Model Driven Message Interoperability Avatar
  1. OMG Specification

Model Driven Message Interoperability — All Issues

  • Acronym: MDMI
  • Issues Count: 244
  • Description: All Issues
Open Closed All
All Issues

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
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
MDMI_-165 page 1 section 1 para 2 line 3 grammatical error MDMI 1.0b1 MDMI 1.0b2 Resolved closed
MDMI_-164 change name of specification MDMI 1.0b1 MDMI 1.0b2 Resolved closed
MDMI_-166 page 14 section 8.3.1 para 6 MDMI 1.0b1 MDMI 1.0b2 Duplicate or Merged closed
MDMI_-163 The property and datatype qualifier in the ConversionRule class are inappropriate MDMI 1.0b1 MDMI 1.0b2 Resolved closed
MDMI_-162 Simplifying names of classes MDMI 1.0b1 MDMI 1.0b2 Resolved closed
MDMI_-159 MessageElement Instance is inappropriate MDMI 1.0b1 MDMI 1.0b2 Resolved closed
MDMI_-161 Reference to a hub Business Element MDMI 1.0b1 MDMI 1.0b2 Resolved closed
MDMI_-160 UnqualifiedBusinessElementInstance class is inappropriate MDMI 1.0b1 MDMI 1.0b2 Resolved closed
MDMI_-154 MDMI DataTypes MDMI 1.0b1 MDMI 1.0b2 Resolved closed
MDMI_-158 Business Element rules MDMI 1.0b1 MDMI 1.0b2 Resolved closed
MDMI_-157 Properly handling MessageElementRelationships MDMI 1.0b1 MDMI 1.0b2 Resolved closed
MDMI_-156 Changing the "position" attribute MDMI 1.0b1 MDMI 1.0b2 Resolved closed
MDMI_-155 Property qualifiers for MessageElements MDMI 1.0b1 MDMI 1.0b2 Resolved closed
MDMI_-153 Complex transformation to the central dictionary MDMI 1.0b1 MDMI 1.0b2 Resolved closed
MDMI_-152 Explicit hierarchy for MessageComposites MDMI 1.0b1 MDMI 1.0b2 Resolved closed
MDMI_-151 Separating Choice and Set MDMI 1.0b1 MDMI 1.0b2 Resolved closed
MDMI_-150 One Node in a Bag MDMI 1.0b1 MDMI 1.0b2 Resolved closed
MDMI_-148 Handling purely syntactic fields MDMI 1.0b1 MDMI 1.0b2 Resolved closed
MDMI_-147 Handling a multiplicity greater than one for a Node class MDMI 1.0b1 MDMI 1.0b2 Resolved closed
MDMI_-146 The MessageInstance class is misplaced MDMI 1.0b1 MDMI 1.0b2 Resolved closed
MDMI_-145 The MessagePackage class is misplaced MDMI 1.0b1 MDMI 1.0b2 Resolved closed
MDMI_-149 Proper Class name is Bag MDMI 1.0b1 MDMI 1.0b2 Resolved closed
MDMI_-141 The term and class name "Message Element" may cause confusion MDMI 1.0b1 MDMI 1.0b2 Resolved closed
MDMI_-140 Description attributes in each class MDMI 1.0b1 MDMI 1.0b2 Resolved closed
MDMI_-144 Explicit datatypes in datatype rule MDMI 1.0b1 MDMI 1.0b2 Resolved closed
MDMI_-143 Default language settings MDMI 1.0b1 MDMI 1.0b2 Resolved closed
MDMI_-142 Source reference for MessageModel MDMI 1.0b1 MDMI 1.0b2 Resolved closed
MDMI_-139 page 21 section 8.6.3 MDMI 1.0b1 MDMI 1.0b2 Duplicate or Merged closed
MDMI_-138 page 20 section 8.5.4 MDMI 1.0b1 MDMI 1.0b2 Duplicate or Merged closed
MDMI_-137 page 19 section 8.5.3 para 1 MDMI 1.0b1 MDMI 1.0b2 Duplicate or Merged closed
MDMI_-136 page 19 section 8.5.2 fig 8.5 MDMI 1.0b1 MDMI 1.0b2 Closed; No Change closed
MDMI_-135 page 18 section 8.5.1 para 1 line 2 MDMI 1.0b1 MDMI 1.0b2 Duplicate or Merged closed
MDMI_-134 page 17 section 8.4.1 para 1 line 6 MDMI 1.0b1 MDMI 1.0b2 Resolved closed
MDMI_-131 page 16 section 8.3.4 para 1, 7th bullet MDMI 1.0b1 MDMI 1.0b2 Resolved closed
MDMI_-130 page 16 section 8.3.4 para 1, 3rd bullet MDMI 1.0b1 MDMI 1.0b2 Resolved closed
MDMI_-129 page 15 section 8.3.3 para 1, 2nd bullet MDMI 1.0b1 MDMI 1.0b2 Resolved closed
MDMI_-133 page 17 section 8.4.1 para 1 MDMI 1.0b1 MDMI 1.0b2 Duplicate or Merged closed
MDMI_-132 page 16 section 8.3.6 and 8.3.7 MDMI 1.0b1 MDMI 1.0b2 Resolved closed
MDMI_-125 page 14 section 8.3.1 para 1 line 3 MDMI 1.0b1 MDMI 1.0b2 Resolved closed
MDMI_-128 page 15 section 8.3.2 figure 8.3 MDMI 1.0b1 MDMI 1.0b2 Resolved closed
MDMI_-127 page 14 section 8.3.1 para 8 MDMI 1.0b1 MDMI 1.0b2 Closed; No Change closed
MDMI_-126 page 14 section 8.3.1 para 6 MDMI 1.0b1 MDMI 1.0b2 Resolved closed
MDMI_-124 page 13 section 8.2.7 title MDMI 1.0b1 MDMI 1.0b2 Closed; No Change closed
MDMI_-123 page 13 section 8.2.5 para 1 3rd bullet MDMI 1.0b1 MDMI 1.0b2 Resolved closed
MDMI_-122 page 13 section 8.2.5 para 1 2nd bullet MDMI 1.0b1 MDMI 1.0b2 Closed; No Change closed
MDMI_-121 page 12 section 8.2.2 fig 8.2 MDMI 1.0b1 MDMI 1.0b2 Duplicate or Merged closed
MDMI_-120 page 11 section 8.2.1 para 1 line 3 MDMI 1.0b1 MDMI 1.0b2 Resolved closed
MDMI_-117 page 11 section 8.1.4 general comment MDMI 1.0b1 MDMI 1.0b2 Resolved closed
MDMI_-119 page 11 section 8.2.1 para 1 line 1 MDMI 1.0b1 MDMI 1.0b2 Resolved closed
MDMI_-118 page 11 section 8.1.5 general comment MDMI 1.0b1 MDMI 1.0b2 Resolved closed
MDMI_-116 page 10 section 8.1.3 2nd bullet MDMI 1.0b1 MDMI 1.0b2 Resolved closed
MDMI_-113 page 9 section 8 general comment # 2 MDMI 1.0b1 MDMI 1.0b2 Resolved closed
MDMI_-115 page 10 section 8.1.3 1st bullet MDMI 1.0b1 MDMI 1.0b2 Resolved closed
MDMI_-114 page 9 section 8.1.1 examples MDMI 1.0b1 MDMI 1.0b2 Closed; No Change closed
MDMI_-112 page 9 section 8 general comment MDMI 1.0b1 MDMI 1.0b2 Resolved closed
MDMI_-111 page 7 section 7.1.5 para 1 line 3 MDMI 1.0b1 MDMI 1.0b2 Resolved closed
MDMI_-110 page 7 section 7.1.5 para 1 line 1 MDMI 1.0b1 MDMI 1.0b2 Resolved closed
MDMI_-109 page 7 section 7.1.5 general comment MDMI 1.0b1 MDMI 1.0b2 Resolved closed
MDMI_-108 page 7 section 7.1.2 para 1 line 6 MDMI 1.0b1 MDMI 1.0b2 Resolved closed
MDMI_-104 page 14 section 6.5.3 para 1 line 4 MDMI 1.0b1 MDMI 1.0b2 Resolved closed
MDMI_-103 page 14 section 6.5.2 para 1 line 6 MDMI 1.0b1 MDMI 1.0b2 Resolved closed
MDMI_-106 page 5 section 7 - general comment MDMI 1.0b1 MDMI 1.0b2 Resolved closed
MDMI_-107 page 5 section 7 para 1 line 4 MDMI 1.0b1 MDMI 1.0b2 Closed; No Change closed
MDMI_-105 page 5 section 7 - title MDMI 1.0b1 MDMI 1.0b2 Resolved closed
MDMI_-101 page 14 section 6.5.1 para 1 MDMI 1.0b1 MDMI 1.0b2 Resolved closed
MDMI_-100 page 14 section 6.5.1 general comment MDMI 1.0b1 MDMI 1.0b2 Resolved closed
MDMI_-102 page 14 section 6.5.2 para 1 MDMI 1.0b1 MDMI 1.0b2 Resolved closed
MDMI_-99 page 14 section 6.5.1 title MDMI 1.0b1 MDMI 1.0b2 Resolved closed
MDMI_-98 page 14 section 6.5 title MDMI 1.0b1 MDMI 1.0b2 Resolved closed
MDMI_-97 page 13 section 6.4 para 2 MDMI 1.0b1 MDMI 1.0b2 Resolved closed
MDMI_-96 typos MDMI 1.0b1 MDMI 1.0b2 Resolved closed
MDMI_-94 page 13 section 6.4 para 1 MDMI 1.0b1 MDMI 1.0b2 Resolved closed
MDMI_-93 page 13 section 6.4 general comment MDMI 1.0b1 MDMI 1.0b2 Closed; No Change closed
MDMI_-92 page 13 section 6.4 title MDMI 1.0b1 MDMI 1.0b2 Resolved closed
MDMI_-91 page 13 section 6.3.3 title MDMI 1.0b1 MDMI 1.0b2 Resolved closed
MDMI_-95 page 13 section 6.4 para 1 line 2 MDMI 1.0b1 MDMI 1.0b2 Resolved closed
MDMI_-87 page 12 section 6.3.1 para 3 1st bullet MDMI 1.0b1 MDMI 1.0b2 Resolved closed
MDMI_-86 page 12 section 6.3.1 paera 3 - typo MDMI 1.0b1 MDMI 1.0b2 Resolved closed
MDMI_-90 page 13 section 6.3.2 in general MDMI 1.0b1 MDMI 1.0b2 Resolved closed
MDMI_-89 page 13 section 6.3.2 para 1 MDMI 1.0b1 MDMI 1.0b2 Resolved closed
MDMI_-88 page 13 section 6.3.1 para 3 1st bullet MDMI 1.0b1 MDMI 1.0b2 Resolved closed
MDMI_-85 page 12 section 6.3 MDMI 1.0b1 MDMI 1.0b2 Resolved closed
MDMI_-84 page 12 section 6.3 title MDMI 1.0b1 MDMI 1.0b2 Resolved closed
MDMI_-83 Remove terms from Annex A MDMI 1.0b1 MDMI 1.0b2 Resolved closed
MDMI_-82 page 11 sections 6.1 and 6.2 MDMI 1.0b1 MDMI 1.0b2 Resolved closed
MDMI_-81 page 11 section 6.1 para 2 MDMI 1.0b1 MDMI 1.0b2 Resolved closed
MDMI_-80 page 11 section 6.1 para 1 - correction MDMI 1.0b1 MDMI 1.0b2 Resolved closed
MDMI_-79 page 11 section 6.1 para 1 MDMI 1.0b1 MDMI 1.0b2 Resolved closed
MDMI_-78 page 11 section 6 para 5 line 3 MDMI 1.0b1 MDMI 1.0b2 Resolved closed
MDMI_-77 page 11 section 6 para 5 MDMI 1.0b1 MDMI 1.0b2 Resolved closed
MDMI_-76 page 11 section 6 para 3 MDMI 1.0b1 MDMI 1.0b2 Resolved closed
MDMI_-75 page 11 section 6 para 3 second bullet MDMI 1.0b1 MDMI 1.0b2 Resolved closed
MDMI_-74 page 11 section 6 para 3 first bullet MDMI 1.0b1 MDMI 1.0b2 Resolved closed
MDMI_-73 page 11 section 6 para 1 "it is estimated.." MDMI 1.0b1 MDMI 1.0b2 Resolved closed
MDMI_-72 page 6 section 5.1 MDMI 1.0b1 MDMI 1.0b2 Closed; No Change closed
MDMI_-71 page 6 section 4 "wire format" MDMI 1.0b1 MDMI 1.0b2 Resolved closed
MDMI_-70 page 5 section 4 "UNIFI" MDMI 1.0b1 MDMI 1.0b2 Resolved closed
MDMI_-66 page 5 section 4 "simple message composite" MDMI 1.0b1 MDMI 1.0b2 Resolved closed
MDMI_-69 page 5 section 4 "type" MDMI 1.0b1 MDMI 1.0b2 Resolved closed
MDMI_-68 page 5 section 4 "technical analyst" MDMI 1.0b1 MDMI 1.0b2 Resolved closed
MDMI_-67 page 4 section 4 para TCxx MDMI 1.0b1 MDMI 1.0b2 Resolved closed
MDMI_-65 page 5 section 4 "semantic map" MDMI 1.0b1 MDMI 1.0b2 Closed; No Change closed
MDMI_-64 page 5 section 4 "semantic element" MDMI 1.0b1 MDMI 1.0b2 Resolved closed
MDMI_-63 page 5 section 4 "runtime application" MDMI 1.0b1 MDMI 1.0b2 Resolved closed
MDMI_-62 page 5 section 4 "qualified business element" MDMI 1.0b1 MDMI 1.0b2 Resolved closed
MDMI_-61 page 4 section 4 "node id" MDMI 1.0b1 MDMI 1.0b2 Resolved closed
MDMI_-60 page 4 section 4 "near synonym" MDMI 1.0b1 MDMI 1.0b2 Resolved closed
MDMI_-59 page 4 section 4 para MTxx MDMI 1.0b1 MDMI 1.0b2 Resolved closed
MDMI_-58 page 4 section 4 para MSxx MDMI 1.0b1 MDMI 1.0b2 Resolved closed
MDMI_-57 page 4 section 4 "message syntax translator MDMI 1.0b1 MDMI 1.0b2 Resolved closed
MDMI_-54 page 4 section 4 "message format" MDMI 1.0b1 MDMI 1.0b2 Resolved closed
MDMI_-53 page 4 section 4 "message composite" MDMI 1.0b1 MDMI 1.0b2 Resolved closed
MDMI_-52 page 4 section 4 "message element relationship model" MDMI 1.0b1 MDMI 1.0b2 Resolved closed
MDMI_-56 page 4 section 4 "message model" and "message syntax model MDMI 1.0b1 MDMI 1.0b2 Resolved closed
MDMI_-55 page 4 section 4 "message group" MDMI 1.0b1 MDMI 1.0b2 Resolved closed
MDMI_-51 page 3 section 4 "message element" MDMI 1.0b1 MDMI 1.0b2 Resolved closed
MDMI_-50 page 3 section 4 "leaf syntax translator" MDMI 1.0b1 MDMI 1.0b2 Resolved closed
MDMI_-49 page 3 section 4 "location expression language" MDMI 1.0b1 MDMI 1.0b2 Resolved closed
MDMI_-48 page 3 section 4 "location" MDMI 1.0b1 MDMI 1.0b2 Resolved closed
MDMI_-47 page 3 section 4 "leaf format expression language" MDMI 1.0b1 MDMI 1.0b2 Resolved closed
MDMI_-46 page 3 section 4 "leaf format" MDMI 1.0b1 MDMI 1.0b2 Resolved closed
MDMI_-45 page 3 section 4 "keyword list" MDMI 1.0b1 MDMI 1.0b2 Resolved closed
MDMI_-44 page 3 section 4 "group" MDMI 1.0b1 MDMI 1.0b2 Resolved closed
MDMI_-43 page 3 section 4 "federate" MDMI 1.0b1 MDMI 1.0b2 Resolved closed
MDMI_-42 page 3 section 4 "federated dictionary" MDMI 1.0b1 MDMI 1.0b2 Resolved closed
MDMI_-41 page 3 section 4 "environment" MDMI 1.0b1 MDMI 1.0b2 Resolved closed
MDMI_-40 page 3 section 4 "entity" MDMI 1.0b1 MDMI 1.0b2 Resolved closed
MDMI_-39 page 2 section 4 "domain repository" MDMI 1.0b1 MDMI 1.0b2 Resolved closed
MDMI_-38 page 2 section 4 "domain data dictionary" MDMI 1.0b1 MDMI 1.0b2 Resolved closed
MDMI_-37 page 2 section 4 "domain" MDMI 1.0b1 MDMI 1.0b2 Resolved closed
MDMI_-34 page 2 section 4 - remove "business rule" MDMI 1.0b1 MDMI 1.0b2 Resolved closed
MDMI_-33 page 2 section 4 - "business element" MDMI 1.0b1 MDMI 1.0b2 Resolved closed
MDMI_-32 page 2 section 4 - "business analyst" MDMI 1.0b1 MDMI 1.0b2 Resolved closed
MDMI_-36 page 2 section 4 conversion rule MDMI 1.0b1 MDMI 1.0b2 Resolved closed
MDMI_-35 page 2 section 4 composition MDMI 1.0b1 MDMI 1.0b2 Resolved closed
MDMI_-31 page 2 section 4 - "autonomy' MDMI 1.0b1 MDMI 1.0b2 Resolved closed
MDMI_-30 page 1 section 3 - add reference to ISO 20022 MDMI 1.0b1 MDMI 1.0b2 Resolved closed
MDMI_-29 page 1 section 2 para 1 line 5 - normative/non-normative sections MDMI 1.0b1 MDMI 1.0b2 Resolved closed
MDMI_-28 page 1 section 2 para 1 line 2 - problem with cross-referencing MDMI 1.0b1 MDMI 1.0b2 Resolved closed
MDMI_-27 page 1 section 1 para 2 line 11 - remove name of standard MDMI 1.0b1 MDMI 1.0b2 Resolved closed
MDMI_-24 page 1 section 1 para 2 line 8 remove Payment Message (CM4PM) standard MDMI 1.0b1 MDMI 1.0b2 Resolved closed
MDMI_-23 page 1 section 1 para 2 line 3 clarification MDMI 1.0b1 MDMI 1.0b2 Resolved closed
MDMI_-22 page 1 section 1 para 2 MDMI 1.0b1 MDMI 1.0b2 Resolved closed
MDMI_-26 page 1 section 1 para 2 line 10 clarification needed MDMI 1.0b1 MDMI 1.0b2 Resolved closed
MDMI_-25 page 1 section 1 para 2 line 6 change to message data transformation MDMI 1.0b1 MDMI 1.0b2 Resolved closed
MDMI_-21 page 1 section 1 para 1 MDMI 1.0b1 MDMI 1.0b2 Resolved closed
MDMI_-20 name of the standard is repeated in the document MDMI 1.0b1 MDMI 1.0b2 Resolved closed
MDMI_-19 page numbering MDMI 1.0b1 MDMI 1.0b2 Resolved closed
MDMI_-18 Constraints on various language choices MDMI 1.0b2 MDMI 1.0 Resolved closed
MDMI_-17 Description of associations MDMI 1.0b2 MDMI 1.0 Resolved closed
MDMI_-16 General editing of the MDMI specification MDMI 1.0b2 MDMI 1.0 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

