Hi Michael, All, In both the cases, i.e., google doc vs directly working on the source/note (HTML), we would need following to start (as this group is with very multidisciplinary experts) and move ahead:
1. First agree on a structure (i.e., TOC) for each note 2. Assigning sections to respective experts 3. Merge the sections/contents 4. Take feedback/comments on a first complete draft 5. Finalise the note Regards, Ratnesh From: Michael Miller [mailto:michael.mil...@systemsbiology.org] Sent: Friday, April 1, 2016 5:04 AM To: Richard Boyce; public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org; linik...@gmail.com; brian.leba...@va.gov; bho...@genelex.com; cjvit...@partners.org; cui....@uth.tmc.edu; mal...@pharmacy.arizona.edu; daniela.olive...@insight-centre.org; e...@squishymedia.com; draper.e...@mayo.edu; george.li...@va.gov; gmce...@ashp.org; jschnei...@pobox.com; har...@pitt.edu; jeffniel...@gmail.com; sundaram.medimm...@gmail.com; jrh...@u.washington.edu; jkli...@ncpdp.org; j...@rxdoc.me; jmba...@stanford.edu; ka...@pitt.edu; kim.no...@pfizer.com; laura.slaugh...@gmail.com; lori.idem...@gmail.com; pet...@pharmacy.arizona.edu; maria.herr...@kcl.ac.uk; breitenstein.matt...@mayo.edu; mbrochhau...@uams.edu; matthias.samw...@meduniwien.ac.at; michel.dumont...@stanford.edu; michael.mil...@systemsbiology.org; michael.lieb...@ipqanalytics.com; m...@jackpo.org; na...@worldvista.org; nick.tatone...@columbia.edu; hassanza...@us.ibm.com; yongq...@med.umich.edu; oliv...@nlm.nih.gov; be...@dbis.rwth-aachen.de; nyt...@idi.ntnu.no; ratnesh.sa...@insight-centre.org; freimuth.rob...@mayo.edu; sam.hab...@gmail.com; scott.nelson...@gmail.com; serkanay...@gmail.com; vale...@genelex.com; xjing2...@gmail.com Subject: RE: PDDI Info Task Force (Standard sub-group) - Minutes/recording for 3/31 hi all, Rich proposed that a process for writing whereby we select certain sections to focus on and develop content using google docs. Rich and the other editors will migrate the content into the W3C note format No objection was raised this can work, if we anticipate that a lot of people will be working on the same section simultaneously. but in other groups, i've seen one person assigned to write the first draft, submit a pull request that people then comment on and once people are happy with the updates it's merged. that way the process is captured by the source control. people working on different sections won't collide in the merges. cheers, michael Michael Miller Software Engineer Institute for Systems Biology From: Richard Boyce [mailto:rd...@pitt.edu<mailto:rd...@pitt.edu>] Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2016 1:26 PM To: public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org<mailto:public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>; linik...@gmail.com<mailto:linik...@gmail.com>; brian.leba...@va.gov<mailto:brian.leba...@va.gov>; bho...@genelex.com<mailto:bho...@genelex.com>; cjvit...@partners.org<mailto:cjvit...@partners.org>; cui....@uth.tmc.edu<mailto:cui....@uth.tmc.edu>; mal...@pharmacy.arizona.edu<mailto:mal...@pharmacy.arizona.edu>; daniela.olive...@insight-centre.org<mailto:daniela.olive...@insight-centre.org>; e...@squishymedia.com<mailto:e...@squishymedia.com>; draper.e...@mayo.edu<mailto:draper.e...@mayo.edu>; george.li...@va.gov<mailto:george.li...@va.gov>; gmce...@ashp.org<mailto:gmce...@ashp.org>; jschnei...@pobox.com<mailto:jschnei...@pobox.com>; har...@pitt.edu<mailto:har...@pitt.edu>; jeffniel...@gmail.com<mailto:jeffniel...@gmail.com>; sundaram.medimm...@gmail.com<mailto:sundaram.medimm...@gmail.com>; jschnei...@pobox.com<mailto:jschnei...@pobox.com>; jrh...@u.washington.edu<mailto:jrh...@u.washington.edu>; jkli...@ncpdp.org<mailto:jkli...@ncpdp.org>; j...@rxdoc.me<mailto:j...@rxdoc.me>; jmba...@stanford.edu<mailto:jmba...@stanford.edu>; ka...@pitt.edu<mailto:ka...@pitt.edu>; kim.no...@pfizer.com<mailto:kim.no...@pfizer.com>; laura.slaugh...@gmail.com<mailto:laura.slaugh...@gmail.com>; lori.idem...@gmail.com<mailto:lori.idem...@gmail.com>; pet...@pharmacy.arizona.edu<mailto:pet...@pharmacy.arizona.edu>; maria.herr...@kcl.ac.uk<mailto:maria.herr...@kcl.ac.uk>; breitenstein.matt...@mayo.edu<mailto:breitenstein.matt...@mayo.edu>; mbrochhau...@uams.edu<mailto:mbrochhau...@uams.edu>; matthias.samw...@meduniwien.ac.at<mailto:matthias.samw...@meduniwien.ac.at>; michel.dumont...@stanford.edu<mailto:michel.dumont...@stanford.edu>; michael.mil...@systemsbiology.org<mailto:michael.mil...@systemsbiology.org>; michael.lieb...@ipqanalytics.com<mailto:michael.lieb...@ipqanalytics.com>; m...@jackpo.org<mailto:m...@jackpo.org>; na...@worldvista.org<mailto:na...@worldvista.org>; nick.tatone...@columbia.edu<mailto:nick.tatone...@columbia.edu>; hassanza...@us.ibm.com<mailto:hassanza...@us.ibm.com>; yongq...@med.umich.edu<mailto:yongq...@med.umich.edu>; oliv...@nlm.nih.gov<mailto:oliv...@nlm.nih.gov>; be...@dbis.rwth-aachen.de<mailto:be...@dbis.rwth-aachen.de>; nyt...@idi.ntnu.no<mailto:nyt...@idi.ntnu.no>; ratnesh.sa...@insight-centre.org<mailto:ratnesh.sa...@insight-centre.org>; rd...@pitt.edu<mailto:rd...@pitt.edu>; freimuth.rob...@mayo.edu<mailto:freimuth.rob...@mayo.edu>; sam.hab...@gmail.com<mailto:sam.hab...@gmail.com>; scott.nelson...@gmail.com<mailto:scott.nelson...@gmail.com>; serkanay...@gmail.com<mailto:serkanay...@gmail.com>; vale...@genelex.com<mailto:vale...@genelex.com>; xjing2...@gmail.com<mailto:xjing2...