CIMI WGM Agenda May 2016
Return to Clinical_Information_Modeling_Initiative_Work_Group main page
|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|
|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|
|AM||Q1||Salon 6 & 7||@ Patient Care, skin breakdown||Patient Care||CIMI||Jay, Susan, Harold|
|Q2||Salon Drummond Centre||Argonauts||Stan|
|PM||lunch||No meeting. Previously CIMI meeting with FHIR Core Team|
|Q3||Salle De Bal East||At Vocabulary||Vocabulary||CIMI|
|Q4||Salon 6 & 7||NOT MEETING Previously scheduled with PC, EC, FHIR, Voc|
|AM||Q1||Salon Hemon||@ CQI||CQI||CIMI||Claude, Bryn, Ken|
|Q2||Salon Hemon||FHIR semantics; representing archetypes as structure definitions||Grahame|
|PM||Q3||Salon Hemon||RM (status); AML to ADL transforms (i.e., FHIM); possible RDF support||Michael|
|Q4||Salle De Bal East||CIMI||CQI and CDS||Claude, Bryn, Ken|
|AM||Q1||Suite 701||@ CIC DAM Data Elements||CIC||CIMI|
|HL7 CIMI Meeting Agenda/Minutes|
|Location: Room xyz||Date: 2016-01-10|
Time: 11:00 AM Central
|Quorum Requirements Met (co-chair plus 3 counting staff):|
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
- 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.