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: Adaptive ( Mr. 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: Adaptive ( Mr. 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: Adaptive ( Mr. 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: Adaptive ( Mr. 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: Adaptive ( Mr. 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: Adaptive ( Mr. 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: Adaptive ( Mr. 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: Adaptive ( Mr. 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: Adaptive ( Mr. 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

page 1 section 1 para 2 line 3 grammatical error

  • Key: MDMI_-165
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12629
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: SWIFT ( Frank Vandamme)
  • Summary:

    Current text: their
    New text: its
    Rationale: grammatical error

  • Reported: MDMI 1.0b1 — Tue, 8 Jul 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MDMI 1.0b2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Resolution:
    Fixed text
    Revised Text:
    Please see the annotated Beta 2 with markup.
    Disposition: Resolved

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 05:00 GMT

change name of specification

  • Key: MDMI_-164
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12624
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: SWIFT ( Frank Vandamme)
  • Summary:

    Current text
    Conversion Models for Payment Messages
    New text
    Model Driven Interoperability (in the Financial Industry)
    Rationale
    There should be a new name for this specification

  • Reported: MDMI 1.0b1 — Tue, 8 Jul 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MDMI 1.0b2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Should changed text as above. Should change all instances of CM4PM to MDMI

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 05:00 GMT

page 14 section 8.3.1 para 6

  • Key: MDMI_-166
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12735
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: SWIFT ( Frank Vandamme)
  • Summary:

    Why would the parts of the address be considered as separate semantic elements? Can't we consider address as a data type?

  • Reported: MDMI 1.0b1 — Tue, 8 Jul 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Duplicate or Merged — MDMI 1.0b2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Disposition: See issue 12734 for disposition

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 05:00 GMT

The property and datatype qualifier in the ConversionRule class are inappropriate

  • Key: MDMI_-163
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14163
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: SemantX, Inc. ( Mark Eisner)
  • Summary:

    The attributes, propertyQualifier and dataTypeQualifier, refer specifically to dictionary terms in a UN/CEFACT dictionary and are meant to say these terms are all that are legal in a conversion. The specificity and use of these attributes is muddled. They should be removed.

  • Reported: MDMI 1.0b1 — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MDMI 1.0b2
  • Disposition Summary:

    The attributes propertyQualifier and datatypeQualifier will be removed from the ConversionRule abstract class

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 04:58 GMT

Simplifying names of classes

  • Key: MDMI_-162
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14162
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: SemantX, Inc. ( Mark Eisner)
  • Summary:

    Simplifying the name of the MessageElementoUnqualifiedBusinessElement class and the name of the UnqualifiedBusinessElementtoMessageElement classes

    The actual proper name of a dictionary BusinessElement is not likely to be an "UnqualifiedBusinessElement" so the name should be simplified.

  • Reported: MDMI 1.0b1 — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MDMI 1.0b2
  • Disposition Summary:

    These classes will be renamed "To Business element" and "To SemanticElement"

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 04:58 GMT

MessageElement Instance is inappropriate

  • Key: MDMI_-159
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14159
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: SemantX, Inc. ( Mark Eisner)
  • Summary:

    The MessageElementInstance class contains the value of a MessageElement. However, the MDMI specification is a Platform Independent Model (PIM) and this class really relates to a platform dependent runtime characteristic so it should not be included in the specification.

  • Reported: MDMI 1.0b1 — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MDMI 1.0b2
  • Disposition Summary:

    The class MessageElementInstance will be removed from the specification.

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 04:58 GMT

Reference to a hub Business Element

  • Key: MDMI_-161
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14161
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: SemantX, Inc. ( Mark Eisner)
  • Summary:

    The current specification is in adequate in indicating the hub Business Element to which a MessageElement is to be mapped. The actual Business Element cannot be in an MDMI map since the structure of those Business Elements are already defined, given that the MDMI map is tied to an existing hub dictionary.

  • Reported: MDMI 1.0b1 — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MDMI 1.0b2
  • Disposition Summary:

    The UnqualifiedBusinessElement class is replaced with a class that references a Business Element in a dictionary. No assumption is made about the format of the Business Element in the central dictionary.

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 04:58 GMT

UnqualifiedBusinessElementInstance class is inappropriate

  • Key: MDMI_-160
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14160
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: SemantX, Inc. ( Mark Eisner)
  • Summary:

    The UnqualifiedBusinessElementInstance class contains a place where a value in the central dictionary could be placed. However, the MDMI specification is a Platform Independent Model (PIM) and this class really relates to a platform dependent runtime characteristic so it should not be included in the specification.

  • Reported: MDMI 1.0b1 — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MDMI 1.0b2
  • Disposition Summary:

    The UnqualifiedBusinessElementInstance class will be removed from the specification

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 04:58 GMT

MDMI DataTypes

  • Key: MDMI_-154
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14152
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: SemantX, Inc. ( Mark Eisner)
  • Summary:

    While a definition of datatypes is not in the specification directly, the structure of a datatype must be known to a runtime implementation so that it can execute the proper transformation. This is especially true since MessageElements can have very complex datatypes. Therefore, the specification has at least to have an explicit reference to a declarative structure that describes the MessageElement's datatype.

  • Reported: MDMI 1.0b1 — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MDMI 1.0b2
  • Disposition Summary:

    While the specification does not deal with datatypes directly, some restrictions on complex datatype definition are necessary for syntactic modeling. In addition, there has to be some restrictions on complex datatypes to ensure that a runtime engine will do proper transformation utilizing the maps that are linked through a business element in the central dictionary. These restrictions include: 1) that the simple datatypes be from a known standard, such as the XML simple datatypes or the Java simple datatypes; 2) that every element in a complex has a named field for the simple datatypes it contains. Therefore, the datatype for the attribute "datatype" will be changed to a datatype of "MDMIDatatype".

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 04:58 GMT

Business Element rules

  • Key: MDMI_-158
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14158
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: SemantX, Inc. ( Mark Eisner)
  • Summary:

    Given that the MDMI standard does not provide a specification for a the hub dictionary and in effect allows mapping to any appropriate dictionary, such as the ISO 20022 Data Dictionary, then some business rules may have to be specified to make sure that the mapping is correct.

  • Reported: MDMI 1.0b1 — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MDMI 1.0b2
  • Disposition Summary:

    An MDMIBusinessElementRule class will be added that has a many-to-one association with the MDMIBusinessElementReference class

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 04:58 GMT

Properly handling MessageElementRelationships

  • Key: MDMI_-157
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14157
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: SemantX, Inc. ( Mark Eisner)
  • Summary:

    The current MessageElementRelationship class does not seem to handle message relationships properly, especially given the potential for a MessageElement to have multiple instances, i.e., how does one distinguish between relationships to an instance and relationships to a class.

