Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

Meeting Information


July 24, 2013



Attending: James Fiore and Toby Vandemark, co-chairs; Jyothi Holla, Jennifer Michael, Alex Minkofsky, Tarang Shah, Valerie Smothers

Agenda Items

1 Review minutes of last meeting

The minutes were approved.

2 Review changes to specification and schema (see updated notes on Universal Hub requests)

Valerie reviewed the changes to the specification. The changes were based on the requests made by the boards participating in the Universal Hub. New elements include ActivityInstanceID, LaunchAction, ActivityLocation, ReturnLocation, and Results, all of which were added to the Activity element. They are all optional. Valerie questioned whether ActivityInstanceID should be required.

James agreed that the activity instance id should remain optional. It may not be necessary if the learner does not have multiple instances of the same activity. Jyothi agreed.

Jyothis asked if we considered adding status under activity. The status at the activity level may be different than the status at the module level. Registered, completed, and expired are the values they use. If an activity has more than one module, completion of one module may or may not be sufficient to complete an activity. The group agreed with adding an optional Status element. Valerie will add Status to the Activity element.

Valerie asked if the format of ActivityInstanceID was ok. Jyothi replied she thinks it will be ok. They use guids currently.

Valerie asked about the LaunchAction element’s registry value. She asked what kind of registry the user would be accessing. Jyothi replied she was not sure; Don would have to answer that.  Valerie agreed to follow up with Don on the registry value of LaunchAction.

Valerie asked if a URI for the return location was appropriate. Jyothi commented it was. It indicates where do you want to go back when you are done.  The Board decides where to bring the learner to on their system.  So it is where the learner will return after the activity. Valerie agreed to clarify that language in the specification.

Jyothis asked whether the data model should be structured differently. You could have a top level launch element with three subelements: launch action, activity location, return location.

James clarified that those elements onlyy apply to activity launch.

Jyothis commented it could be an activity or CE. It could be grouped. Valerie agreed to modify the data model and return to group. 

Contextual Data

James commented that in 2012 at the in person meeting, we had a discussion about putting context around the activity. It may not be enough to say you did the activity. Where does this activity fit in the curriculum of a training program.  The Idea was that you could link to an external framework to provide context. The Competency framework is one idea. The Technical Steering Committee is working on coming up with recommendations for semantic linking to external references. We have had technical issues with Dublin Core and RDF we are still working to resolve. One thing that will help is better examples of the use cases. He asked the group if they had any ideas on how an activity report might be linked to an external framework. The activity report would be able to link to semantic data on the web and be readable independent of our processes. James asked Jyothi if she could see applications.

Jyothi commented they have no need for that now, but she could see that in a second phase of the hub. They will have different activities and goals. If pediatrics is interested in an activity from ABFM, they could use the standard to send that information; that could be helpful.  They have it manually now. They will look at that in the second phase. That was originally scheduled for September but will likely change.

Valerie offered to work with Jyothi and the ABFM to flesh out the use case for the second phase of the Universal Hub.

3 Discussion of duplicate-credit validation 

James commented this is beyond guids, what duplicate credit validation are you doing. They were approached by another org, a CEbroker site that is running the Florida Department of Health CE check. They are interested in transmitting to the board as part of their repository.The information is not primary source verified. They will run into the risk of duplicates. They want to pursue integration. Is it sufficient to limit to day and number of hours?

Jyothi commented they use the arid. Each activity report has a globally unique identifier called arid. If any detail changes, the arid changes.

James commented that his situation is a little different. Individual credits are self reported. Surgeons type into the Florida system. Jyothis commented they do send a response when a duplicate is encountered. James asked what algorithm is used, and which elements . Jyothi commented in some activities they allow duplicates. But if the activity does not allow duplicates, they reject the completion. 

4 Review and discuss elevator pitch and case study

Jen recommended a more global term than moc.  James agreed.

She added that the elevator pitch is too long. We should come up with a shorter version. Take out point 1. Quick, accurate, cost effective.

James will work offline with Valerie on a case study and we can discuss on the next call. 

5 Open discussion


Parking Lot

  • Representing participation in team-based activities
  • Representing participation in quality improvement networks
  • Case study


Action Items

  • Valerie will add an optional Status element to the Activity element.
  • Valerie agreed to follow up with Don on the registry value of LaunchAction.
  • Valerie will clarify the definition of ReturnLocation  - where the learner will return after the activity.
  • Valerie will modify the data model for elements related to activity launching.
  • Valerie will work with Jyothi and the ABFM to flesh out the use case for the second phase of the Universal Hub.
  • Valerie will shorten the elevator pitch.
  • James and Valerie will work together to develop a case study.
  • No labels