The name, VitalSignObservationActionFocus, in Annex C is inaccurate and the graph description of the correct term is inaccurate.
The expression "are synonyms" is incorrect. There are other possible conditions that may cause the condition besides the MDMIBusienssElements being synonyms.
In the standard, each MDMISemanticElement must be unique. Having "near-synonyms" with the same MDMISemantic Element violates this principle.
There has already been introduced a term in the document for "semantic unit" and it should be used.
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.
List of contributors incomplete
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.
The term SNOMED CT is used in the Annex C and it is not included in Annex A
The term "MDMI Semantic Element" is incorrect because it represents a proper name and its class name, MDMISemanticElement, should be used.
The examples provided for the term datum were missing a key concept of time.
The description of the Step 2 process in Annex C for developing the MDMI Healthcare Ontology is incorrect.
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.
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.
No attestation in section 3, Normative References
OWL is mentioned in the document but has no further reference
Text for the section is missing. It only contains an irrelevant caption.
as above
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.
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.
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.
as above
6.2.1.1 Please define ‘conceptsentities’ or fix the typo (missing comma).
No references are made to the normative machine-readable, no RDF/OWL hook to hang your propeller cap. OWL is not defined or discussed.
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.
In the XMI file there is a bunch of weird DataType with blank names that are not used.
as above
OWL seems essential, but there is nothing mentioned about OWL until 8.5.3 and no other references.
as stated
as above