  • Reported: MDMI 1.0b1 — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MDMI 1.0b2
  • Disposition Summary:

    To handle correctly SemanticElementRelationships, two changes will be introduced.
    1. In the SemanticElement class, an association will be added to declare explicitly a parent/child relationship, as defined in a message format.
    2. Second, in the SemanticElementRelationship class the Boolean attributes sourceIsInstance and targetIsInstance will be added. If the source SemanticElement has multiple instances then:
    · when the sourceIsInstance is true, the defined relationship is for each Instance of the source SemanticElement
    · when the sourceIsInstance is false, the defined relationship is for the SemanticElement class as a whole
    · when the targetIsInstance is true, the defined relationship is for each Instance of the target SemanticElement
    · when the targetIsInstance is false, the defined relationship is for the SemanticElement class as a whole
    There are also two additional attributes that are there to help a runtime parse a message. These are minOccurs, which says how many instances of the target at a minimum must be involved in the relationship; and maxOccurs\, which says how many instances at most can be involved in the relationship.

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 04:58 GMT

Changing the "position" attribute

  • Key: MDMI_-156
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14156
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: SemantX, Inc. ( Mark Eisner)
  • Summary:

    The attribute "position" was meant to describe the cardinal position of a repeated MessageElement class (i.e., the "multipleInstance" attribute has a value of "True"). Obtaining such a value may be difficult. It would be better if the attribute simply described a more general ordering description in which a cardinal position could be an option.

  • Reported: MDMI 1.0b1 — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MDMI 1.0b2
  • Disposition Summary:

    The attributes "position" and "positionLanguage" will be changed to "ordering" and "orderingLanguage" respectively. The description of the "ordering" attribute will be that it specifies the method of ordering for SemanticElements that have multiple instances.

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 04:58 GMT

Property qualifiers for MessageElements

  • Key: MDMI_-155
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14155
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: SemantX, Inc. ( Mark Eisner)
  • Summary:

    It would be useful an attribute of the MessageElement contained information that explicitly identified the MessageElement with the message format in which it resides.

  • Reported: MDMI 1.0b1 — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MDMI 1.0b2
  • Disposition Summary:

    An attribute "propertyQualifier will be added that will allow modifiers to be enumerated for the SemanticElement, such as a tag associated with the value in the original message format.

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 04:58 GMT

Complex transformation to the central dictionary

  • Key: MDMI_-153
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14151
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: SemantX, Inc. ( Mark Eisner)
  • Summary:

    The current specification can require very complex incoming and outgoing conversions between a MessageElement and a dictionary's Business Element. The ConversionRule rule language will have to be complex and non-standard. In addition, important information for an implementation would be buried in those rules as opposed to that information being declarative and accessible.

  • Reported: MDMI 1.0b1 — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MDMI 1.0b2
  • Disposition Summary:

    MDMI will provide a clearer map if the association between a SemanticElement and a central dictionary's BusinessElements is isomorphic or represents well defined "near synonyms". This requires that transformations that are more complex are needed to prepare for that isomorphism be more explicitly included in the map. Towards that end, the new attribute "elementType" will be added to the SemanticElement class.
    This attribute is defined by an enumeration that currently has three values each of which defines the type of Semantic Element.
    · NORMAL - a "NORMAL" semantic element is equivalent to the current definition of a SemanticElement, i.e., a semantic element, contained in a message format, which is to be mapped to a central dictionary.
    · LOCAL - a "LOCAL semantic element contains some technical information need that is needed to correctly map NORMAL semantic element, e.g., it may contain an index that is used to provide the ordering for a semantic element that has multiple instances.
    · COMPUTED - a "COMPUTED" semantic element that is to be mapped to the central dictionary but contains a value that is not extracted from a message Instead, a "COMPUTED" semantic element's value is computed from the value of other SemanticElements in the message.
    Three additional attributes are added to provide rules for computed values:
    1. computedValue - An MDMIExpression that computes the value of the SemanticElement, which can refer to the value of other SemanticElements This attribute is most often used for SemanticElements of the type LOCAL.
    2. computedInValue - an MDMIExpression that computes a value for a SemanticElement, when it is a target, based on the values of one or more BusinessElements and SemanticElements. The value when it is a source is directly mapped.
    3. computedOutValue – an MDMIExpression that computes a value for a SemanticElement, when it is a source, based on the values of one or more SemanticElements. The value when it is a target is directly mapped.

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 04:58 GMT

Explicit hierarchy for MessageComposites

  • Key: MDMI_-152
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14150
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: SemantX, Inc. ( Mark Eisner)
  • Summary:

    Message Composites form a tree structure. The MDMI specification would make that structure clearer to discern if the parent of a MessageComposite was included as an attribute.

  • Reported: MDMI 1.0b1 — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MDMI 1.0b2
  • Disposition Summary:

    An "owner" association will be added to the MessageComposite class.

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 04:58 GMT

Separating Choice and Set

  • Key: MDMI_-151
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14149
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: SemantX, Inc. ( Mark Eisner)
  • Summary:

    Having a Choice class inherit from a Set class seems unnecessarily complex. In addition, a Choice class should involve at least two Nodes whereas a Set could degenerate into having just one Node.

  • Reported: MDMI 1.0b1 — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MDMI 1.0b2
  • Disposition Summary:

    The Choice and Set class separately inherit from the Node class.

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 04:58 GMT

One Node in a Bag

  • Key: MDMI_-150
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14148
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: SemantX, Inc. ( Mark Eisner)
  • Summary:

    There need to be an allowance for the degenerate case where as Bag may only have one Node. In addition, the default value for the attribute "isUnique" should be True, as a Bag will most commonly be a set, i.e., contain no duplicates.

  • Reported: MDMI 1.0b1 — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MDMI 1.0b2
  • Disposition Summary:

    The multiplicity for the association will be changed from 2...* to 1...* and the default for the isUnique attribute will be changed to "True"

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 04:58 GMT

Handling purely syntactic fields

  • Key: MDMI_-148
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14146
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: SemantX, Inc. ( Mark Eisner)
  • Summary:

    The current specification does not adequately deal with Semantic Elements that are represented by a multi-field, complex datatype. While the current specification, in theory, could be used to provide a complete MessageSyntaxModel, the location and format languages would have to be unduly complex and non-standard. The MDMI specification should be enriched so that the components of a complex datatype, which are, by definition, purely syntactic, can be mapped.

  • Reported: MDMI 1.0b1 — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MDMI 1.0b2
  • Disposition Summary:

    A modeled MDMI complex datatype is composed of classes, where the classes themselves can be complex datatypes or a class with a single valued simple datatype. Ultimately, all complex datatypes resolve to a set of simple datatypes that correspond to fields (or subfields) in a message format. Therefore, to accommodate Semantic Elements that are complex datatypes, a "fieldname" attribute will be added to the Node abstract class, which holds the name of the simple datatype class. For computational efficiency, a derived Boolean attribute is also added that says this node contains a syntactic element that is part of a complex datatype.

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 04:58 GMT

Handling a multiplicity greater than one for a Node class

  • Key: MDMI_-147
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14145
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: SemantX, Inc. ( Mark Eisner)
  • Summary:

    The Node class is the core abstract class of a Message Syntax Model. The current specification only allows a multiplicity of one for these classes. Given the fact that syntactic groups, especially complex datatypes can be repeated, mapping will be simplified if the Node class is redefined to take care of a multiplicity greater then one.

  • Reported: MDMI 1.0b1 — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MDMI 1.0b2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Two attributes are added to the abstract class Node, minOccurs and maxOccurs. If MinOccurs is zero, it indicates that this node is optional. If maxOccurs is greater than one, it indicates that the message format allows up to maxOccurs instances of this Node. The attribute "isOptional" is deleted, as it is now redundant.

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 04:58 GMT

The MessageInstance class is misplaced

  • Key: MDMI_-146
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14144
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: SemantX, Inc. ( Mark Eisner)
  • Summary:

    The MessageInstance class is contains a URI to a physical address of an actual instance of a message for which maps are to be applied. However, the MDMI specification is a Platform Independent Model (PIM) and this class really relates to a platform dependent runtime characteristic so it should not be included in the specification.

  • Reported: MDMI 1.0b1 — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MDMI 1.0b2
  • Disposition Summary:

    The MessageInstance class is removed from the specification.

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 04:58 GMT

The MessagePackage class is misplaced

  • Key: MDMI_-145
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14142
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: SemantX, Inc. ( Mark Eisner)
  • Summary:

    The MessagePackage class is an aggregation of messages that are physically stored in a single Package. These packages may be different then the MessageGroup. However, the MDMI specification is a Platform Independent Model (PIM) and this class really relates to a platform dependent characteristic so it should not be included in the specification.

  • Reported: MDMI 1.0b1 — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MDMI 1.0b2
  • Disposition Summary:

    The MessagePackage class will be removed from the specification.

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 04:58 GMT

Proper Class name is Bag

  • Key: MDMI_-149
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14147
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: SemantX, Inc. ( Mark Eisner)
  • Summary:

    The name of the Set class is formally incorrect. It contains an attribute that implies that the elements in the "set" may not be unique. Elements in a set must be unique. The proper term would be Bag.

  • Reported: MDMI 1.0b1 — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MDMI 1.0b2
  • Disposition Summary:

    The class name "Set" will be changed to "Bag". In addition, the default value for the attribute "isUnique" will be True, as a Bag most commonly will be a set, i.e., contain no duplicates.

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 04:58 GMT

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

  • Key: MDMI_-141
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14138
  • Status: closed  
  • 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
  • Disposition: Resolved — MDMI 1.0b2
  • Disposition Summary:

    A global change in the MDMI metamodel and the specification document of the term MessageElement to SemanticElement has been made and the phrase or sub-phrase "Message Element" to "Semantic Element" has been made.

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 04:58 GMT

Description attributes in each class

  • Key: MDMI_-140
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14137
  • Status: closed  
  • 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
  • Disposition: Resolved — MDMI 1.0b2
  • Disposition Summary:

    For class definitions that did not have a "description" attribute, a "description" attribute was added. These include the following classes: MessageGroup, MessageSyntaxModel, MessageElementSet, Keyword, SimpleMessageComposite, MessageComosite, ConversionRule, MessageElementRelationship, SemanticElementIBusinessRule, and MDMIBusinessElementRule,

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 04:58 GMT

Explicit datatypes in datatype rule

  • Key: MDMI_-144
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14141
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: SemantX, Inc. ( Mark Eisner)
  • Summary:

    The DataRule rules are dealing with datatypes. It will be difficult to find a rule language and complex to write rules unless the structures of the datatypes (especially complex datatypes) in the rule are explicit and discoverable.

  • Reported: MDMI 1.0b1 — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MDMI 1.0b2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Even though datatypes are not part of the standard, there are restrictions required for the form of datatypes, especially complex datatypes. Section 8.4 of the document will be revised to take into account these requirements. The specific change to the model will be to include a "datatype" attribute in the "DataRule" class with a multiplicity of [1...*] to provide explicit references to the datatypes used in the rule expression. This is necessary so that DataRules expressions can be properly parsed.
    While the class specification for DataRule does not change much, a large amount of explanatory text is included in the Beta 2 document to properly resolve this issue. First, there is the addition of a URI "reference" property in the MDMIDatatype class. In addition, associations are removed from the MDMIDatatype class and the MDMIDatatype class is simply used to define the type of any "datatype" property in the model. This was necessary in order to define the type for DataRule's new property, "datatype".
    Then a section is added that presents an example of a metamodel for a "complex datatype" so the need for the explicit "datatype" property is clearer, as it exposes the type of structure that a DataRule language would have to access.

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 04:58 GMT

Default language settings

  • Key: MDMI_-143
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14140
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: SemantX, Inc. ( Mark Eisner)
  • Summary:

    MDMI currently forces the user to enter a language reference every time one writes any one of the four types of expressions. The modeler should able to enter a set of default types that would hold unless overwritten by a local attribute value.

  • Reported: MDMI 1.0b1 — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MDMI 1.0b2
  • Disposition Summary:

    The MessageGroup class will add six attributes that define a default language that will hold for all for all classes in the message model unless locally over-ridden. MDMI does not choose any expression language, allowing the user to specify them. However, there required constraints for each of these languages. These constraints are outlined in the property description of each default language type.

