This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here
Difference between revisions of "CIMI WGM Agenda May 2016"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 408: | Line 408: | ||
* Claude and Harold presented slides on the CQI approach to model composition and on AML representation of terminology bindings. | * Claude and Harold presented slides on the CQI approach to model composition and on AML representation of terminology bindings. | ||
* Linda presented ongoing work on IHTSDO syntax development | * Linda presented ongoing work on IHTSDO syntax development | ||
− | * Jay presented slides on a project to use xslt to transform archetypes into owl xml. Questions included the following: | + | * Jay presented [[Media:Transforming_CIMI_into_SNOMED_expressions_160508.pptx | slides]] on a project to use xslt to transform archetypes into owl xml. Questions included the following: |
** Maturity of CIMI models: actually, current drafts are based on extensive harmonization, and model bindings to SCT may be incomplete but are vetted. What we are actually missing is a clear governance path so you can tell what's official and what's in process. | ** Maturity of CIMI models: actually, current drafts are based on extensive harmonization, and model bindings to SCT may be incomplete but are vetted. What we are actually missing is a clear governance path so you can tell what's official and what's in process. | ||
** Maturity of Observable model: a new version is available, or is to be available. | ** Maturity of Observable model: a new version is available, or is to be available. | ||
Line 414: | Line 414: | ||
** Refset bindings will require a service in order to create closure axioms for owl. | ** Refset bindings will require a service in order to create closure axioms for owl. | ||
** XML version of CIMI archetypes is not normative. This one we should discuss. | ** XML version of CIMI archetypes is not normative. This one we should discuss. | ||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
==Monday Lunch== | ==Monday Lunch== |
Revision as of 19:52, 9 May 2016
Return to Clinical_Information_Modeling_Initiative_Work_Group main page
Agenda
Day | Time | Room | Event | Host | Joining | Chair | Scribe | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Sunday May 8 |
AM | Q1 | Administration (week planning, wg health, project status updates) | |||||
Q2 | Governance, what's in the modeling pipeline, how are models approved, what goes in the repository | Stan | ||||||
PM | Lunch | How when and why are model transformations done (isosemantic, translation to design models) | Claude, Richard | |||||
Q3 | Design - composition | Claude | ||||||
Q4 | Design - Alignment with FHIM | Galen | ||||||
Monday May 9 |
AM | Q1 | Tooling: ISAAC, IHTSDO, 'archetype design tool' | Craig, Keith, Harold, Linda | ||||
Q2 | Semantics & alignment with models of meaning, e.g., SNOMED CT; binding; handling federated terminologies; selection of concept identifiers (e.g., LOINC vs Observable) | Jay, Claude, Keith | ||||||
lunch | Semantics & alignment with IHTSDO | Linda | ||||||
PM | Q3 | Quality Metrics for DCMs, incl. ISO | Sun-Ju | |||||
Q4 | Tooling 2: SCT CIMI identifer tool, knowledge management, experimental integration with CQL | Harold, Richard | ||||||
Day | Time | Room | Event | Host | Joining | Chair | Scribe | |
Tuesday May 10 |
AM | Q1 | @ Patient Care, skin breakdown | Patient Care | CIMI | Jay, Susan, Harold | ||
Q2 | Argonauts | Stan | ||||||
PM | lunch | No meeting. Previously CIMI meeting with FHIR Core Team | ||||||
Q3 | At Vocabulary | Vocabulary | CIMI | |||||
Q4 | NOT MEETING Previously scheduled with PC, EC, FHIR, Voc | |||||||
Day | Time | Room | Event | Host | Joining | Chair | Scribe | |
Wednesday May 11 |
AM | Q1 | @ CQI | CQI | CIMI | Claude, Bryn, Ken | ||
Q2 | FHIR semantics; representing archetypes as structure definitions | Grahame | ||||||
PM | Q3 | RM (status); AML to ADL transforms (i.e., FHIM); possible RDF support | Michael | |||||
Q4 | CIMI | CQI and CDS | Claude, Bryn, Ken | |||||
Day | Time | Room | Event | Host | Joining | Chair | Scribe | |
Thursday May 12 |
AM | Q1 | @ CIC | CIC | CIMI | |||
Q2 | NOT MEETING | |||||||
PM | Q3 | NOT MEETING | ||||||
Q4 | NOT MEETING | |||||||
Day | Time | Room | Event | Host | Joining | Chair | Scribe | |
Friday May 13 |
AM | Q1 | NOT MEETING | |||||
Q2 | NOT MEETING | |||||||
PM | Q3 | NOT MEETING | ||||||
Q4 | NOT MEETING |
Minutes
Sunday Q3
HL7 CIMI Meeting Agenda/Minutes | |
Location: Room xyz | Date: 2016-01-10 Time: 11:00 AM Central |
Facilitator: | Note taker(s): |
Attendee | Name, Affiliation |
. | . |
Quorum Requirements Met (co-chair plus 3 counting staff): |
Minutes/Conclusions Reached:
Sunday Q4
Attendees Michale Van der Zel, Jay Lyle, Chris Millet, Floyd Eisenberg, Susan Matney, Craig Parker, Joey Coyle, Stan Huff, Linda Bird, Harold Solbrig, Claude Nanjo, Richard Esmond, 3-6 others
- Jay presented the FHIM at a high level, including intended uses and a brief view of the model.
- The expectation is that FHIM could provide a framework for inserting CIMI components.
- The question of composition was addressed. A CIMI indivisible model must provide the context necessary for its interpretation, so logically, a panel would contain repetitive context information, but an implementation could use pointers to avoid excessive repetition.
- We need to address the compositional dimensions Claude brings up; they seem to be orthogonal to the compositional concept of FHIM/CIMI
- Question: is this specialization or constraint? Does it matter?
- We need an approach for templating (localizing) archetypes
- Stan to provide a list of questions already identified for task force
Monday Q2
- Claude and Harold presented slides on the CQI approach to model composition and on AML representation of terminology bindings.
- Linda presented ongoing work on IHTSDO syntax development
- Jay presented slides on a project to use xslt to transform archetypes into owl xml. Questions included the following:
- Maturity of CIMI models: actually, current drafts are based on extensive harmonization, and model bindings to SCT may be incomplete but are vetted. What we are actually missing is a clear governance path so you can tell what's official and what's in process.
- Maturity of Observable model: a new version is available, or is to be available.
- Value set binding syntax: it's a URI. How this is to be resolved is the responsibility of a service, not CIMI.
- Refset bindings will require a service in order to create closure axioms for owl.
- XML version of CIMI archetypes is not normative. This one we should discuss.