AML Meeting June 2013

Revision as of 10:39, 5 June 2013 by Dave Carlson (Talk | contribs) (Add issues section)

Jump to: navigation, search

AML Modeling Meeting

The AML modeling meeting will be a full day on Tuesday, June 18, at the OMG meeting in Berlin, Germany. We will also try to schedule some "pre-meeting" meetings with other participants (e.g. Elisa Kendal, Michael Van Der Zel, ?) on Monday or, if not possible, Sunday afternoon. Our goal is to maximize the Tuesday Face to Face time to attempt to get enough done that work can proceed on the AML specfication.

The AML submission to the OMG is anticipated to consist of three parts:

  1. An AOM metamodel - a model of what we are trying to represent in the profile
  2. A UML profile that implements the metamodel. It is anticipated that this profile will use UML, 11179 and CTS2.
  3. Validation rules in OCL that specify UML + profile requirements for complete and correct archetype models.

Optional non-normative:

  1. Transformation rules (using QVT or ATL) to map between UML and AOM meta models


The questions below are some of the issues needing resolution before the AML project can continue. Our goal is to prioritize this list, marking those questions that can only be settled by in person discussion, those that require both in person and e-mail or other dialog and those that can be resolved post meeting. We will use this discussion list to advise the agenda.

  1. AOM and Terminology Binding - should the AOM model be "fleshed out" to include a full terminology binding part as part of the metamodel, or should it be used as it currently exists, with the "fleshing out" being done in the UML Profile, with anticipation that it will subsequently be enhanced.
  2. RFP requirements - we need to give this a once over and decide what must, will and will not get done on the initial submission
  3. AOM constraint model - how to represent in UML
  4. Choice Groups - how should we approach this
  5. Name parsing as an aspect of matching - should this be maintained in the profile or abstracted
  6. Coded Ordinal model - AOM has model specific ordering, HL7 represents this as part of the terminology, meaning that the ordering is independent of the recording model. What should we do here?
  7. What more needs to be done to create a publishable metamodel from AOM?

AML Representational Issues

  1. Multiple designations and languages for each model element, both archetypes and terminology, names and definitions.
  2. AOM slots and choice groups
  3. Versioning of individual archetypes, vs. larger UML that contains multiple archetypes


The following background will be assumed

  • ADL 1.5 Specification
  • ADL Artifact Identification Document
  • UML Profiles
  • 11179-3 Edition 3
  • CTS2 Value Set Definition / Resolved Value Set and EntityDescription API's