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 04:58 GMT

Source reference for MessageModel

  • Key: MDMI_-142
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14139
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: SemantX, Inc. ( Mark Eisner)
  • Summary:

    There should be an optional reference to the definition of the message format whose elements are being mapped. This reference might be to a formal model such as the location of the message definition in the ISO 20022 repository or it might be a paper document

  • Reported: MDMI 1.0b1 — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MDMI 1.0b2
  • Disposition Summary:

    see dtc/2009-09-17 for details

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 04:58 GMT

page 21 section 8.6.3

  • Key: MDMI_-139
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12748
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: SWIFT ( Frank Vandamme)
  • Summary:

    Description of the associations is missing

  • Reported: MDMI 1.0b1 — Tue, 8 Jul 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Duplicate or Merged — MDMI 1.0b2
  • Disposition Summary:

    See issue 12720 for disposition

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 04:58 GMT

page 20 section 8.5.4

  • Key: MDMI_-138
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12747
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: SWIFT ( Frank Vandamme)
  • Summary:

    More explanation is required about how the qualifiers need to be used.

  • Reported: MDMI 1.0b1 — Tue, 8 Jul 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Duplicate or Merged — MDMI 1.0b2
  • Disposition Summary:

    See issue 12737 for disposition

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 04:58 GMT

page 19 section 8.5.3 para 1

  • Key: MDMI_-137
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12746
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: SWIFT ( Frank Vandamme)
  • Summary:

    Current text
    The UnqualifiedBusinessElement is defined in the framing document for ISO 20022. The CM4PM standard will link to any ISO2022 compliant data dictionary. UnqualifiedBusinessElements must conform to their definition in that standard.

    Rationale
    The specification cannot refer to something that does not exist (namely v2 of ISO 20022): the current ISO 20022 does not contain unqualified business elements yet.

  • Reported: MDMI 1.0b1 — Tue, 8 Jul 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Duplicate or Merged — MDMI 1.0b2
  • Disposition Summary:

    See issue 12716 for disposition

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 04:58 GMT

page 19 section 8.5.2 fig 8.5

  • Key: MDMI_-136
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12745
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: SWIFT ( Frank Vandamme)
  • Summary:

    According to the model a message element could convert to multiple unqualified business elements. This means that the same thing in a message can mean different things. Is this supposed to be possible?

  • Reported: MDMI 1.0b1 — Tue, 8 Jul 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Closed; No Change — MDMI 1.0b2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Discussion:
    The conversion of a SemanticElement to an MDMIBusinessElementReference is strictly defined. These conversions are simple arithmetic or character expressions.
    Disposition: Closed, no change

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 04:58 GMT

page 18 section 8.5.1 para 1 line 2

  • Key: MDMI_-135
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12744
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: SWIFT ( Frank Vandamme)
  • Summary:

    Current text
    an ISO 20022v2-compatible industry repository, for example UNIFI v2.

    Rationale
    The specification cannot refer to something that does not exist (namely v2 of ISO 20022).

  • Reported: MDMI 1.0b1 — Tue, 8 Jul 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Duplicate or Merged — MDMI 1.0b2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Disposition: See issue 12716 for disposition

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 04:58 GMT

page 17 section 8.4.1 para 1 line 6

  • Key: MDMI_-134
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12743
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: SWIFT ( Frank Vandamme)
  • Summary:

    Current text
    DataRules are used on extraction for validation, to make sure that the value in a message instance is correct.

    Rationale
    Does that mean that the message that is received is not pre-supposed to be correct?

  • Reported: MDMI 1.0b1 — Tue, 8 Jul 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MDMI 1.0b2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Changed text.

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 04:58 GMT

page 16 section 8.3.4 para 1, 7th bullet

  • Key: MDMI_-131
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12740
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: SWIFT ( Frank Vandamme)
  • Summary:

    Current text
    MessageModelName

    Rationale
    Why is this property needed as the MessageElement is part of the MessageElementSet which is contained in the MessageModel?

  • Reported: MDMI 1.0b1 — Tue, 8 Jul 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MDMI 1.0b2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Resolution:
    Agree that this property was not needed and so the bullet was deleted.
    Revised Text:
    None.
    Disposition: Resolved

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 04:57 GMT

page 16 section 8.3.4 para 1, 3rd bullet

  • Key: MDMI_-130
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12739
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: SWIFT ( Frank Vandamme)
  • Summary:

    Current text
    optional "description"

    Rationale
    Why is the description optional? Isn't that the basis that will make it possible to link the MessageElement to the correct BusinessElement?

  • Reported: MDMI 1.0b1 — Tue, 8 Jul 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MDMI 1.0b2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Discussion:
    Description are purely informational.
    Disposition: Closed, no change

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 04:57 GMT

page 15 section 8.3.3 para 1, 2nd bullet

  • Key: MDMI_-129
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12738
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: SWIFT ( Frank Vandamme)
  • Summary:

    Current text
    MessageModelName
    New text

    Rationale
    Why is this property needed as the MessageElementSet is anyway contained in the MessageModel?

  • Reported: MDMI 1.0b1 — Tue, 8 Jul 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MDMI 1.0b2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Resolution:
    Changed text.
    Revised Text: (section 8.3.3 bullet 3.)
    3. A "MessageModelName" property, whose value is constrained to be the same as the name property in the MessageModel that contains the SemanticElementSet. This derived property is included for implementation convenience.
    .
    Disposition: Resolved

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 04:57 GMT

page 17 section 8.4.1 para 1

  • Key: MDMI_-133
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12742
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: SWIFT ( Frank Vandamme)
  • Summary:

    Current text
    A set of the rules will apply to each MessageElement, that set is defined by the in the class
    New text

    Rationale
    Missing words

  • Reported: MDMI 1.0b1 — Tue, 8 Jul 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Duplicate or Merged — MDMI 1.0b2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Disposition: See issue 12737 for disposition

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 04:57 GMT

page 16 section 8.3.6 and 8.3.7

  • Key: MDMI_-132
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12741
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: SWIFT ( Frank Vandamme)
  • Summary:

    What is the value and relevance of these sections?

  • Reported: MDMI 1.0b1 — Tue, 8 Jul 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MDMI 1.0b2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Changed text by adding description

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 04:57 GMT

page 14 section 8.3.1 para 1 line 3

  • Key: MDMI_-125
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12733
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: SWIFT ( Frank Vandamme)
  • Summary:

    Current text
    because all the semantic units
    New text
    because all the semantic elements
    Rationale
    consistency in terminology

  • Reported: MDMI 1.0b1 — Tue, 8 Jul 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MDMI 1.0b2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Resolution:
    Changed text
    Revised Text: (
    Please see the annotated Beta 2 with markup.
    Disposition: Resolved

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 04:57 GMT

page 15 section 8.3.2 figure 8.3

  • Key: MDMI_-128
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12737
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Association between MessageComposite and MessageElement is missing

  • Reported: MDMI 1.0b1 — Tue, 8 Jul 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MDMI 1.0b2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Resolution:
    Fixed in diagram.
    Revised Text:
    Please see the annotated Beta 2 with markup.
    Disposition: Resolved

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 04:57 GMT

page 14 section 8.3.1 para 8

  • Key: MDMI_-127
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12736
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: SWIFT ( Frank Vandamme)
  • Summary:

    The used example is not very clear: shouldn't these multiple instances be treated as different semantic elements? If there is no semantic difference how can you ever know where to put/get which information?

  • Reported: MDMI 1.0b1 — Tue, 8 Jul 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Closed; No Change — MDMI 1.0b2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Discussion:
    They are a vector of the same SemanticElement. The order attribute instructs on accessing elements in the vector.
    Disposition: Closed, no change

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 04:57 GMT

page 14 section 8.3.1 para 6

  • Key: MDMI_-126
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12734
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: SWIFT ( Frank Vandamme)
  • Summary:

    Why would the parts of the address be considered as separate semantic elements? Can't we consider address as a data type?

  • Reported: MDMI 1.0b1 — Tue, 8 Jul 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MDMI 1.0b2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Resolution:
    Changed text, deleted the example, as it was incorrect.
    Revised Text:
    Please see the annotated Beta 2 with markup.
    Disposition: Resolved

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 04:57 GMT

page 13 section 8.2.7 title

  • Key: MDMI_-124
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12732
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: SWIFT ( Frank Vandamme)
  • Summary:

    Current text
    LeafSyntaxTranslator
    New text
    SEE QUESTIONS & COMMENTS IN NEXT COLUMN
    Rationale
    Why is this called a "LeafSyntaxTranslator" and not simply "Leaf"?

  • Reported: MDMI 1.0b1 — Tue, 8 Jul 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Closed; No Change — MDMI 1.0b2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Discussion:
    Author's prerogative
    Disposition: Closed, no change

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 04:57 GMT

page 13 section 8.2.5 para 1 3rd bullet

  • Key: MDMI_-123
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12731
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: SWIFT ( Frank Vandamme)
  • Summary:

    How do you describe the actual order of the nodes? Is this done with the location? If so, why do you need the isOrdered property?

  • Reported: MDMI 1.0b1 — Tue, 8 Jul 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MDMI 1.0b2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Changed text

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 04:57 GMT

page 13 section 8.2.5 para 1 2nd bullet

  • Key: MDMI_-122
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12730
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: SWIFT ( Frank Vandamme)
  • Summary:

    The meaning of the isUnique property is not clear.

  • Reported: MDMI 1.0b1 — Tue, 8 Jul 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Closed; No Change — MDMI 1.0b2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Discussion:
    It means the elements in the Bag
    Disposition: Closed, no change

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 04:57 GMT

page 12 section 8.2.2 fig 8.2

  • Key: MDMI_-121
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12729
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: SWIFT ( Frank Vandamme)
  • Summary:

    Is there no need to indicate whether a Node is repetitive (a Leaf can be repetitive and this cannot be indicated through a Set as you need at least 2 Nodes for a Set)

  • Reported: MDMI 1.0b1 — Tue, 8 Jul 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Duplicate or Merged — MDMI 1.0b2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Disposition: See issue 14148 for disposition

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 04:57 GMT

page 11 section 8.2.1 para 1 line 3

  • Key: MDMI_-120
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12728
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: SWIFT ( Frank Vandamme)
  • Summary:

    Current text
    semantic unit
    New text
    semantic element
    Rationale
    consistency in terminology

  • Reported: MDMI 1.0b1 — Tue, 8 Jul 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MDMI 1.0b2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Resolution:
    Changed text.
    Revised Text:
    Please see the annotated Beta 2 with markup.
    Disposition: Resolved

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 04:57 GMT

page 11 section 8.1.4 general comment

  • Key: MDMI_-117
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12725
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: SWIFT ( Frank Vandamme)
  • Summary:

    Value and relevance?

  • Reported: MDMI 1.0b1 — Tue, 8 Jul 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MDMI 1.0b2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Changed text, explanation of value will be added.

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 04:57 GMT

page 11 section 8.2.1 para 1 line 1

  • Key: MDMI_-119
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12727
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: SWIFT ( Frank Vandamme)
  • Summary:

    Current text
    The MessageSyntaxModel and related classes provides
    New text
    The MessageSyntaxModel and related classes provide
    Rationale
    grammatical error

  • Reported: MDMI 1.0b1 — Tue, 8 Jul 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MDMI 1.0b2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Resolution:
    Changed text.
    Revised Text:
    Please see the annotated Beta 2 with markup.
    Disposition: Resolved

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 04:57 GMT

page 11 section 8.1.5 general comment

  • Key: MDMI_-118
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12726
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: SWIFT ( Frank Vandamme)
  • Summary:

    Value and relevance?

  • Reported: MDMI 1.0b1 — Tue, 8 Jul 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MDMI 1.0b2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Resolution:
    Changed text, MessagePackage has been removed from the specification.
    Revised Text:
    Please see the annotated Beta 2 with markup.
    Disposition: Resolved

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 04:57 GMT

page 10 section 8.1.3 2nd bullet

  • Key: MDMI_-116
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12724
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: SWIFT ( Frank Vandamme)
  • Summary:

    Current text
    Together the MessageModel’s composed MessageSyntaxModel and the MessageElementSet uniquely define a message format.

    Rationale
    What's the difference between a Message Model and a message format? If none, we should not use both.

  • Reported: MDMI 1.0b1 — Tue, 8 Jul 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MDMI 1.0b2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Resolution:
    Changed text. Sentence deleted.
    Revised Text:
    Please see the annotated Beta 2 with markup.
    Disposition: Resolved

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 04:57 GMT

page 9 section 8 general comment # 2

  • Key: MDMI_-113
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12721
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: SWIFT ( Frank Vandamme)
  • Summary:

    Why do some views have a name (e.g. CM4PMS_MES in fig 8.3) and others not (e.g. fig 8.1 and 8.2)?

  • Reported: MDMI 1.0b1 — Tue, 8 Jul 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MDMI 1.0b2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Changed all figures to be consistent with Beta 2 specification. Inconsistencies removed.

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 04:57 GMT

page 10 section 8.1.3 1st bullet

  • Key: MDMI_-115
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12723
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: SWIFT ( Frank Vandamme)
  • Summary:

    Current text
    The messageModelName property is a string that is usually similar to the name of the message format it is modeling.
    New text
    SEE QUESTIONS & COMMENTS IN NEXT COLUMN
    Rationale
    How does this work with messages that are multi-functional and where you may need to have a separate model for each function it supports? (e.g. because the meaning of the fields is different for each function).

