V3 Publishing ConCall Minutes 20091007
Contents
Wednesday, October 7, 2009 -- 4:00 PM Eastern
Present
Beeler, Kreisler, Loyd, Lloyd, McDaniel, Seppala, Stechishin, Savage
Agenda
Call to order at 4:06
Woody chair, Andy scribe
Review Minutes of September 30, 2009
Not done
NE2009
Don will burning the disks for distribution
Woody
Updated RMIM Designer release Thursday, Oct 1. Mead found some issues, Woody believes all solved
- Will release beta (has been posting alphas)
- Propose RIM change for next harmonization cycle
- Lloyd checked in V3 Generator with Datatypes R2, ready for next ballot and ne2010
- There is a batch process to do conversion
- Run from the stencil menu: choose File->New then click on Stencil
- Has the ability to validate a large number of models at once
- The Error pane has a Save to File option
- Error pane is hierarchical
- Save as XML just names file (not valid XML)
- The Summary tab on Properties of file show the Datatypes version
Woody asked call attendees if he should update the datatypes or will each publishing facilitator do on their own. After discussion it was agreed that Woody leave the datatypes update to the publishing facilitator but would be available to help if needed. Patrick and Austin would figure out OO. The artefacts remaining in HMD will need to be converted to Visio and then converted to datatypes R2.
Action: Woody has been asked to do immunization
Don
CBC:
- Don has gotten as far as RCRIM
- Clinical Decision Support will reballot
- OO comm prod model cmet
- Scheduling CMETs for Patient Adminstration
- A new guide coming out of PHER
- RCRIMwill reballot
- There is a number of final items:
- Gello r2
- Lab CMETs
- Lab Result
- Immunization DSTU r2
- Public Health CMETs
- CDISC DAM
Don will send the list to co-chairs
Phoenix WGM
Andy spoke about the change to the quarters. In Phoenix, meeting Q3 Wednesday and Q2 Friday.
Around the table
Gregg
- Confirm: go forward to ballot should be datatypes R2
- Has 1 ballot that would have been NE but for 1 negative
- Change was relatively minor but will now need more substantial work
- consider UC from ND social service situation of children
- Want to know who is house at given time
- Based on number of changes should do Draft for Comment or Peer Review?
- Gregg thought Peer Review would get better comments
- Austin: Good question for TSC? Would Peer Review became mandatory as part of SAEAF?
- General discussion on process
- Peer Review vs quality check
- Peer Review of domain content
- Peer Review for modelling consistency
- Gregg had some questions on using the Peer Review:
- How to publish?
- How to gather comments?
- Gregg thought he might be able to do one peer review between now and Phoenix
- Question to Gregg: What is the advantage to using ballot process?
- Existing process, can track and find result of ballot easily
- Austin same as ballot without formal restrct on days notif
- Don has a proposal for the GOC for Draft for Comment ballots recommending the rules be relaxed for DFC
- Austin would like to use the DeskTop Publishing tools to generate a package for Peer Review
- Don is working on light-weight ballot desktop with flexible open and close dates
Motion: To support flexible, quick response Work Group managed processes to allow review and comment on material being advanced within a project a light-weight ballot desktop is necessary. The V3 Publishing work Group will continue to define the requirements and create a project to further advance the environment.
Austin/Rob 6-0-0
