MedBiquitous Virtual Patient
Space shortcuts
Page tree
Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

Meeting Information

Date:

March 25, 2010

Time:

8 PDT/11 EDT/15 GMT/16 CET

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 of last meeting
  2. Review profiling effort (see questions for system description)
    • Branching
    • Global
    • Linear
  3. Open discussion

Jörn and commented that he had sent a movie about developing an API for virtual patients. He added that he could discuss this idea further at the in person meeting in April.

JB asked Jörn to describe his profile. Jorn replied that it supports VPD text, examination, other structured elements, and QTI knowledge questions.

JB commented that the branching profile has not moved along much. Chara added that Luke has been working on a profile for pivote but that no one else is working in this area.

JB asked Jörn for his opinion on Nabil's comments (see http://groups.medbiq.org/medbiq/display/VPWG/Description+of+the+Web-SP+system introduction)

Jorn commented that he's not sold on profiles. It would be easier to make a determination if he had a profile document to review. Valerie offered to develop a draft profile for the meeting.

Chara commented that they are most concerned with mobility of virtual patients between systems, for example, from one branched system to another. That is where the focus. They are exporting virtual patients from the VPSim and importing to open labyrinth. That works well, but it does not work well the other way around. That is what they are hoping to iron out. From his perspective, certification is not that important. He did have that one part of the attractiveness of MedBiquitous was the rigorous process. Everyone upped their game as results. But the profile work may be more useful to people including systems than to end-users. Chara added that a basic overview of the standard would be helpful for outsiders.

The group decided to convene a developers working group Monday, April 26 in London, from 430 to 530. Valerie agreed to send out details.

Rachel commented that families and profiles are very similar. The key issue is does the case run correctly -- what an educator recognized the case. But that would need to be defined. She added that she would create a schema for a branching profile before the London meeting. There is a new version of open labyrinth on google and source Forge.

Rachel, JB and Valerie agreed to come up with agendas for the London meetings.

Decisions

Action Items

  • Valerie will develop a draft profile for the meeting.
  • Valerie will send out details regarding the April 26 developers meeting.
  • Rachel will develop a branching profile schema.
  • Rachel JB and Valerie will come up with agendas for the London meetings.
  • No labels