  • Reported: MDMI 1.0b1 — Tue, 8 Jul 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MDMI 1.0b2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Discussion:
    You have only one MessageModel per message format. Different purposes are handled because SemanticElements can only have one semantic meaning. Thus, one field in a message format can have numerous associated SemanticElements
    Disposition: Closed, no change

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 04:57 GMT

page 9 section 8.1.1 examples

  • Key: MDMI_-114
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12722
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: SWIFT ( Frank Vandamme)
  • Summary:

    Are these examples of Message Groups or Message Aggregates?

  • Reported: MDMI 1.0b1 — Tue, 8 Jul 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Closed; No Change — MDMI 1.0b2
  • Disposition Summary:

    MessageGroups

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 04:57 GMT

page 9 section 8 general comment

  • Key: MDMI_-112
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12720
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: SWIFT ( Frank Vandamme)
  • Summary:

    What is missing in this chapter is a systematic explanation of what the different classes, attributes, associations…. Are needed for. In other words: what is their role with respect to the CM4PM standard; why are they necessary; what kind of information will they contain; how will that information be used; ...

  • Reported: MDMI 1.0b1 — Tue, 8 Jul 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MDMI 1.0b2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Changed text to add a description of all classes, in many cases a better description of the attributes and a description of the "associations" associated with a class.

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 04:57 GMT

page 7 section 7.1.5 para 1 line 3

  • Key: MDMI_-111
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12719
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: SWIFT ( Frank Vandamme)
  • Summary:

    Current text
    A MessageGroup follow the natural grouping
    New text
    A MessageGroup follows the natural grouping
    Rationale
    grammatical error

  • Reported: MDMI 1.0b1 — Tue, 8 Jul 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MDMI 1.0b2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Resolution:
    Changed text
    Revised Text:
    Please see the annotated Beta 2 with markup.
    Disposition: Resolved

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 04:57 GMT

page 7 section 7.1.5 para 1 line 1

  • Key: MDMI_-110
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12718
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: SWIFT ( Frank Vandamme)
  • Summary:

    Current text
    comprise a MessageModel, which is complete
    New text
    comprise a MessageModel, which is a complete
    Rationale
    grammatical error

  • Reported: MDMI 1.0b1 — Tue, 8 Jul 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MDMI 1.0b2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Resolution:
    Changed text
    Revised Text:
    Please see the annotated Beta 2 with markup.
    Disposition: Resolved

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 04:57 GMT

page 7 section 7.1.5 general comment

  • Key: MDMI_-109
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12717
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: SWIFT ( Frank Vandamme)
  • Summary:

    What is the value or relevance of having "Message Aggregates (this is not clear at this stage and does not become more clear after having read the full specification).

  • Reported: MDMI 1.0b1 — Tue, 8 Jul 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MDMI 1.0b2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Resolution:
    Changed text, deleted section 7.1.5
    Revised Text:
    Please see the annotated Beta 2 with markup.
    Disposition: Resolved

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 04:57 GMT

page 7 section 7.1.2 para 1 line 6

  • Key: MDMI_-108
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12716
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: SWIFT ( Frank Vandamme)
  • Summary:

    Current text
    in ISO 20022v2 compliant data dictionaries
    New text
    SEE QUESTIONS & COMMENTS IN NEXT COLUMN
    Rationale
    ISO 20022 v2 does not exist (and there is no guarantee that it will)

  • Reported: MDMI 1.0b1 — Tue, 8 Jul 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MDMI 1.0b2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Resolution:
    Changed text
    Revised Text:
    Please see the annotated Beta 2 with markup.
    Disposition: Resolved

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 04:57 GMT

page 14 section 6.5.3 para 1 line 4

  • Key: MDMI_-104
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12712
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: SWIFT ( Frank Vandamme)
  • Summary:

    Current text
    auxiliary storage for lost information can created with
    New text
    auxiliary storage for lost information can be created with
    Rationale
    grammatical error

  • Reported: MDMI 1.0b1 — Tue, 8 Jul 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MDMI 1.0b2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Resolution:
    Changed text
    Revised Text:
    Please see the annotated Beta 2 with markup.
    Disposition: Resolved

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 04:57 GMT

page 14 section 6.5.2 para 1 line 6

  • Key: MDMI_-103
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12711
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: SWIFT ( Frank Vandamme)
  • Summary:

    Current text
    A federated set of dictionaries will be more effective to maintain.
    New text
    A federated set of dictionaries might be more effective to maintain.
    Rationale
    This needs some further evaluation (as there are maybe other problems that arise with a federated dictionary).

  • Reported: MDMI 1.0b1 — Tue, 8 Jul 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MDMI 1.0b2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Resolution:
    Changed text
    Revised Text:
    Please see the annotated Beta 2 with markup.
    Disposition: Resolved

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 04:57 GMT

page 5 section 7 - general comment

  • Key: MDMI_-106
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12714
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: SWIFT ( Frank Vandamme)
  • Summary:

    This chapter contains again a lot of repetition with parts from section 6. Wouldn't it be better to combine chapters 6 and 7 and make sure that all relevant information is mentioned exactly once and at the right level of detail.

  • Reported: MDMI 1.0b1 — Tue, 8 Jul 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MDMI 1.0b2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Changed text in section 7.1.2 to reflect the use of uniqueIdentifiers to perform mapping at runtime. Deleted old section 7.1.3 as it is not consistent with the uniqueIdentifier approach. Also deleted the redundant section 7.1.4 section on bilateral mapping and added some of that content to section 6.2.4 (old section 6.3.3)

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 04:57 GMT

page 5 section 7 para 1 line 4

  • Key: MDMI_-107
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12715
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: SWIFT ( Frank Vandamme)
  • Summary:

    Current text
    The standard can be used to convert data within a Message Group or across Message Groups.

    Rationale
    What is the value or relevance of having "Message Groups" (this is not clear at this stage and does not become more clear after having read the full specification).

  • Reported: MDMI 1.0b1 — Tue, 8 Jul 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Closed; No Change — MDMI 1.0b2
  • Disposition Summary:

    MessageGroups have default expression languages and a set of DataRules that are associated with all the MessageModels in the group.Disposition: Closed, no change

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 04:57 GMT

page 5 section 7 - title

  • Key: MDMI_-105
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12713
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: SWIFT ( Frank Vandamme)
  • Summary:

    The link between the title and the content of this section is not clear.

  • Reported: MDMI 1.0b1 — Tue, 8 Jul 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MDMI 1.0b2
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 04:57 GMT

page 14 section 6.5.1 para 1

  • Key: MDMI_-101
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12709
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: SWIFT ( Frank Vandamme)
  • Summary:

    Current text
    is the semantic mapping is that it is carried out
    New text
    is the semantic mapping that is carried out
    Rationale
    grammatical error

  • Reported: MDMI 1.0b1 — Tue, 8 Jul 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MDMI 1.0b2
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 04:57 GMT

page 14 section 6.5.1 general comment

  • Key: MDMI_-100
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12708
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: SWIFT ( Frank Vandamme)
  • Summary:

    The concept of semantic proximity and how the conversion rules can help to deal with this needs to be explained in a more concrete way in order to be understood (examples may help).
    The first part of the paragraph (until "The same mechanism …" doesn't seem necessary / useful.

  • Reported: MDMI 1.0b1 — Tue, 8 Jul 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MDMI 1.0b2
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 04:57 GMT

page 14 section 6.5.2 para 1

  • Key: MDMI_-102
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12710
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: SWIFT ( Frank Vandamme)
  • Summary:

    Current text
    for specific subsection of the financial services industry
    New text
    for specific subsections of the financial services industry
    Rationale
    grammatical error

  • Reported: MDMI 1.0b1 — Tue, 8 Jul 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MDMI 1.0b2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Resolution:
    Changed text
    Revised Text:
    Please see the annotated Beta 2 with markup.
    Disposition: Resolved

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 04:57 GMT

page 14 section 6.5.1 title

  • Key: MDMI_-99
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12707
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: SWIFT ( Frank Vandamme)
  • Summary:

    Current text
    Use of Semantic Mapping for Structuring
    New text
    Dealing with (near) synonyms
    Rationale
    Current title does not describe well the content of this section.

  • Reported: MDMI 1.0b1 — Tue, 8 Jul 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MDMI 1.0b2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Resolution:
    Changed text
    Revised Text:
    Please see the annotated Beta 2 with markup.
    Disposition: Resolved

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 04:57 GMT

page 14 section 6.5 title

  • Key: MDMI_-98
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12706
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: SWIFT ( Frank Vandamme)
  • Summary:

    Current text
    Future of the Conversion Models for Payment Message Standard
    New text
    Future benefits of the standard
    Rationale
    use of name may lead to confusion (as it's not about payments)

  • Reported: MDMI 1.0b1 — Tue, 8 Jul 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MDMI 1.0b2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Resolution:
    Changed text
    Revised Text:
    Please see the annotated Beta 2 with markup.
    Disposition: Resolved

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 04:57 GMT

page 13 section 6.4 para 2

  • Key: MDMI_-97
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12705
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: SWIFT ( Frank Vandamme)
  • Summary:

    Current text
    The Conversion Models for Payment Message standards is a declarative standard
    New text
    The standard is a declarative standard
    Rationale
    use of name may lead to confusion (as it's not about payments)

  • Reported: MDMI 1.0b1 — Tue, 8 Jul 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MDMI 1.0b2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Resolution:
    Changed text
    Revised Text:
    Please see the annotated Beta 2 with markup.
    Disposition: Resolved

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 04:57 GMT

typos

  • Key: MDMI_-96
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12704
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: SWIFT ( Frank Vandamme)
  • Summary:

    page 13 section 6.4 para 1 line 5 change "additional meta on-data" to "additional meta-data
    page 23 section 8.8.3 para 1 line 1 change "The MessageElement has two properties" to The MessageInstance has two properties

  • Reported: MDMI 1.0b1 — Tue, 8 Jul 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MDMI 1.0b2
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 04:57 GMT

page 13 section 6.4 para 1

  • Key: MDMI_-94
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12702
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: SWIFT ( Frank Vandamme)
  • Summary:

    Current text
    the artifacts defined for the Conversion Models for Payment Message standards
    New text
    the artifacts defined for this standard
    Rationale
    use of name may lead to confusion (as it's not about payments)

  • Reported: MDMI 1.0b1 — Tue, 8 Jul 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MDMI 1.0b2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Resolution:
    Changed text
    Revised Text:
    Please see the annotated Beta 2 with markup.
    Disposition: Resolved

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 04:57 GMT

page 13 section 6.4 general comment

  • Key: MDMI_-93
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12701
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: SWIFT ( Frank Vandamme)
  • Summary:

    Section 6.4 is to a large extent a repetition of the introductory part of section 6 (e.g. the description of the two stages). I propose to rationalise this by either removing it from the introduction or by combining the introduction and section 6.4.

  • Reported: MDMI 1.0b1 — Tue, 8 Jul 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Closed; No Change — MDMI 1.0b2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Discussion:
    There is more detail in section 6.4
    Disposition: Closed, no change

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 04:57 GMT

page 13 section 6.4 title

  • Key: MDMI_-92
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12700
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: SWIFT ( Frank Vandamme)
  • Summary:

    Current text
    Basic approach of the Conversion Models for Payment Message Standards
    New text
    Basic approach for the use of this standard
    Rationale
    use of name may lead to confusion (as it's not about payments)

  • Reported: MDMI 1.0b1 — Tue, 8 Jul 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MDMI 1.0b2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Resolution:
    Changed text
    Revised Text:
    Please see the annotated Beta 2 with markup.
    Disposition: Resolved

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 04:57 GMT

page 13 section 6.3.3 title

  • Key: MDMI_-91
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12699
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: SWIFT ( Frank Vandamme)
  • Summary:

    The document uses the terms "direct mapping" and "bilateral mapping". Only a single term should be kept.

  • Reported: MDMI 1.0b1 — Tue, 8 Jul 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MDMI 1.0b2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Resolution:
    Changed text
    Revised Text: The term direct mapping has been replaced with bilateral mapping.

    Disposition: Resolved

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 04:57 GMT

page 13 section 6.4 para 1 line 2

  • Key: MDMI_-95
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12703
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: SWIFT ( Frank Vandamme)
  • Summary:

    Current text
    conversions as a mapping data
    New text
    conversions as mapping data
    Rationale
    grammatical error

  • Reported: MDMI 1.0b1 — Tue, 8 Jul 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MDMI 1.0b2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Resolution:
    Changed text
    Revised Text:
    Please see the annotated Beta 2 with markup.
    Disposition: Resolved

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 04:57 GMT

page 12 section 6.3.1 para 3 1st bullet

  • Key: MDMI_-87
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12695
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: SWIFT ( Frank Vandamme)
  • Summary:

    Current text
    Only a linear set of transformation must be created among a different message format groups.

    Rationale
    Something wrong with this sentence; meaning not clear?

