is missing from in Annex A, the Glossary

  • Key: MDMI2_-4
  • Status: closed  
  • 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
  • Disposition: Resolved — MDMI 2.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Add the missing definition for SNOMED CT

    The definition of the term was added. "The SNOMED CT is a systematically organized computer-processable collection of medical terms providing codes, terms, synonyms and definitions used in clinical documentation and reporting"

  • Updated: Tue, 28 Mar 2023 17:32 GMT

The term "MDMI Semantic Element" is incorrect.

  • Key: MDMI2_-1
  • Status: closed  
  • 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
  • Disposition: Resolved — MDMI 2.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Change "MDMI Semantic Element" to "MDMISemanticElement" (no spaces)

    The term "MDMI Semantic Element" is the proper name of the class MDMISemanticElement in the specification and therefore the term has been changed throughout the document to MDMISemanticElement.

    See attached document for specific locations.

  • Updated: Tue, 28 Mar 2023 17:32 GMT
  • Attachments:

The examples provided for datum were missing a key concept.

  • Key: MDMI2_-3
  • Status: closed  
  • 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
  • Disposition: Resolved — MDMI 2.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Reword sentence to clarify definition

    The concept of time as a datum was missing. Change "an atomic datum, such as a name or measurement value" to "an atomic datum, such as a name, measurement, or temporal value"

  • Updated: Tue, 28 Mar 2023 17:32 GMT

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

  • Key: MDMI2_-51
  • Status: closed  
  • 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
  • Disposition: Resolved — MDMI 2.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Corrected file obtained

    File without corruption replaces the one there

  • Updated: Tue, 28 Mar 2023 17:32 GMT

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

  • Key: MDMI2_-5
  • Status: closed  
  • 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
  • Disposition: Resolved — MDMI 2.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Remove ANF reference

    ANF was not used as a Reference Model. All sentences after the first sentence in Step 2 were removed.

  • Updated: Tue, 28 Mar 2023 17:32 GMT

Section 1, Scope, has a word entered in subscript

  • Key: MDMI2_-50
  • Status: closed  
  • 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
  • Disposition: Resolved — MDMI 2.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Changed font type of word

    "Message" changed from subscript to normal text

  • Updated: Tue, 28 Mar 2023 17:32 GMT

Missing OWL reference

  • Key: MDMI2_-53
  • Status: closed  
  • 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
  • Disposition: Resolved — MDMI 2.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Added missing reference

    Provided link to W3C site for OWL.

  • Updated: Tue, 28 Mar 2023 17:32 GMT

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

  • Key: MDMI2_-52
  • Status: closed  
  • 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
  • Disposition: Resolved — MDMI 2.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Added missing diagram

    Added diagram for MDMIDatatypes, DataRules - Abstract Syntax

  • Updated: Tue, 28 Mar 2023 17:32 GMT

Normative RDF

  • Key: MDMI2_-33
  • Status: closed  
  • 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
  • Disposition: Closed; No Change — MDMI 2.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    No changes necessary

    Use of RDF is informative not normative

  • Updated: Tue, 28 Mar 2023 17:32 GMT

Lead in the specification scope needs clarification

  • Key: MDMI2_-31
  • Status: closed  
  • 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
  • Disposition: Resolved — MDMI 2.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Clarify scope

    Change to:

    The goal of the MDMI standard is to provide a declarative, model-driven mechanism…

  • Updated: Tue, 28 Mar 2023 17:32 GMT

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

  • Key: MDMI2_-30
  • Status: closed  
  • 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
  • Disposition: Resolved — MDMI 2.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Change title of the paragraph

    as above

  • Updated: Tue, 28 Mar 2023 17:32 GMT

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

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

    as above

  • Reported: MDMI 2.0b1 — Thu, 15 Sep 2022 19:05 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MDMI 2.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Add normative references

    for OWL and RDF

  • Updated: Tue, 28 Mar 2023 17:32 GMT

Typo - 6.2.1.1 Please define ‘conceptsentities’

  • Key: MDMI2_-28
  • Status: closed  
  • 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
  • Disposition: Resolved — MDMI 2.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Put a space between the words

    as above

  • Updated: Tue, 28 Mar 2023 17:32 GMT

OWL is not defined or discussed.

  • Key: MDMI2_-27
  • Status: closed  
  • 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
  • Disposition: Closed; No Change — MDMI 2.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    No changes necessary

    Files are informative not normative

  • Updated: Tue, 28 Mar 2023 17:32 GMT

What was this UML file created for?

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

    as above

  • Reported: MDMI 2.0b1 — Fri, 16 Sep 2022 14:23 GMT
  • Disposition: Closed; No Change — MDMI 2.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    No changes necessary

    File is required by OMG process

  • Updated: Tue, 28 Mar 2023 17:32 GMT

The examplename used in the specification is inaccurate

  • Key: MDMI2_-6
  • Status: closed  
  • 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
  • Disposition: Resolved — MDMI 2.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Remove "Action" from "VitalSignObservationActionFocus" and "ActionFocus"

    In the example in Annex C, change the term VitalSignObservationActionFocus to VitalSignObservationFocus. In addition, change the graph description of the DataElementConcept to Focus.

  • Updated: Tue, 28 Mar 2023 17:32 GMT

The use of the expression "are synonyms" is incorrect

  • Key: MDMI2_-8
  • Status: closed  
  • 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
  • Disposition: Resolved — MDMI 2.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Change statement from definitive to possible

    An example of a different condition is that one MDMIBusinessElement has an incorrect specification of its StatementContext or DataElementContext. Proposed change is to change "are synonyms" to "could be synonyms".

  • Updated: Tue, 28 Mar 2023 17:32 GMT

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

  • Key: MDMI2_-10
  • Status: closed  
  • 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
  • Disposition: Resolved — MDMI 2.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Remove the sentence

    Deleting the sentence "In effect, they define the domain of “near-synonyms” that are allowed in a mapping." addresses this issues

  • Updated: Tue, 28 Mar 2023 17:32 GMT

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

  • Key: MDMI2_-7
  • Status: closed  
  • 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
  • Disposition: Resolved — MDMI 2.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Clarify use of "semantic unit"

    The term data item has been used previously. Change "to expedite the insertion or extraction of as little as one semantic unit data item of a message" to "to expedite the insertion or extraction of as little as one data item of a message"

  • Updated: Tue, 28 Mar 2023 17:32 GMT

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

  • Key: MDMI2_-9
  • Status: closed  
  • 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
  • Disposition: Resolved — MDMI 2.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Change "Registry" to "Repository

    same

  • Updated: Tue, 28 Mar 2023 17:32 GMT