Public Page

2023-01-24 Architecture Meeting Minutes

Owned by Paulette Reed
Last updated: Jul 18, 2023

Public Page

Date: Jan 24, 2023

 

 

 

ANTITRUST STATEMENT

As participants in this meeting, we need to be mindful of the constraints of antitrust laws. There shall be no discussions of agreements or concerted actions that may restrain competition. This prohibition includes the exchange of information concerning individual prices, rates, coverages, market practices, claims settlement practices, or any other competitive aspect of an individual company’s operation. Each participant is obligated to speak up immediately for the purpose of preventing any discussion falling outside these bounds.

Agenda

  • Network/Welcome

  • This meeting is subject to the terms of our anti-trust statement shown here.  In addition, this meeting may be recorded. 

  • Review Meeting Minutes

  • Review JIRA

  • Look at Contact.

  • Look at definition of matching pairs.

Meeting Minutes

  • Network

  • Antitrust statement accepted.

  • Meeting minutes accepted.

  • Andy shared his screen to show GitHub changes he made for validation.

    • The change was to enable this NPM test. It was already doing the builds before, but it wasn't doing this test because we didn't have it added. And so now there's two files that are created, but in what we're looking at you don't get to see the individual files, you just get to see this long log and so you'll see that we have validating valid instances as opposed to validating invalid instances.

    • The whole positive and negative testing and so this is the positive testing. We're validating that instances are in fact valid when compared against the schemas and the way this works is it goes through, and it goes schema or bundled schema by bundled schema. So, this is the bundle schema that came first.

    • It shows you that it's going to look in the Jason test instances and then the claim subdirectory and I did rename some of that stuff. I'll I'll go over that in just a minute. But so there's a correlation between claims schemas and claim. And as you see, that's gonna continue throughout. And so in this case, there's 17 instances that are there. So you get to see the 17 instances that were validated against this schema.

    • At the end it gives you a little a little summary of just that schema and it's.

      • Validation results and so in this case all seventeen were valid, nothing was invalid.

    • It pulls it found six test instances there and then this one didn't validate, and the error is showing that the IT shows the location of the error in the file in the test file you can see it has to do with the inspection site.

      • You could see how it it goes through each individual file that it's going to validate and then it shows you the errors it needs.

      • These all do show up in a log file.

    • Build and validate, same process we had with the BMS.

  • Review JIRAS

    • In past meetings we were wanting to wait on Jeff to discuss contact (Person, Organization) and how to handle named value pairs.

    • Jeff has his team are working on contact and parties and would like to wait and share more in next week's meeting.

      • Whatever ideas we flesh out and come up with and propose, please, please, please accompany them with real examples, it will be good to see a part supplier and a rental concept and a third-party concept.

    • Dan shared his screen where Name, First Name, Last Name, Address Line1 and Address Line2, will these ever be different values?

    • In the BMS we look at contact as a as a pretty rich thing, right? It could be an address, it could be an e-mail, it could be a phone number, or it could be instant message. I mean communication, I don't know to make communication and contact or well, I think we've flattened communication and said it's all just part of somebody's contact.

    • I guess when we're putting our schema together, we really see a company and a person is different. And I know the for instance you might have a company address that or sort of company contact, but it's generic which is feels a lot different than you know a person contact information I guess, and I know that party was is a big deal embedded in BMS that it's either a company or a person. Certainly, when I started working on the BMS, it was already a given and I don't know if I'm, you know, asking to address back too far, but that feels. Overly complex.

    • We can have a ship to contact, a minor driver guardian contact, Who is the contact?

      • we might need something to indicate which one of the contacts is the primary contact, but.

Great Meeting, everyone!

Up Next

  • Network/Welcome

  • Antitrust

  • Review Meeting Minutes

  • Review Contact/Party/Person/Company

Action items

Everyone to provide examples of how we want party/Contact/Company

Decisions

 

Participants

  • Paulette Reed

  • Andy Bober

  • Jeff Schroder

  • Paul Barry

  • Dan Webster

  • Mike Hastings

Participants in the meetings are noted for your information.  If you have questions on the committee’s activities, please contact a recent attendee. https://cieca.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/ARCH