Difference between revisions of "June 1, 2005"
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 === |
Revision as of 19:13, 1 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
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 | |
Fill out item 4 | David Aronow | 1 week | |
Discussion of item 3 | Jim | 1 week | |
Slides for FTF | ftf meeting | ||