  • Reported: MDMI 1.0b1 — Tue, 8 Jul 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MDMI 1.0b2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Changed text

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 04:57 GMT

page 12 section 6.3.1 paera 3 - typo

  • Key: MDMI_-86
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12694
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: SWIFT ( Frank Vandamme)
  • Summary:

    change UNOIFI to UNIFI

  • Reported: MDMI 1.0b1 — Tue, 8 Jul 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MDMI 1.0b2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Resolution:
    Changed text
    Revised Text:
    Please see the annotated Beta 2 with markup.
    Disposition: Resolved

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 04:57 GMT

page 13 section 6.3.2 in general

  • Key: MDMI_-90
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12698
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: SWIFT ( Frank Vandamme)
  • Summary:

    I suggest to mention that this approach has the (obvious) limitation that new information will not be exploited.

  • Reported: MDMI 1.0b1 — Tue, 8 Jul 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MDMI 1.0b2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Changed text

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 04:57 GMT

page 13 section 6.3.2 para 1

  • Key: MDMI_-89
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12697
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: SWIFT ( Frank Vandamme)
  • Summary:

    Current text
    By providing CM4PM maps of new versions older versions
    New text
    By providing CM4PM maps of new versions to/from older versions
    Rationale
    Missing words

  • Reported: MDMI 1.0b1 — Tue, 8 Jul 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MDMI 1.0b2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Resolution:
    Changed text
    Revised Text:
    Please see the annotated Beta 2 with markup.
    Disposition: Resolved

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 04:57 GMT

page 13 section 6.3.1 para 3 1st bullet

  • Key: MDMI_-88
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12696
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: SWIFT ( Frank Vandamme)
  • Summary:

    What does FRB mean?

  • Reported: MDMI 1.0b1 — Tue, 8 Jul 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MDMI 1.0b2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Resolution:
    Changed text, removed FRB
    Revised Text:
    Please see the annotated Beta 2 with markup.
    Disposition: Resolved

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 04:57 GMT

page 12 section 6.3

  • Key: MDMI_-85
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12693
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: SWIFT ( Frank Vandamme)
  • Summary:

    Rationale
    There is a fourth - extremely important - use case that should be described, namely moving data to and from internal data representations with the enormous benefit that the financial institutions only have to understand the dictionary as the conversion from message to dictionary is done by the standards bodies.

  • Reported: MDMI 1.0b1 — Tue, 8 Jul 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MDMI 1.0b2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Changed text, added a new section 6.3.3 and moved the current 6.3.3 to 6.3.4

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 04:57 GMT

page 12 section 6.3 title

  • Key: MDMI_-84
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12692
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: SWIFT ( Frank Vandamme)
  • Summary:

    Current text
    Use of the Conversion Models for Payment Message Standards
    New text
    Different ways to use the current standard
    Rationale
    use of name may lead to confusion (as it's not about payments)

  • Reported: MDMI 1.0b1 — Tue, 8 Jul 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MDMI 1.0b2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Resolution:
    Changed text
    Revised Text:
    Please see the annotated Beta 2 with markup.
    Disposition: Resolved

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 04:57 GMT

Remove terms from Annex A

  • Key: MDMI_-83
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12691
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: SWIFT ( Frank Vandamme)
  • Summary:

    Remove the following terms since they are not used in the document: Chips, CLS, FATF, GIovannini, MiFID,Omgeo, RTGS, RIXML, Sepa, Target2, XBRL

  • Reported: MDMI 1.0b1 — Tue, 8 Jul 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MDMI 1.0b2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Resolution:
    Deleted text
    Revised Text:
    Please see the annotated Beta 2 with markup.
    Disposition: Resolved

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 04:57 GMT

page 11 sections 6.1 and 6.2

  • Key: MDMI_-82
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12690
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: SWIFT ( Frank Vandamme)
  • Summary:

    Rationale
    Sections 6.1 and 6.2 contain some repetitive and non-confirmed information (regarding the evolution of the dictionary). There is also some information that is not directly relevant to CM4PM as such (the way the dictionary will be populated). I suggest to have these sections re-written into a single new (condensed) section.

  • Reported: MDMI 1.0b1 — Tue, 8 Jul 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MDMI 1.0b2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Changed text to reflect the new realities of ISO 20022 and to be more general about how the standard can be used.

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 04:57 GMT

page 11 section 6.1 para 2

  • Key: MDMI_-81
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12689
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: SWIFT ( Frank Vandamme)
  • Summary:

    Rationale
    The assumption that the data dictionary framework in ISO 20022 will be redesigned is premature. It would probably be better to describe this as a pre-condition to the success of CM4PM (or indicate that failure to do so in ISO 20022 will lead to the need for an additional data dictionary) .

  • Reported: MDMI 1.0b1 — Tue, 8 Jul 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MDMI 1.0b2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Changed text to reflect the fact that MDMI has modified how it relates to Business Elements in a central dictionary such as the ISO 20022 Repository. The paragraph below is compatible with that revised relationship.

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 04:57 GMT

page 11 section 6.1 para 1 - correction

  • Key: MDMI_-80
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12688
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: SWIFT ( Frank Vandamme)
  • Summary:

    Current text
    in the ISO 20022 standard under the rubric “UNIversal Financial Industry message scheme” or UNIFI.
    New text
    in part 2 of the ISO 20022 standard.
    Rationale
    correction

  • Reported: MDMI 1.0b1 — Tue, 8 Jul 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MDMI 1.0b2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Resolution:
    Changed text
    Revised Text:
    Please see the annotated Beta 2 with markup.
    Disposition: Resolved

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 04:57 GMT

page 11 section 6.1 para 1

  • Key: MDMI_-79
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12687
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: SWIFT ( Frank Vandamme)
  • Summary:

    Current text
    on the semantic content of the business elements in and
    New text
    on the semantic content of the business elements in the data dictionary and
    Rationale
    Missing words

  • Reported: MDMI 1.0b1 — Tue, 8 Jul 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MDMI 1.0b2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Resolution:
    Changed text
    Revised Text:
    Please see the annotated Beta 2 with markup.
    Disposition: Resolved

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 04:57 GMT

page 11 section 6 para 5 line 3

  • Key: MDMI_-78
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12686
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: SWIFT ( Frank Vandamme)
  • Summary:

    Current text
    See section 4.4
    This is a wrong reference!

  • Reported: MDMI 1.0b1 — Tue, 8 Jul 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MDMI 1.0b2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Resolution:
    Changed text
    Revised Text:
    Please see the annotated Beta 2 with markup.
    Disposition: Resolved

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 04:57 GMT

page 11 section 6 para 5

  • Key: MDMI_-77
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12685
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: SWIFT ( Frank Vandamme)
  • Summary:

    Current text
    message elements or business element, respectively
    New text
    message elements or business elements, respectively
    Rationale
    grammatical error

  • Reported: MDMI 1.0b1 — Tue, 8 Jul 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MDMI 1.0b2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Resolution:
    Changed text
    Revised Text:
    Please see the annotated Beta 2 with markup.
    Disposition: Resolved

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 04:57 GMT

page 11 section 6 para 3

  • Key: MDMI_-76
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12684
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: SWIFT ( Frank Vandamme)
  • Summary:

    New text
    Improve the interoperability and STP in end to end financial transactions that are based on multiple message formats.
    Rationale
    This is an additional benefit that is independent of a move to new standards.

  • Reported: MDMI 1.0b1 — Tue, 8 Jul 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MDMI 1.0b2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Resolution:
    Added bullet
    Revised Text:
    Please see the annotated Beta 2 with markup.
    Disposition: Resolved

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 04:57 GMT

page 11 section 6 para 3 second bullet

  • Key: MDMI_-75
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12683
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: SWIFT ( Frank Vandamme)
  • Summary:

    Current text
    Handle versioning issues as message standards change

    Rationale
    Does this refer to the fact that a new version can be linked to an old version through a map? If so, it can either be part of the next bullet or it needs to be described more clearly.

  • Reported: MDMI 1.0b1 — Tue, 8 Jul 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MDMI 1.0b2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Resolution:
    Changed text
    Revised Text:
    Please see the annotated Beta 2 with markup.
    Disposition: Resolved

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 04:57 GMT

page 11 section 6 para 3 first bullet

  • Key: MDMI_-74
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12682
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: SWIFT ( Frank Vandamme)
  • Summary:

    Current text
    Reduce significantly the cost and time needed to map data from one message format to another
    New text
    Reduce significantly the cost and time needed to define conversion rules to map data from one message format to another
    Rationale
    Original wording may give the impression that it is about runtime

  • Reported: MDMI 1.0b1 — Tue, 8 Jul 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MDMI 1.0b2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Resolution:
    Changed text
    Revised Text:
    Please see the annotated Beta 2 with markup.
    Disposition: Resolved

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 04:57 GMT

page 11 section 6 para 1 "it is estimated.."

  • Key: MDMI_-73
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12681
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: SWIFT ( Frank Vandamme)
  • Summary:

    Please mention source and year for these estimates

  • Reported: MDMI 1.0b1 — Tue, 8 Jul 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MDMI 1.0b2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Resolution:
    Deleted text
    Revised Text:
    Please see the annotated Beta 2 with markup.
    Disposition: Resolved

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 04:57 GMT

page 6 section 5.1

  • Key: MDMI_-72
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12680
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: SWIFT ( Frank Vandamme)
  • Summary:

    Shouldn't there be more consistency in the way companies and individuals are mentioned (e.g. either mention all co-authors with their companies or only all companies; mention companies for all individuals or none; …)

  • Reported: MDMI 1.0b1 — Tue, 8 Jul 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Closed; No Change — MDMI 1.0b2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Discussion:
    The document is consistent
    Disposition: Closed, no change

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 04:57 GMT

page 6 section 4 "wire format"

  • Key: MDMI_-71
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12679
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: SWIFT ( Frank Vandamme)
  • Summary:

    Remove this term. It's not used in the document

  • Reported: MDMI 1.0b1 — Tue, 8 Jul 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MDMI 1.0b2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Resolution:
    Deleted text
    Revised Text:
    Please see the annotated Beta 2 with markup.
    Disposition: Resolved

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 04:57 GMT

page 5 section 4 "UNIFI"

  • Key: MDMI_-70
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12678
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: SWIFT ( Frank Vandamme)
  • Summary:

    Current text
    UNIFI
    The name associated with the ISO 20022 message sets associated with the financial service domain
    New text
    UNIFI
    Synonym of ISO 20022, the ISO standard for universal financial industry message schemes
    Rationale
    correction

  • Reported: MDMI 1.0b1 — Tue, 8 Jul 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MDMI 1.0b2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Resolution:
    Changed text
    Revised Text:
    Please see the annotated Beta 2 with markup.
    Disposition: Resolved

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 04:57 GMT

page 5 section 4 "simple message composite"

  • Key: MDMI_-66
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12674
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: SWIFT ( Frank Vandamme)
  • Summary:

    Remove term
    Rationale
    Not a term but part of model and therefore explained in section 8.

  • Reported: MDMI 1.0b1 — Tue, 8 Jul 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MDMI 1.0b2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Resolution:
    Deleted text
    Revised Text:
    Please see the annotated Beta 2 with markup.
    Disposition: Resolved

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 04:57 GMT

page 5 section 4 "type"

  • Key: MDMI_-69
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12677
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: SWIFT ( Frank Vandamme)
  • Summary:

    Remove this term. Either used as a normal English word or as part of model and therefore explained in section 8.

  • Reported: MDMI 1.0b1 — Tue, 8 Jul 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MDMI 1.0b2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Resolution:
    Deleted text
    Revised Text:
    Please see the annotated Beta 2 with markup.
    Disposition: Resolved

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 04:57 GMT

page 5 section 4 "technical analyst"

  • Key: MDMI_-68
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12676
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: SWIFT ( Frank Vandamme)
  • Summary:

    Remove this term. It's not used in the document

  • Reported: MDMI 1.0b1 — Tue, 8 Jul 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MDMI 1.0b2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Resolution:
    Deleted text
    Revised Text:
    Please see the annotated Beta 2 with markup.
    Disposition: Resolved

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 04:57 GMT

page 4 section 4 para TCxx

  • Key: MDMI_-67
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12675
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: SWIFT ( Frank Vandamme)
  • Summary:

    Current text
    TCxx
    The set of Visa message formats for retail banking transactions.
    New text
    TCxx
    Message format developed according to the VISA EDI specification for retail banking applications.
    Rationale
    consistency & correctness

  • Reported: MDMI 1.0b1 — Tue, 8 Jul 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MDMI 1.0b2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Resolution:
    Changed text
    Revised Text:
    Please see the annotated Beta 2 with markup.
    Disposition: Resolved

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 04:57 GMT

page 5 section 4 "semantic map"

  • Key: MDMI_-65
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12673
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: SWIFT ( Frank Vandamme)
  • Summary:

    What is the exact difference with "conversion rule"?

