Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

Meeting Information

Date:

October 26, 2015

Time:

8 PDT/9 MDT/10 CDT/11 EDT/15 GMT/
2 AM Tuesday AEDT (with great apologies to Ian) 

Attending: Ellen Meiselman, David Topps, Co-Chairs; Scott Beck, Erick Emde, Jason Haag, Tom Creighton, Valerie Smothers and Radu Vestemean

Agenda Items

1 Review minutes

The minutes were accepted as submitted

2 Update on review by the Executive Committee (see current proposal)

David mentioned the group is moving from a special interest group to a more formal status.  Valerie added the group will become a formal working group and an announcement will be made as part of the formal standards development process.   David mentioned the scope is broader than originally planned and is still being manipulated.  David asked what “Preceptor Reviewed Simulation” meant.  Valerie answered it was a reference to the VA preceptor observing a simulation.  The Executive Committee feedback was integrated into the revised scope.  They asked for the work plan to include a deliverable available for presentation at the May conference.  The next step is electronic balloting to the Standards Committee for approval and making an announcement to ANSI of the standards activity.  

3 Discuss plan for development

A Recipes (See VP recipe) - most recent version edits on Google Drive

David explained the approach and recipes are guided by Tin Can.  A recipe is a collection of verbs focused on a particular activity.  They moved the version to google drive and are making good progress.  Ellen was concerned about the process.  Valerie noted we can create recipes and a guidance document, and part of that would be a registry of verbs used within that context.  David mentioned the main thing is to be consistent with verb usage in different profiles.  Ellen thought it made sense to turn them into machine readable and recordable elements.  Scott mentioned XAPI examples are helpful.  David added finding the right level of granularity and using existing verbs from other profiles seems to be useful.  He is struggling with determining what happens when you land on a node.  There are two outstanding verbs, “Ignore” and “Updated”.  We need to create our own definition that links to activity stream.    

Profile (see SCORM profile as an example)

David explained a recipe is a piece within the profile. Tom created the SCORM profile.  Tom added other people reviewed and helped.    

4 Discuss process for creating new verbs

Valerie reviewed the process for creating new verbs and created a link and description.  Ellen asked if everything will end up on the ADL registry.  Valerie explained just the new verbs we are adding.  Jason added he would need the IRI to and a minimal set of metadata for new verbs.  Valerie mentioned the two new verbs, “Ignored” and “Updated,” will be identified as MedBiq vocabulary.  Jason will publish them and set up the PURL with logins to change things.  He can assign Valerie as the maintainer.  Jason agreed to share best practices for writing descriptions.   He will take suggestions on changes to the two new verbs.  Valerie added the definitions are currently Virtual Patient specific but may be applicable to other types of environment, virtual world or mannequin based.  She asked the group if they wanted definitions that would apply across the whole scope of what we want to develop.  David answered in principle yes.    

5 Recipe sets for other simulation areas - shared GDoc

David mentioned the scope of the working group proposal has broadened to other areas.  We need to think about which of these things are still applicable to mannekins, and make it cleaner.  The last piece will take more thinking about broader scope of clinical training experience. How we nest activities was not clear.  Ellen suggested looking for guidance from ADL or tin can folks.  Valerie added coming up with clear examples will help.  David mentioned tying statements together is another option but the most important thing is to find a way to search on them, and asking LRS to give you statements back, specific to what you are looking for.  It helps to form how you want to create your statements to begin with.  David noted the SCORM profile was very helpful.  Jason noted the differences between recipe, and other business roles that need to be considered.  Tom suggested using defined profile ID for our name space.  Ellen commented that would answer Valerie’s question about writing verb definitions broadly to suit all activities.  As long as we use the IRI of a specific profile, we can use limited definitions. 

Valerie suggested having a profile for each activity type and Tom agreed.  Valerie commented we will need to rewrite the proposal.  We could start with Virtual Patient and get something out more quickly and indicate in the future we may propose other things.  David asked Jason if he sees this working as a single profile or multiple profiles, linking profiles.  Jason answered nothing prevents you from referencing multiple profiles; from a vocabulary perspective, a term belongs to a specific vocabulary IRI where profile information could be obtained. David discussed this with Rachel Ellaway and she suggested taking the approach of having a three level hierarchy.  Valerie, Jason, David and Ellen will meet further to discuss by phone.  The working group was encouraged to send further comments.  

Decisions

Action Items

  • Valerie, Jason, David and Ellen  will further discuss the approach to profiles.
  • Valerie, David, and Ellen will edit the standards proposal.
  • No labels