Issues for Conversion Model for Payment Messages Finalization Task Force

List of issues (green=resolved, yellow=pending Board vote, red=unresolved)

List options: All ; Open Issues only; or Closed Issues only

Issue 14143: Domain dictionary reference
Issue 14153: Description attributes in each class
Issue 14154: The term and class name "Message Element" may cause confusion
Issue 14195: Standard XMI for MDMI maps
Issue 14571: data translation in the prexecns of structure clashes

Issue 14143: Domain dictionary reference (cm4pm-ftf)

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.

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.

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.

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.

It is agreed that the XMI format of an MDMI map must be consistent.  However, there are ongoing activities within both OMG and ISO 20022 to 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.
Disposition:	Deferred

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.