  • Reported: MDMI 1.0b1 — Tue, 8 Jul 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Closed; No Change — MDMI 1.0b2
  • Disposition Summary:

    A conversion rule is an arithmetic expression. It is used in a semantic map
    Disposition: Closed, no change

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 04:57 GMT

page 5 section 4 "semantic element"

  • Key: MDMI_-64
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12672
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: SWIFT ( Frank Vandamme)
  • Summary:

    Current text
    An object that represents a concept whose properties are datatype and value. It may also have optional properties that include a description and a Keyword List.
    New text
    An object that represents a concept whose properties are datatype and value. It may also have optional properties that include a description and a list of keywords.
    Rationale
    Keyword List is proposed to be no longer defined as term.

  • Reported: MDMI 1.0b1 — Tue, 8 Jul 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MDMI 1.0b2
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 04:57 GMT

page 5 section 4 "runtime application"

  • Key: MDMI_-63
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12671
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: SWIFT ( Frank Vandamme)
  • Summary:

    Remove term
    Rationale
    Used as a normal English word in the document.

  • Reported: MDMI 1.0b1 — Tue, 8 Jul 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MDMI 1.0b2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Resolution:
    Deleted text
    Revised Text:
    Please see the annotated Beta 2 with markup.
    Disposition: Resolved

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 04:57 GMT

page 5 section 4 "qualified business element"

  • Key: MDMI_-62
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12670
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: SWIFT ( Frank Vandamme)
  • Summary:

    Remove this term. It is used only in another definition

  • Reported: MDMI 1.0b1 — Tue, 8 Jul 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MDMI 1.0b2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Resolution:
    Deleted text
    Revised Text:
    Please see the annotated Beta 2 with markup.
    Disposition: Resolved

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 04:57 GMT

page 4 section 4 "node id"

  • Key: MDMI_-61
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12669
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: SWIFT ( Frank Vandamme)
  • Summary:

    Remove this term. Rationale
    Not a term but part of model and therefore explained in section 8.

  • Reported: MDMI 1.0b1 — Tue, 8 Jul 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MDMI 1.0b2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Resolution:
    Deleted text
    Revised Text:
    Please see the annotated Beta 2 with markup.
    Disposition: Resolved

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 04:57 GMT

page 4 section 4 "near synonym"

  • Key: MDMI_-60
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12668
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: SWIFT ( Frank Vandamme)
  • Summary:

    Current text
    Near Synonym
    A Semantic Element that can be mapped using prescribed mapping rules to a set of other Semantic Elements
    New text
    Near Synonym
    A Semantic Element that can be derived using prescribed mapping rules from a set of other Semantic Elements
    Rationale
    clarification

  • Reported: MDMI 1.0b1 — Tue, 8 Jul 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MDMI 1.0b2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Resolution:
    Changed text
    Revised Text:
    Please see the annotated Beta 2 with markup.
    Disposition: Resolved

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 04:57 GMT

page 4 section 4 para MTxx

  • Key: MDMI_-59
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12667
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: SWIFT ( Frank Vandamme)
  • Summary:

    Current text
    MTxx
    SWIFT message sets that are based on SWIFT defined EDI formats including the 15022 messages.
    New text
    MTxx
    Message format developed according to the SWIFT EDI specification, including the ISO 15022 messages.
    Rationale
    consistency & correctness

  • Reported: MDMI 1.0b1 — Tue, 8 Jul 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MDMI 1.0b2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Resolution:
    Changed text
    Revised Text:
    Please see the annotated Beta 2 with markup.
    Disposition: Resolved

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 04:57 GMT

page 4 section 4 para MSxx

  • Key: MDMI_-58
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12666
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: SWIFT ( Frank Vandamme)
  • Summary:

    Current text
    MSxx
    SWIFT message sets that utilize a standard XML format based on ISO 20022
    New text
    MXxx
    Message format developed according to the ISO 20022 specification.
    Rationale
    It's MX instead of MS and MX refers to all ISO 20022 messages (not only SWIFT)
    NOTE: term needs to be moved at the correct alphabetical position.

  • Reported: MDMI 1.0b1 — Tue, 8 Jul 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MDMI 1.0b2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Resolution:
    Deleted text
    Revised Text:
    Please see the annotated Beta 2 with markup.
    Disposition: Resolved

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 04:57 GMT

page 4 section 4 "message syntax translator

  • Key: MDMI_-57
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12665
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: SWIFT ( Frank Vandamme)
  • Summary:

    Remove this term. It is only used once in the whole document. It can be explained when it is used

  • Reported: MDMI 1.0b1 — Tue, 8 Jul 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MDMI 1.0b2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Resolution:
    Deleted text
    Revised Text:
    Please see the annotated Beta 2 with markup.
    Disposition: Resolved

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 04:57 GMT

page 4 section 4 "message format"

  • Key: MDMI_-54
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12662
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: SWIFT ( Frank Vandamme)
  • Summary:

    Current text
    A message format defines the syntax and semantics of a class of messages. Can be defined in many ways including paper documentation
    New text
    Definition of the syntax and semantics of a message. Can be defined in many ways including paper documentation
    Rationale
    Why would it need to be a "class of messages"?

  • Reported: MDMI 1.0b1 — Tue, 8 Jul 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MDMI 1.0b2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Resolution:
    Changed text
    Revised Text:
    Please see the annotated Beta 2 with markup.
    Disposition: Resolved

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 04:57 GMT

page 4 section 4 "message composite"

  • Key: MDMI_-53
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12661
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: SWIFT ( Frank Vandamme)
  • Summary:

    Remove this term. It is not a term but part of model and therefore explained in section 8.

  • Reported: MDMI 1.0b1 — Tue, 8 Jul 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MDMI 1.0b2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Resolution:
    Deleted text
    Revised Text:
    Please see the annotated Beta 2 with markup.
    Disposition: Resolved

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 04:57 GMT

page 4 section 4 "message element relationship model"

  • Key: MDMI_-52
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12660
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: SWIFT ( Frank Vandamme)
  • Summary:

    Remove this term. It is used in another defenition

  • Reported: MDMI 1.0b1 — Tue, 8 Jul 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MDMI 1.0b2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Resolution:
    Deleted text
    Revised Text:
    Please see the annotated Beta 2 with markup.
    Disposition: Resolved

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 04:57 GMT

page 4 section 4 "message model" and "message syntax model

  • Key: MDMI_-56
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12664
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: SWIFT ( Frank Vandamme)
  • Summary:

    Remove these terms. They are not terms but part of model and therefore explained in section 8.

  • Reported: MDMI 1.0b1 — Tue, 8 Jul 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MDMI 1.0b2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Resolution:
    Deleted text
    Revised Text:
    Please see the annotated Beta 2 with markup.
    Disposition: Resolved

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 04:57 GMT

page 4 section 4 "message group"

  • Key: MDMI_-55
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12663
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: SWIFT ( Frank Vandamme)
  • Summary:

    Remove this term
    Rationale
    Either used as a normal English word or as part of model and therefore explained in section 8.

  • Reported: MDMI 1.0b1 — Tue, 8 Jul 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MDMI 1.0b2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Resolution:
    Deleted text
    Revised Text:
    Please see the annotated Beta 2 with markup.
    Disposition: Resolved

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 04:57 GMT

page 3 section 4 "message element"

  • Key: MDMI_-51
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12659
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: SWIFT ( Frank Vandamme)
  • Summary:

    Current text
    A Message Element is a refinement of a Semantic Element that represents a smallest semantic concept in a message format
    New text
    Representation of the smallest semantic concept in a message format
    Rationale
    clarification

  • Reported: MDMI 1.0b1 — Tue, 8 Jul 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MDMI 1.0b2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Resolution:
    Changed text
    Revised Text:
    Please see the annotated Beta 2 with markup.
    Disposition: Resolved

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 04:57 GMT

page 3 section 4 "leaf syntax translator"

  • Key: MDMI_-50
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12658
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: SWIFT ( Frank Vandamme)
  • Summary:

    Remove this term. It is not used in this document

  • Reported: MDMI 1.0b1 — Tue, 8 Jul 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MDMI 1.0b2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Resolution:
    Deleted text
    Revised Text:
    Please see the annotated Beta 2 with markup.
    Disposition: Resolved

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 04:57 GMT

page 3 section 4 "location expression language"

  • Key: MDMI_-49
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12657
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: SWIFT ( Frank Vandamme)
  • Summary:

    Remove this term. It is not used in this document

  • Reported: MDMI 1.0b1 — Tue, 8 Jul 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MDMI 1.0b2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Resolution:
    Deleted text
    Revised Text:
    Please see the annotated Beta 2 with markup.
    Disposition: Resolved

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 04:57 GMT

page 3 section 4 "location"

  • Key: MDMI_-48
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12656
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: SWIFT ( Frank Vandamme)
  • Summary:

    Remove term

    Either used as a normal English word or as part of model and therefore explained in section 8.

  • Reported: MDMI 1.0b1 — Tue, 8 Jul 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MDMI 1.0b2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Resolution:
    Deleted text
    Revised Text:
    Please see the annotated Beta 2 with markup.
    Disposition: Resolved

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 04:57 GMT

page 3 section 4 "leaf format expression language"

  • Key: MDMI_-47
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12655
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: SWIFT ( Frank Vandamme)
  • Summary:

    Remove this term. It is not used in this document

  • Reported: MDMI 1.0b1 — Tue, 8 Jul 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MDMI 1.0b2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Resolution:
    Deleted text
    Revised Text:
    Please see the annotated Beta 2 with markup.
    Disposition: Resolved

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 04:57 GMT

page 3 section 4 "leaf format"

  • Key: MDMI_-46
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12654
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: SWIFT ( Frank Vandamme)
  • Summary:

    Remove this term

    It is only used in another definition

  • Reported: MDMI 1.0b1 — Tue, 8 Jul 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MDMI 1.0b2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Resolution:
    Deleted text
    Revised Text:
    Please see the annotated Beta 2 with markup.
    Disposition: Resolved

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 04:57 GMT

page 3 section 4 "keyword list"

  • Key: MDMI_-45
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12653
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: SWIFT ( Frank Vandamme)
  • Summary:

    Remove term
    It is not a term but part of model and therefore explained in section 8.

  • Reported: MDMI 1.0b1 — Tue, 8 Jul 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MDMI 1.0b2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Resolution:
    Deleted text
    Revised Text:
    Please see the annotated Beta 2 with markup.
    Disposition: Resolved

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 04:57 GMT

page 3 section 4 "group"

  • Key: MDMI_-44
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12652
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: SWIFT ( Frank Vandamme)
  • Summary:

    Remove this term. It is used as normal English in the document

  • Reported: MDMI 1.0b1 — Tue, 8 Jul 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MDMI 1.0b2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Resolution:
    Deleted text
    Revised Text:
    Please see the annotated Beta 2 with markup.
    Disposition: Resolved

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 04:57 GMT

page 3 section 4 "federate"

  • Key: MDMI_-43
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12651
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: SWIFT ( Frank Vandamme)
  • Summary:

    Remove this term. It is not used in this document

  • Reported: MDMI 1.0b1 — Tue, 8 Jul 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MDMI 1.0b2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Resolution:
    Deleted text
    Revised Text:
    Please see the annotated Beta 2 with markup.
    Disposition: Resolved

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 04:57 GMT

page 3 section 4 "federated dictionary"

  • Key: MDMI_-42
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12650
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: SWIFT ( Frank Vandamme)
  • Summary:

    Current text
    A federated dictionary is a collection of multiple domains that shares definitions while retaining autonomy over the resources.
    New text
    A collection of physical Data Dictionaries, whereby each data dictionary contains Business and Message Elements that are relevant to a particular domain of the financial industry and whereby the collection of all Business and Message Elements represents a single logical data dictionary for the financial industry.
    Rationale
    clarification

  • Reported: MDMI 1.0b1 — Tue, 8 Jul 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MDMI 1.0b2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Resolution:
    Changed text
    Revised Text:
    Please see the annotated Beta 2 with markup.
    Disposition: Resolved

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 04:57 GMT

page 3 section 4 "environment"

  • Key: MDMI_-41
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12649
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: SWIFT ( Frank Vandamme)
  • Summary:

    Remove this term. It is not used in the document

  • Reported: MDMI 1.0b1 — Tue, 8 Jul 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MDMI 1.0b2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Resolution:
    Deleted text
    Revised Text:
    Please see the annotated Beta 2 with markup.
    Disposition: Resolved

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 04:57 GMT

page 3 section 4 "entity"

  • Key: MDMI_-40
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12648
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: SWIFT ( Frank Vandamme)
  • Summary:

    Remove the term. It is used as a normal English word in the document

  • Reported: MDMI 1.0b1 — Tue, 8 Jul 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MDMI 1.0b2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Resolution:
    Deleted text
    Revised Text:
    Please see the annotated Beta 2 with markup.
    Disposition: Resolved

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 04:57 GMT

page 2 section 4 "domain repository"

  • Key: MDMI_-39
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12647
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: SWIFT ( Frank Vandamme)
  • Summary:

    Remove the term. It is not used in the document

  • Reported: MDMI 1.0b1 — Tue, 8 Jul 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MDMI 1.0b2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Resolution:
    Deleted text
    Revised Text:
    Please see the annotated Beta 2 with markup.
    Disposition: Resolved

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 04:57 GMT

page 2 section 4 "domain data dictionary"

  • Key: MDMI_-38
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12646
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: SWIFT ( Frank Vandamme)
  • Summary:

    Remove this term. it is only used in another definition

  • Reported: MDMI 1.0b1 — Tue, 8 Jul 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MDMI 1.0b2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Resolution:
    Deleted text
    Revised Text:
    Please see the annotated Beta 2 with markup.
    Disposition: Resolved

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 04:57 GMT

page 2 section 4 "domain"

  • Key: MDMI_-37
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12645
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: SWIFT ( Frank Vandamme)
  • Summary:

    Remove this term. it is not used on its own as a term (only in combination with other words)

  • Reported: MDMI 1.0b1 — Tue, 8 Jul 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MDMI 1.0b2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Resolution:
    Deleted text
    Revised Text:
    Please see the annotated Beta 2 with markup.
    Disposition: Resolved

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 04:57 GMT

page 2 section 4 - remove "business rule"

  • Key: MDMI_-34
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12642
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: SWIFT ( Frank Vandamme)
  • Summary:

    page 2 section 4 - remove the term "business rule". Rationale
    Not a term but part of model and therefore explained in section 8.