@gmail.com> Subject: PDDI Info Task Force (Standard sub-group) - Minutes/recording for 3/31 (FYI for those on public-semweb-lifesci who are not participating....) Dear Colleagues, Below are pasted the minutes of the Standard sub-group for the PDDI DDI Minimum Information Model Task Force [1]. Please note that the next meetings scheduled in April are as follows: - Standard development sub-team: April 29th (Friday) at 1-2 Eastern - Content sub-team: April 29th (Friday) at 3-4 Eastern Please expect me to send out 2 doodle polls within the next week or so to obtain new meeting times for 1) an all team call in May to summarize progress and discuss the medication reconciliation use case, and 2) sub-team meetings for the May - July. 1. https://sites.google.com/site/ddikrandir/home/ddi_info_model_taskforce Minutes for 3/31/2016 (Standard subgroup) In Attendance : Chris Vitale (PHS), Daniela & Ratnesh, Kim Nolen, Laura Slaughter, Maria Herrero, Mathias Brochhausen, Matthias Thomas Samwald, Richard Boyce, Schneider, Jodi, Xia Jing Meeting recording: http://goo.gl/yx4nn7 Meeting: Update from the Content subteam Selected PDDIs and plans for the next couple of months Noted especially 1) PDDIs will be selected to represent boundary cases for each of the information categories, and 2) the content sub-team plans to develop decision trees for all of the chosen PDDIs (~20) Toward writing an Interest Group Note Ratnesh proposed an outline for the interest note where there would actually be multiple notes - one as an introduction and background with stakeholder descriptions, use cases, and user scenarios; and then one each for evidence reporting, the information model, and links to ontologies and terminologies No objection was raised to this idea An github project and initial draft: GitHub project: https://github.com/W3C-HCLS/w3c-ddi Example draft : http://goo.gl/7ZaE94 Rich proposed that a process for writing whereby we select certain sections to focus on and develop content using google docs. Rich and the other editors will migrate the content into the W3C note format No objection was raised Progress on definitions Discussion of stakeholders The question of who the stakeholders are for the min info model came up from the Standard sub-team. Rich presented of stakeholders suggested by the content sub-team which was expanded during the call to the following: Clinicians (doctors, nurses, pharmacists, and various practitioners) who must use PDDI information to make clinical decisions Persons who create systems that provide PDDI information to clinicians in various settings (e.g., database vendors, persons who have PDDI knowledge and want to represent it, drug information editorial boards) Organizations that provide publicly available lists of drug-drug interactions (e.g., developers of RxNorm) Clinical researchers who can generate evidence about PDDIs (e.g, translational research on PDDIs) Academics / researchers who want to use the PDDI data in various research projects ranging from data mining to information retrieval to clinical research (evidence generation - more towards perhaps pharmacovigilance) Pharmaceutical company, contract research organization - e.g. during pre-market studies (e.g., clinical trials) to guide medication safety during premarket research Patient (maybe) -- receiving end of a clinical encounter where the clinician provides information provided by this model Patient (maybe) -- searching for information TODO: Rich will pull this into a google doc in the format of user profile and scenarios for discussion by the sub-team with the goal of finalizing by the next call Knowledge representation goal for the model to what degree should it support inference? Rich used the Warfarin and NSAIDs PDDI to discuss how how “semantically rich” (and rigid) the data model will be. The discussion was aided by a draft list of theses developed by Mathias B. The ‘straw man’ proposal is that the ~7 information categories we are focusing on should be “semantically rich” (i.e., logically consistent formal definitions, realist orientation, upper ontology) I.e., treat the six core terms and all terms/concepts that get related to those as information entities Then, integrate or use multiple commonly used data schemata, terminologies and ontologies to provide the terms, data elements, and representations that are then linked to our ~7 core terms. TODO: Rich will put the draft list of theses into a google doc and share with the sub-team to arrive at a final set of desiderata to guide future development. We went over the spreadsheet discussing proposed definitions Lots of good proposals and discussion. One proposal was to split “frequency of harm and exposure” into two categories No objects so we will proceed that way This will be organized over the next couple of weeks so we can refine and move toward a final recommendation for each Rich will likely create a google doc or sheet for each category to organize and summarize the discussion Next steps Look for doodles to schedule new meetings after April Work on user scenario and standard desiderata google docs when sent out Work toward finalizing definition for “clinical consequences” when a doc or sheet sent out Plan to work out a process to get the other definitions done at our next meeting Kind regards! -Rich -- Richard D Boyce, PhD Assistant Professor of Biomedical Informatics Faculty, Center for Pharmaceutical Policy and Prescribing Faculty, Geriatric Pharmaceutical Outcomes and Gero-Informatics Research and Training Program University of Pittsburgh rd...@pitt.edu<mailto:rd...@pitt.edu> Office: 412-648-9219 Twitter: @bhaapgh
