Child pages
  • 2014-04-16
Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

Meeting Information

Date:

April 16, 2014

Time:

9 MDT/11 EDT/17 CEST/18 EEST

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

Minutes of the meeting were accepted as submitted.

2 Revised table for referencing vocabularies

Valerie’s action item from the last meeting was to break up the vocabularies into table format for ease of reference.  She provided a table that links to the Healthcare LOM reference element.  Daniela agreed it was well organized and can be added to as needed.  

3 Proposed vocabulary for learningResourceType

Daniela and Valerie harmonized the Meducator media Type, AAMC Format type, and VA learningResourceType vocabularies.  The items in bold are from the AAMC and VA vocabularies; non-bolded items are from the mEducator Media type vocabulary.  This change will be reflected in the specification document as well as the schema.  

Options for incorporating references

On the last call Valerie agreed to come back with options for incorporating references into Healthcare LOM.  She described two decisions that needed to be made.  1) where should the references be housed and; 2) do we want to have a container element for the reference that provides further context as to its purpose.

With regard to where the references should be housed, she illustrated two options: the healthcareEducation element and the education element. Option 1, Slide 2 describes the first option of having a reference within healthcareEducation.  There is not contextual container; the reference could be supporting information, or a competency, or something else, and you would know by looking at the name space in that reference. 

Option 2, slide 3 puts references within a container within healthcareEducation. In the illustration, there is a competency container and the reference is within that competency container; you know that the reference is a competency object or competency framework.  You could have multiple defined containers. 

Option 3, slide 4, has the references directly within the lom educational element.  Option 4, slide 5 puts references within a container within the lom educational element. You could have multiple defined containers.  She added that the options are not mutually exclusive.

Daniela asked for clarification about the direction of references. The performance framework references the competency framework, but the competency framework does not reference the performance framework.  Valerie confirmed that was the case. The supporting information type element does let you point to resources and provides an external link. 

Daniela commented that putting references in the healthcareEducation element made sense.  Erick mentioned option 1 or 2.  He thought it made sense to keep it within healthcare LOM as opposed to something larger.  Daniela asked if there would be a link to the educational element.  Eric answered not within healthcare education.  Daniella asked if it needs to be either option 1 or 2 can both be included? She likes the idea of a container.  Can you reference a whole healthcare education or can you reference a single competency if somebody has a healthcare education node that is filled out with everything I need.  Valerie mentioned there is a set of metadata describing a learning resource that she and Erick could reference as used in this context.  There could be a particular competency that I want to reference as well.  Erick commented you have the flexibility to reference the whole thing, choosing between option 1 and 2, choose 2 because it allows for a greater level of granularity.  He doesn’t see that we have to choose between two options.  We could allow reference as in option 1 or allow references in option 2. 

Valerie clarified we could specify competency and then have a more generic reference for less common types of references you would want to point to.  Does it provide enough flexibility?  Erick asked if there should be a reference node with one or more references beneath it.  Valerie commented that would be fine and would make it more organized when you have lots of references.  Stathis commented option 2 offers granularity information itself.  He was in favor of option 2 over a hybrid of option 1 and 2.  Option 2 offers more granularity.  Daniela agreed that option 2 gives granularity; however, the hybrid might have some benefit. 

Erick sent a revised hybrid approach to the group under the heading healthcare lom edits.  Valerie noted with the competency in Performance Framework, we didn’t have a reference container and the data type was restricted and it was 2, competency object and competency framework.  Erick asked the group if they thought it made it more complex to have two options.  Valerie didn’t think it added that much complexity, the flexibility adds some “future proofing.”  Valerie suggested she could circulate a proposal and give people the opportunity to provide comments by a certain date and then make a decision since not everyone from the group was on the call today.  She will take that as an action ite to circulate the proposal to the group and make a few minor changes to make it consistent with the competency framework.  The group agreed on the hybrid model but will await the responses from the rest of the working group.  The proposal will be adopted unless anybody offers further suggestions.  

5 Open discussion

Jody and Valerie will coordinate future calls for this working group after the May conference.  She mentioned the hotel deadline is today and encouraged everyone to make their reservations because the Preakness, one of the biggest events the city hosts, is that same weekend.  

Decisions

Action Items

Valerie will circulate proposals for references and learningResourceType to the full working group for review.

  • No labels