Child pages
  • 2006-11-29
Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

Meeting Information

Date:

November 29, 2006

Time:

11 AM EST

Attending: Morgan Bantly, Gabrielle Campbell, Rachel Ellaway, Peter Greene, Debbie Sher, Carl Singer, Valerie Smothers

Agenda Items

1. Review of minutes from last meeting
Prior to the call, Valerie introduced Gabrielle Campbell from the AAMC as the new chair of the Standards Committee. Morgan started the call with a review of the minutes of the last meeting. No revisions were stated, and the minutes were accepted.
2. Comments on healthcare lom
Morgan then asked Valerie to provide an overview of the comments received on Healthcare LOM in the standards committee. Peter commented that we want to come up with a procedure for handling comments from the Standards Committee with Gabrielle. We will be moving to a wiki to facilitate communication. Comments come from the standards committee, but the actual work needs to get done within the working group.

Valerie reviewed that Healthstream had proposed adding elements for start date time, end date time, and time zone, and had proposed datatypes for these elements. Dan Rehak had commented to the working group that XML already contains a datatype for date time. It includes time zone, and it would be a good idea to use that data type. The group agreed to using the XML date time data type. The group also agreed that it made sense to make the start date time and end date time elements optional.

Healthstream also provided a comment on the activity location element. Currently Healthstream provides city, state, country, building, and room name. In the current schema, the element's datatype is character string. Valerie was unsure as to whether they were suggesting changing the datatype or changing the guidelines to reflect specifying these data points.

Morgan added that the key is how it will be used. His preference is to keep things as simple as possible, including it as part of the description in the guidance, but not normative. Carl added that along those lines, using vcard is an option. The datatype won't change and is already a de facto standard. Peter added that it is what is used inside lom for describing person information. It's not ideal in that it doesn't do a great job of parsing. Carl offered to upload a link to the yahoo group about representing vcard in rdf or xml. If most systems work with loosely structured Vcard method, that may be the way to go. It is used for people inside lom, but that may not apply directly to what is being proposed. Carl commented that vcard does include addresses, not just people. The link he sent discusses representing a person as well as an address, using xml and rdf. If namespace is specified, it shouldn't be a problem. Peter asked do we stay with the approach used by the developers of lom and stay consistent? Valerie added that there is an address schema that is part of the Professional Profile that could be used as well.
Valerie will check with Healthstream to be clear on what they are requesting, normative or non-normative change.

Morgan asked how xml/rdf v-card would fit with IEEE LOM. Carl will follow-up with the group on that and compare the two. Morgan asked him to post his findings on the yahoo site. Peter commented that lom is referencing an IETF RFC, but it's an old one that does not rely on XML syntax. He wondered if we should just do a text string as was suggested. Systems may be able to parse v-cards for names, but not locations. Carl commented that he works a lot in integration. They are starting to look at including that information. Ideally, location information should be in a structured format. They would have an interest in doing that.

Morgan asked if we could put recommendations in the guidance document. Carl agreed. Since not much has happened with v-card, maybe they should do a side project. It may be more of a guideline. Carl will draft his ideas on this. Valerie will clarify with healthstream. Both will post findings to yahoo. Valerie will ask the Healthstream folks about using that format as well.

Valerie then provided an overview of HighWire's requests. HighWire requested adding CPD to the restricted list for credit type. The current valid values are CME, CE, CNE, CPE and CHES. CPD is the term used in Europe. Morgan asked if CPD is really synonymous with CME. Should one be the preferred term. Valerie explained that there's a lack of consensus in the industry. The group agreed with adding CPD as a valid value. Valerie continued to HighWire's second comment. They would like to change activity certification from a restricted list to a recommended list because the different types of activities certification are rapidly changing. Peter added that maintaining vocabulary lists is a formidable task. Eventually we'll want to maintain those, but we won't lock down the schema on those. The group also agreed making the activity certification list recommended.

The group agreed to submit agreement with HighWire's comments as a recommendation to the standards committee.

