2009-12-11

Meeting Information

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

Attending: Rachel Ellaway and JB McGee, co-chairs; Susan Albright, Dave Burden, Chris Toth, Luke Woodham

Agenda Items

1 ANSI Process - Jörn's comments

Rachel explains that Jörn had sent an e-mail recommending certain changes to the specification but then e-mailed the group saying that these could wait until version 2 and did not need to be considered as comments during the public review. Rachel questioned whether Jörn's comments should be introduced as formal comments during the public review period.

Dan commented that moving from on off to Boolean is a minor change and doesn't fundamentally change the spec. In his opinion that could go to version 2. He hasn't thought much about the default question.

JB commented that many feel the group is taking a long time to develop a standard. He worries about the prospects of further delays.

Rachel commented that it is within the groups purview whether to take this back to the standards committee. She added that she would prefer to continue the current process and begin a list of things to consider for version 2. JB agreed it should be on the list for the next update. The group agreed.

2 Profiling - first pass results

Branching

Rachel commented that she and JB had created a model for how both their systems implement the specification, but that there is little commonality. JB agreed to discuss the profile further with Rachel. After their call, they will update the spreadsheet.

Linear

Dan commented that he had added to Jörn's spreadsheet on the wiki. There is overlap with their system and Campus. There are more dissimilarities with Casus. He has not yet spoken with Jörn about what should be in the profile.He added that without having a current export, it is difficult to know what they will encounter.

Global

Dan sent a draft to Nabil and just received his first pass through. He agreed to integrate Nabil's information and upload it to the wiki. He and Nabil are trying to set up a call.

Virtual worlds

Luke commented that they had an update on the wiki. He, Rachel, and David Burden met in London at the start of November. He will document in a whitepaper the proposed extensions they may be able to use. There is current research and development happening with both tools. They will see if common ground suggests a profile. Rachel added that there is a broad set of things to accommodate.

She asked people to identify commonalities for profiles going forward.

JB commented that a key area is how Xtensible info from different systems could work together. Rachel commented that we should try to normalize across systems where possible. JB asked if a profile could describe similarities and differences. Rachel commented that would not be a profile; a profile should have its own schema and validation rules. Valerie added that profiles further restrict what is in the standard.

Dan asked if definitions for extensions could be in a profile schema? Valerie replied that they could if the extensions were common; if the extensions are unique to one system, they do not go in a profile. Rachel clarified that the goal of the profile is interoperability. JB clarified that a system could have other extensions in their export, but that those extensions would not go in the profile.

Rachel commented that we would look at profiles on the next call in January. She asked participats to put together documents describing their profiles for the next call.

JB added that the group should take notes about what differs between systems not for inclusion in the profile, but for understanding the differences for purposes of data transfer.

3 Certification and compliance

Valerie reviewed the proposed certification process, explaining that profile developers would need to develop XSD schemas for the profile, a checklist of profile requirements not in the schema, and a virtual patient package conforming to the profile. All of these would be used to determine conformance to the profile.

The group questioned the cost of certification. Valerie commented that the cost would be $2000. The price reflects a need to cover costs for developing the certification process as well as conducting certification tests on each system applying for certification.

Susan asked if new versions would have to be recertified. Valerie commented that they would - certification would be specific to a single version of the tool. Rachel compared the certification process to taxes - you don't hand the tax forms to the IRS until they are ready.

The group asked what would identify systems as certified. Valerie commented that there is a logo that can be used to show conformance. In addition, the system will be listed on the MedBiquitous website.

JB commented that there were advantages to certification form a consumer perspective. Consumers will want to know that cases were built using a certified system. That will give them assurance that cases will work with their system.

4 Using QTI and other existing specs with MVP

The group agreed to discuss next time.

5 Activity at ICVP/MedBiquitous meeting

Rachel commented that at previous MedBiquitous meetings the group had scheduled a working group meeting, but none was scheduled for the April conference currently. She asked the group if they wanted to convene at the meeting or if they would be served well by the meeting overall.

JB asked who would be able to attend. Susan commented that her travel is fairly restricted. Rachel and JB both indicated they would attend. Rachel added that the eViP partners would attend as well. She added that there will be many in attendance who have not had much engagement in the working group. The group could disseminate information about its activities at the meeting. JB commented he would be in favor of usin the lunch opportunity to disseminate information and collect from a broader crowd. Valerie commented that she would see if food was allowed in the debating chamber, the proposed venue for the lunch meeting. The group can continue discussion on the next call.

Decisions

Action Items