Difference between revisions of "June 1, 2005"
| (7 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
=== Attendees: === | === Attendees: === | ||
| + | * [mailto:jak@informatics.jax.org Jim Kadin] Jackson Labs | ||
| + | * [mailto:drdata@ardais.com David Aronow] Ardais Corporation | ||
| + | * [mailto:solbrig@mayo.edu Harold Solbrig] Mayo Clinic | ||
| + | * [mailto:crowleyrs@msx.upmc.edu Rebecca Crowley, MD] UPMC | ||
| + | * [mailto:klinglerk@saic-solutions.com Kim Klingler] SAIC | ||
| + | * [mailto:keller_michael@bah.com Michael Keller] Booze Allen Hamilton | ||
=== Discussion === | === Discussion === | ||
| + | ''' With the exception of the part below, the discussion was incorporated directly into the web pages''' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ''' Point 5 from May 27 discussion ''' | ||
| + | <br/> | ||
| + | 5) Outline of our deliverables to VCDE workspace: | ||
| + | |||
| + | a) define a vocabulary of missing value reasons that CDEs can draw | ||
| + | |||
| + | from. This is likely to be a hierarchy. | ||
| + | |||
| + | b) develop recommendations to CDE developers. They will need to wrestle | ||
| + | |||
| + | with MV vs. MVR. | ||
| + | |||
| + | One possibility: include MV (e.g., unknown, not specified) in the | ||
| + | |||
| + | permissible values | ||
| + | |||
| + | And/Or create a linked CDE for the MVR - with values chosen from the | ||
| + | |||
| + | vocabulary in (a). | ||
| + | |||
| + | It seems probable that we will need some way in the caDSR for | ||
| + | |||
| + | linking a CDE with a CDE for the MVR. | ||
| + | |||
| + | c) develop recommendations for the architecture ws on how MV and MVR for | ||
| + | |||
| + | fields are linked in the messaging layer. | ||
| + | ----- | ||
| + | David - CDE developer needs to be able to specify MV in field, MVR as separate field or neither | ||
=== Action Items: === | === Action Items: === | ||
| Line 12: | Line 49: | ||
<tr> | <tr> | ||
<th>Task<th>Assignee<th>Due<th>Status | <th>Task<th>Assignee<th>Due<th>Status | ||
| + | <tr><td>Draft document for FTF<td>all<td>ftf meeting<td> | ||
| + | <tr><td>Fill out draft of item 2<td>Harold Solbrig<td>1 week<td>Done | ||
| + | <tr><td>Fill out item 4<td>David Aronow<td>1 week<td>Done | ||
| + | <tr><td>Discussion of item 3<td>Jim<td>1 week<td> | ||
| + | <tr><td>Slides for FTF<td><td>ftf meeting<td> | ||
<tr> | <tr> | ||
Latest revision as of 17:44, 7 June 2005
June 1, 2005 Teleconference
Time: 2:00 to 3:00 PM Eastern Time Convert
Phone #: (877)407-0183
PassCode: 764591#
Attendees:
- Jim Kadin Jackson Labs
- David Aronow Ardais Corporation
- Harold Solbrig Mayo Clinic
- Rebecca Crowley, MD UPMC
- Kim Klingler SAIC
- Michael Keller Booze Allen Hamilton
Discussion
With the exception of the part below, the discussion was incorporated directly into the web pages
Point 5 from May 27 discussion
5) Outline of our deliverables to VCDE workspace:
a) define a vocabulary of missing value reasons that CDEs can draw
from. This is likely to be a hierarchy.
b) develop recommendations to CDE developers. They will need to wrestle
with MV vs. MVR.
One possibility: include MV (e.g., unknown, not specified) in the
permissible values
And/Or create a linked CDE for the MVR - with values chosen from the
vocabulary in (a).
It seems probable that we will need some way in the caDSR for
linking a CDE with a CDE for the MVR.
c) develop recommendations for the architecture ws on how MV and MVR for
fields are linked in the messaging layer.
David - CDE developer needs to be able to specify MV in field, MVR as separate field or neither
Action Items:
| Task | Assignee | Due | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Draft document for FTF | all | ftf meeting | |
| Fill out draft of item 2 | Harold Solbrig | 1 week | Done |
| Fill out item 4 | David Aronow | 1 week | Done |
| Discussion of item 3 | Jim | 1 week | |
| Slides for FTF | ftf meeting | ||
