Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

Meeting Information


January 6, 2010


8 PST/11 EST/16 GMT

Please note: the conferencing service will ask you to enter the pound sign. Press # for pound.

Attending:  Rosalyn Scott, co-chair; Susan Albright, Simon Grant, Peter Greene, Dave Kiger, Valerie Smothers.

Agenda Items

1 Review minutes of last meeting

The minutes were approved.

2 Review competency comparison table

Valerie explained that on the last call Tim had suggested we compare illustrations of competencies represented using the proposed MedBiquitous Competency object specification and the existing IMS RDCEO/IEEE RCD specification. He developed the table in the attached document, which Valerie filled in with examples. The table makes the differences in how certain things are represented more apparent.

Peter asked if you would lose data if moving from the medbiq spec to the ims spec. Valerie commented that you would not; it would just be represented differently. The category and references elements would probably be represented as different statements within the definition in the IEEE model.

Simon commented that both approaches can represent anything you want. The real issue is whether an importing system will know what to do with the data.

Rosalyn asked about the components represented in XtensibleInfo. Because the specific issues in Scottish Doctor learning outcomes are related to assessment, they would not go in the competency definition. Valerie agreed; the competency model envisions assessment being defined separately.

Simon questioned how we would get frameworks to implement the specification.

Peter commented that there is not a large body of work where people have codified competencies. He added that implementation doesn't really start until you get good tools that use the standard. That said, it would not be difficult to use the Tufts Vue tool to push something out. If we are unencumbered by IP, we can get something going and get traction with the proviso that we have kept everything mappable to rdceo.

Simon commented that where you lose data is going from unstructured to structured - not in going from one formal structure to another. Susan added that without assessment, it didn't really matter which representation we chose.

Rosalyn agreed that assessment was the next job for the working group. The competency definition is relatively simple. The complexity comes in with the associations and defining what constitutes competence.

Simon encouraged the group to allow either rdceo or the new competency definition.

Peter commented that saying either is OK does put a burden on developers to parse either definition. MedBiq could also provide a transform to translate MedBiquitous competency objects to rdceo.

Rosalyn asked about the permitted uses of the various specifications. Valerie commented that neither IEEE nor IMS allow for derivative works to be made of their specifications. MedBiquitous' license is much more open. Dave commented that as long as we don't change anything in their specifications, we could use them and not have them be considered a derivative work. Peter commented that there would still be the issue of other IP constraints around the standard.

Rosalyn encouraged the group to come up with a complete package of complimentary specifications. Peter agreed its our license that is attractive. Rosalyn encouraged having a footnote that emphasized compatibility with RCD and RDCEO. Peter added that a transform would be a nice component as well.

Rosalyn asked what the next step would be. Valerie commented that if the group agreed, she would proceed with creating a Competency Object specification. Rosalyn replied that she was more than comfortable proceeding. Simon commented that much relevant work is happening in Europe and that we would get relevant input once we put something out for comment.

Peter added that having a tool to visualize competency frameworks would make things happen, too. Dave commented that they have spoken to the Vue team about using Vue for competencies. Rosalyn questions whether the American Board of Surgery Score curriculum could use this model. Peter commented that they are aware of our work. Once we have a specification, many people may come forward.

3 Review revised specification

4 Open discussion

Rosalyn told the group that the group had an abstract accepted for the Ottowa conference in May. That offers a good target for our work.


The group agreed to proceed with development of the competency object specification

Action Items

  • No labels