  • Reported: MDMI 1.0b1 — Tue, 8 Jul 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MDMI 1.0b2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Resolution:
    Deleted text
    Revised Text:
    Please see the annotated Beta 2 with markup.
    Disposition: Resolved

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 04:57 GMT

page 2 section 4 - "business element"

  • Key: MDMI_-33
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12641
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: SWIFT ( Frank Vandamme)
  • Summary:

    Current text
    A Business Element is a refinement of a Semantic Element that represents a business concept. A Business Element is associated with a Domain Data Dictionary.
    New text
    Representation of a business concept, as defined in an ISO 20022 data dictionary.
    Rationale
    Make it less dependent of other definitions

  • Reported: MDMI 1.0b1 — Tue, 8 Jul 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MDMI 1.0b2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Changed text to say: "A Business Element is the smallest semantic unit in an external dictionary. For example, in ISO20022 Business Elements are the attributes of Business Component classes and represent a "business concept."

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 04:57 GMT

page 2 section 4 - "business analyst"

  • Key: MDMI_-32
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12640
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: SWIFT ( Frank Vandamme)
  • Summary:

    remove the term business analyst. It's not used in this document

  • Reported: MDMI 1.0b1 — Tue, 8 Jul 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MDMI 1.0b2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Resolution:
    Fixed text
    Revised Text:
    Please see the annotated Beta 2 with markup.
    Disposition: Resolved

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 04:57 GMT

page 2 section 4 conversion rule

  • Key: MDMI_-36
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12644
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: SWIFT ( Frank Vandamme)
  • Summary:

    Current text
    A feature of a semantic map that describes a rule that is to be applied to a conversion between a value in a source message element and a value in a target business element or target message element.
    New text
    A rule that is to be applied to convert a value of a source message element into a value of a target business element or target message element.
    Rationale
    Make it less dependent of other definitions

  • Reported: MDMI 1.0b1 — Tue, 8 Jul 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MDMI 1.0b2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Resolution:
    Deleted text
    Revised Text:
    Please see the annotated Beta 2 with markup.
    Disposition: Resolved

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 04:57 GMT

page 2 section 4 composition

  • Key: MDMI_-35
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12643
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: SWIFT ( Frank Vandamme)
  • Summary:

    Current text
    A configuration of related entities that result in
    New text
    A configuration of related entities that results in
    Rationale
    grammatical error

  • Reported: MDMI 1.0b1 — Tue, 8 Jul 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MDMI 1.0b2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Resolution:
    Deleted text
    Revised Text:
    Please see the annotated Beta 2 with markup.
    Disposition: Resolved

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 04:57 GMT

page 2 section 4 - "autonomy'

  • Key: MDMI_-31
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12639
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: SWIFT ( Frank Vandamme)
  • Summary:

    remove the term "autonomy" It's used only in another definition

  • Reported: MDMI 1.0b1 — Tue, 8 Jul 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MDMI 1.0b2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Resolution:
    Fixed text
    Revised Text:
    Please see the annotated Beta 2 with markup.
    Disposition: Resolved

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 04:57 GMT

page 1 section 3 - add reference to ISO 20022

  • Key: MDMI_-30
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12638
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: SWIFT ( Frank Vandamme)
  • Summary:

    page 1 section 3 - add reference to ISO 20022

  • Reported: MDMI 1.0b1 — Tue, 8 Jul 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MDMI 1.0b2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Resolution:
    Fixed text
    Revised Text:
    Please see the annotated Beta 2 with markup.
    Disposition: Resolved

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 04:57 GMT

page 1 section 2 para 1 line 5 - normative/non-normative sections

  • Key: MDMI_-29
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12637
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: SWIFT ( Frank Vandamme)
  • Summary:

    Current text
    The runtime aspects of the implementation form the normative part of this specification.
    New text

    Rationale
    According to the specification the models are the normative part (i.e. section 8) and this sections is not about the runtime.

  • Reported: MDMI 1.0b1 — Tue, 8 Jul 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MDMI 1.0b2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Resolution:
    Fixed text
    Revised Text:
    Please see the annotated Beta 2 with markup.
    Disposition: Resolved

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 04:57 GMT

page 1 section 2 para 1 line 2 - problem with cross-referencing

  • Key: MDMI_-28
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12635
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: SWIFT ( Frank Vandamme)
  • Summary:

    Current text
    that are shown in figures 1 and 2 of the specification (“overview of proposed runtime specification”)
    New text
    that are shown in figures 7.1 and 7.2 of the specification (see section 7.1 Informal overview of artifacts)
    Rationale
    problem with cross-referencing

  • Reported: MDMI 1.0b1 — Tue, 8 Jul 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MDMI 1.0b2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Resolution:
    Fixed text
    Revised Text:
    Please see the annotated Beta 2 with markup.
    Disposition: Resolved

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 04:57 GMT

page 1 section 1 para 2 line 11 - remove name of standard

  • Key: MDMI_-27
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12634
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: SWIFT ( Frank Vandamme)
  • Summary:

    Current text
    Thus, the Conversion Models for Payment Message standard
    New text
    Thus, the current standard
    Rationale
    use of name may lead to confusion (as it's not about payments)

  • Reported: MDMI 1.0b1 — Tue, 8 Jul 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MDMI 1.0b2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Resolution:
    Fixed text
    Revised Text:
    Please see the annotated Beta 2 with markup.
    Disposition: Resolved

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 04:57 GMT

page 1 section 1 para 2 line 8 remove Payment Message (CM4PM) standard

  • Key: MDMI_-24
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12631
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: SWIFT ( Frank Vandamme)
  • Summary:

    Current text
    The goal of the Conversion Models for Payment Message (CM4PM) standard
    New text
    The goal of the current standard
    Rationale
    use of name may lead to confusion (as it's not about payments)

  • Reported: MDMI 1.0b1 — Tue, 8 Jul 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MDMI 1.0b2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Resolution:
    Fixed text
    Revised Text:
    Please see the annotated Beta 2 with markup.
    Disposition: Resolved

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 04:57 GMT

page 1 section 1 para 2 line 3 clarification

  • Key: MDMI_-23
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12630
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: SWIFT ( Frank Vandamme)
  • Summary:

    Current text
    must also be appropriately mapped to the industry standard
    New text
    must also be appropriately mapped to and from the industry standard
    Rationale
    this needs to work in both directions

  • Reported: MDMI 1.0b1 — Tue, 8 Jul 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MDMI 1.0b2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Resolution:
    Fixed text
    Revised Text:
    Please see the annotated Beta 2 with markup.
    Disposition: Resolved

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 04:57 GMT

page 1 section 1 para 2

  • Key: MDMI_-22
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12628
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: SWIFT ( Frank Vandamme)
  • Summary:

    Current text
    information must be accurately moved from one message format to another. For example, data in FIX messages to data in SWIFT messages.
    New text
    information must be correctly interpreted and processed by each involved financial system at each step of the financial transaction. This implies - amongst other things - that information must be accurately moved from one system to the next. This may require moving information from one message format to another, e.g., from a FIX pre-trade message into a SWIFT settlement message.
    Rationale
    clarification

  • Reported: MDMI 1.0b1 — Tue, 8 Jul 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MDMI 1.0b2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Resolution:
    Fixed text
    Revised Text:
    Please see the annotated Beta 2 with markup.
    Disposition: Resolved

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 04:57 GMT

page 1 section 1 para 2 line 10 clarification needed

  • Key: MDMI_-26
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12633
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: SWIFT ( Frank Vandamme)
  • Summary:

    Current text
    but also to create a versioning mechanism so that new version of a message can be mapped to older version
    New text
    but also to support versioning by providing a mechanism to map information between a new and an older version of the same message
    Rationale
    clarification

  • Reported: MDMI 1.0b1 — Tue, 8 Jul 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MDMI 1.0b2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Resolution:
    Fixed text
    Revised Text:
    Please see the annotated Beta 2 with markup.
    Disposition: Resolved

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 04:57 GMT

page 1 section 1 para 2 line 6 change to message data transformation

  • Key: MDMI_-25
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12632
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: SWIFT ( Frank Vandamme)
  • Summary:

    Current text
    message transformation
    New text
    message data transformation
    Rationale
    it's about changing information of the message (and not necessarily the entire message)

  • Reported: MDMI 1.0b1 — Tue, 8 Jul 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MDMI 1.0b2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Resolution:
    Fixed text
    Revised Text:
    Please see the annotated Beta 2 with markup.
    Disposition: Resolved

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 04:57 GMT

page 1 section 1 para 1

  • Key: MDMI_-21
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12627
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: SWIFT ( Frank Vandamme)
  • Summary:

    Current text: back office security
    New text: back office securities
    Rationale correction of business meaning

  • Reported: MDMI 1.0b1 — Tue, 8 Jul 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MDMI 1.0b2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Resolution:
    Fixed text
    Revised Text:
    Please see the annotated Beta 2 with markup.
    Disposition: Resolved

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 04:57 GMT

name of the standard is repeated in the document

  • Key: MDMI_-20
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12626
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: SWIFT ( Frank Vandamme)
  • Summary:

    Rationale
    There are multiple cases where the name of the standard is repeated in the document. The use of this name may lead to confusion (as it's not about payments) and should be avoided. The list of comments includes some concrete proposals to change the text but has not captured each and every occurrence.

  • Reported: MDMI 1.0b1 — Tue, 8 Jul 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MDMI 1.0b2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Resolution:
    Fixed in Beta specification
    Revised Text:
    Please see the annotated Beta 2 with markup.

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 04:57 GMT

page numbering

  • Key: MDMI_-19
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12625
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: SWIFT ( Frank Vandamme)
  • Summary:

    There are problems with the page numbering (it jumps from page 6 to page 11 at the beginning of section 6 and from page 14 to page 5 at the beginning of section 7)

  • Reported: MDMI 1.0b1 — Tue, 8 Jul 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MDMI 1.0b2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Resolution:
    Fixed in Beta specification
    Revised Text:
    Please see the annotated Beta 2 with markup.

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 04:57 GMT

Constraints on various language choices

  • Key: MDMI_-18
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14219
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Adaptive ( Mr. Pete Rivett)
  • Summary:

    The standard allows user to specify five diffenet languages that define in what language certain properties are presented. The standard does not put any constraints on these choices. Clearly there are implicit constraints. They should be made explicit.
    Resolution:
    A section will be added to the report that provides constraints and an appropriate example for each language type that is in the MDMI specification. This section will be added to the description of the MessageGroup class as this is where default languages are specified for all messages in the group.

  • Reported: MDMI 1.0b2 — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MDMI 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    The first time a property is specified whose value is an expression language reference; a description of any constraints that language must meet will be inserted. Five language references are first mentioned as properties of MessageGroup. The OrderingLanguage property is first mentioned in the description of the SemanticElement class.

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 04:56 GMT

Description of associations

  • Key: MDMI_-17
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14218
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Adaptive ( Mr. Pete Rivett)
  • Summary:

    The FTF report does not contain a description of each class's associations. These should be added.

  • Reported: MDMI 1.0b2 — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MDMI 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Resolution:
    For every class in the MDMI metamodel, as described in the Beta 2 document, definitions of the associations for each class have been added as a subsection after the subsection describing the class's properties.

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 04:56 GMT

General editing of the MDMI specification

  • Key: MDMI_-16
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14167
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: SemantX, Inc. ( Mark Eisner)
  • Summary:

    There are a number of references in the specification that need to be changed. For example, the specification still refers to the standard as CM4PM instead of MDMI. In addition, there will be some general editing that will be required, once the specific text associated with the suggested changes in the metamodel is made.Resolution:
    A general editing pass will be made on the text of the specification once all the text changes associated with accepted resolved issues is made.

  • Reported: MDMI 1.0b2 — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MDMI 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    A general editing pass will be made on the text of the specification once all the text changes associated with accepted resolved issues is made.

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 04:56 GMT