3. Review of consent/use rights document
Morgan borrowed text from Shona Dippie's and Rachel Ellaway's documents. He wants the text to be practical in how it can be applied. Some parts might be irrelevant or unnecessary. Don't assume that text should not be changed. The first thing we should do is make sure we are on track and accomplishing the purpose of the document. At the top of page 3, he came up with an acronym, CALM - Consent And Licensing Model. He asked the group to confirm the bullet points described in the Consent section.

Rachel commented that she is delighted to see this document being written. A fundamental question is for whom the document is intended; the individual acquiring consent, or those managing it? Which communities will be covered? If we are giving this to the practitioners, we're out of our depth. Morgan replied that this affects many subject areas, not just healthcare, but that should be discussed. If we focus, we could get more detailed. Rachel replied that dealing with healthcare is, from her perspective, a big enough topic.

Peter asked Rachel to elaborate on Clinical Commons and its current status. Rachel replied that Clinical Commons was proposed by the Cherri project. It's an idea rather than an activity. The idea was taken to Creative Commons, but they have not followed up on that. Philosophically and ethically, national boundaries are relatively meaningless. We should have a commons around the exchange of clinical materials. The use of icons was attractive, too. There is some pre-pilot work in the UK. Because clinical commons depends on what practitioners do, it's more than a learning technology or metadata issue.
Peter added that the group had discussed what part of this was appropriate for the group to get into and what parts were not. To effectively run, a service like creative commons will be required. It's more like a DOI service running. Peter added that would not be in the MedBiquitous space. Educators can't function without understanding the implications. We're still chewing on whether and what we can bite off.

Rachel added that MedBiq's profile is growing rapidly. MedBiquitous is well placed for the standards component, but we must recognize the problem and put it in front of people.

Gabrielle added that consent and licensing has been a challenge at AAMC. MedEdportal has had things submitted with images, and issues of privacy come up when the consent form is requested. She agreed that an outside consortium could deal with the problem and move forward. Gabrielle offered to talk with the division of medical education to see how they feel about it and what might be possible. She assumes AAMC would play some kind of role. Gabrielle commented that it's much more difficult to transfer information out of Europe. Rachel commented the recording side is a bit unclear. Gabrielle offered to speak with Carol Aschenbrenner, Chris Candler, and colleagues. Rachel agreed it is a multifactorial problem. We have to formulate the problem before someone can solve it.

Peter commented that we could start with a standard consent form. Hopkins has a very broad consent form, but probably not broad enough to allow this type of use. Patients can't retract consent effectively. What are we doing on the unique identifier side? We needed one for the CME certificates and came up with one. That issue would come up if you wanted to track assets. Rachel added that it's important to show that due diligence has been made. They want to be proactive rather than waiting for laws to change.

Rachel encouraged the group to continue developing this document, identifying the audience and scope. She encouraged the group to think about the technical requirements for this activity, and what low maintenance approaches may be possible. Peter replied that one audience could be someone considering putting an asset into a repository, and someone considering using an asset from a repository. MedEdPortal users. Rachel replied that they are downstream users rather than creators usually. Morgan agreed. He wondered if we should identify the practical problems to focus the guidance. That can determine the level of detail we get to. Peter agreed. Gabrielle stated that would be the kind of document she could take to others in AAMC. Morgan proposed focusing on creating the list of problems. That would be a new document. We may want to organize the problems into categories once we start. Valerie offered to create a wiki for the group to collaboratively author the document.

Peter asked Rachel to send the Cherri report. We'll post to the group.

Morgan asked the group to identify others that would be interested in participating in the use rights and consent document and get them to participate in the process.

4. Open discussion

Decisions

The Working group endorsed HighWire's requested changes and will communicate the endoresement to the Standards Committee.

Action Items

  • Valerie will follow-up with Healthstream to see if they want to have a structured data for activity location or just want to change the description in the text.
  • Carl will compare the RDF v-card with the version of v-card used in LOM and post his findings to the group.
  • Valerie will establish a wiki space with the group to replace the Yahoo group.
  • Rachel will send the Cherri report to Valerie.
  • The group will identify others interested in participating in the development of a use rights and consent document.
  • No labels