Child pages
  • 2015-05-12
Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

Meeting Information

Date:

May 12, 2015

Time:

11 EDT/10 CDT/9 MDT/8 PDT

Attending: David Blake, Ross McKinney, Co-Chairs; Mike Champa, Susan Ehringhaus, Betty Harvey, Raj Mehrotra, Eileen McCoubrey, Pam Miller, Heather Pierce, Cory Schmidt, Steve Singer, Valerie Smothers, and Rebecca Spence. 

Agenda Items

1 Review minutes

Minutes were accepted as submitted.

2 Feedback from data dictionary review

A Unique ID is optional - should it be required?

Valerie noted the Unique ID for an individual disclosing financial interest is currently an optional field.  David asked how the Unique ID is generated.  Valerie replied that the standard doesn’t dictate how it is generated.  Heather commented that the id would be relevant to the receiving entity.  Valerie added that multiple ids could be provided. 

Valerie asked if there could be situations where an id is not required.  David agreed unique ID should be optional.  There is nothing to lose by making it optional.  Rebecca agreed.    

B Inclusion of European corporation types in Partnership Category

Valerie mentioned the current allowed values for Partnership Category are legal types of business in the US.  Should we expand the category to include common legal types of business in Europe and Asia?  Pam asked if that term would suffice to describe non-US relationships, or are there things specific to Europe or Asia we should consider.  Heather thought that was too specific for US corporations.  The consensus was to remove S corp and C corp and add Corporation.  There will be four values, Corporation, LLC, LP, and Other. Valerie will make the changes to the specification and schema.  Pam suggested spelling out the acronyms, Limited Liability Company and Limited Partnership.  

C Meaning of terms in picklists or recommended lists

Valerie noted there were several questions about what particular values mean, particularly in describing the contractor category.  To what extent do we need to provide definitions for allowed values or leave it to the system implementing the standard to provide guidance on the terms?  Heather suggested not putting definitions here but to point to the definition of each particular need of an organization.  Steve asked Heather if she was suggesting each organization having the capacity to define terms locally.  Heather answered no; we would want companies to point to definitions in their institutionalized policy.  David asked if Convey could develop standards as to what data elements mean, to create uniformity of meaning.   Steve suggested going through a process with users to determine if there is agreement or disagreement.   Valerie summarized that consensus on definition of terms will happen through other mechanisms the Convey team will lead. 

Steve questioned the education as a potential value for grant purpose. Heather explained there is nothing in the specification that says education excludes accredited educational activities.  Steve explained that CE provider funding is reported through the accrediting body and should not show up as an individual financial interest. Valerie added it could create burden for CE deans to report all commercial organizations that fund accredited activities.  David added the data elements were constructed on the principle that once within Convey it can be used in many ways, to draw out disclosure of individuals.  He doesn’t want to restrict how Convey can be used.  Valerie, Heather and Steve agreed to discuss further offline and report back to the group.

Heather had a concern with one of the items in the pick list, speaker’s bureau under professional services.  Many organizations prohibit employees from participating in speaker’s bureau.  Other organizations do want to know that information.  We will make sure the data field is optional in the standard. 

Specification document

David assigned the group homework to read through the specification document.  Valerie added the document is in a more digestible format.  She encouraged the group to become familiar with this document and if there are continued concerns they can be addressed on future calls.  David mentioned if anyone finds anything wrong in the document, they can indicate that to Valerie identifying the specific page.  If another call is needed, the group will have the opportunity for final consensus and signoff.  Valerie reminded the group of the ANSI process of Standard’s Committee balloting and approval.  

Decisions

  • Unique ID will remain optional
  • Partnership Category values will change to Corporation, Limited Liability Company, Limited Partnership, and Other.

Action Items

  • The group will read through the specification document and provide feedback.
  • No labels