Child pages
  • 2010-06-30
Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

Meeting Information


June 30, 2010


8 PDT/11 EDT/16 BST

Please note: the conferencing service will ask you to enter the pound sign. Press # for pound.
To mute, press *6.

Agenda Items

1 Review minutes of last meeting

Mary Pat commented that it was helpful to review the examples.

Simon commented that there are several typos. Valerie agreed to proof the minutes. The group will review on the next call.

2 Review ANSI timeline

Valerie reviewed the ANSI timeline for the standards process.

Tim then questioned when the competency framework would be ready to submit to the standards committee for review. Valerie replied that once this committee thinks the specification is complete it can be sent on for review. That would be followed by a public review and a ballot period.

Tim then asked is guidelines would be submitted to the standards committee as well. Valerie replied that guidelines are not submitted to the standards committee; typically, the guidelines are prepared during the review and ballot periods so that they are available by the time the official standard is ready.

Simon commented that he is doing work on competencies with others. It would be good to cross feed that work at some point before the standard is finalized. Valerie asked if there was anything he could distribute in the near term. Simon agreed to make that available. Tim encouraged Simon to distribute the group’s work to the European group.

Mary Pat asked whether any of the processes described in the ANSI timeline were simultaneous. Valerie replied that they were not; rather, they were linear.

3 Demonstration of Tufts visualization tool

4 Review Technical Steering Committee discussion of multi-paragraph descriptions

Valerie reviewed the Technical Steering Committee’s recommendation for multi-paragraph descriptions. They recommended using one description element and using a Unicode character for line break to indicate each paragraph.

Simon asked whther it was possible to include XHTML markup. Valerie replied that it was not. LOM fields are strings, and as a best practice, the content should be text.

Tim commented that most of the frameworks are pdf documents that contain an extensive preamble. He questioned whether that could go into description.

Simon commented that could be an accessibility issue. HTML and XHTML are easier to access.

Tim asked whether it was reasonable to suggest that an accompanying document be published. Simon recommended stitching together the human and machine readable versions to avoid confusion.

The group then discussed whether or not it was appropriate to use lom fields within the competency framework. Tim recommended that at a minimum we add a pointer to the human readable description/preamble for the framework. The group decided to add a supporting information element that provides either a link to a resource, such as a pdf document, or includes an xhtml representation of the text.

Tim also emphasized the value in wider consultation on the proposed specification.

5 Review changes to Competency Object specification

6 Open discussion

Tim reported to the group that he and a few others had submitted a manuscript for publication to Medical Education. He agreed to keep the group informed. Simon and Mary Pat requested a copy.

The next call is August 4. Simon commented he will not be able to attend. Tim encouraged Simon to email any feedback.


Action Items

  • Simon will send information on his European work to the MedBiquitous working group
  • Simon will send the current MedBiquitous specifications to his European colleagues
  • Valerie will add supporting information to the specification. We will discuss on the next call.
  • Tim will review the specification and 6 months worth of discussion and resolve any issues as well as consider the work of Simon’s colleagues over the next 4 months.
  • No labels