Representation of Terminology Standards
Date: Thursday, September 9, 2010
Time: 12-1 PM ET
Stuart Turner, Sherri DeCoronado, Grace Stafford, Larry Wright, Alan Barcroft, Hua Min, Jyoti Pathak, Rick Kiefer, Stuart Bell, Trish Whetzel, Troy Bleeker, Riki Ohira, Mike Riben
Get together for the group at next week's Annual Meeting
- Plan to meet Monday, September 13, 2010 at 5:00 PM (after the last breakout and before the World's Fair begins)
- We will plan to meet at the VKC booth, or at the front of the entry to the World's Fair (which is located on the lowest level exhibit hall)
Summary of where we are to-date
- Three organizations have been discussing objectives for each group and created checklist of requirements and ranked importance of each
- Review NCBO extensions
- Review provenance models and addressing certification process for terminologies
- Q: What does it mean that the VKC will implement? A: Many times terminologies that have been reviewed are often out of date by the time it has been reviewed/certified and it needs to be maintained. When referring to the VKC, it would mean that the table of core metadata that was agreed upon by the group would included at the VKC site for metadata about terminologies listed/supported by the VKC.
- Community input/feedback will also need to be included (a community model that is still pending).
Introduction of Alan
- Working on building services to support research community by utilizing the national data sets
- Interests in standards and how it can help with sharing of data and utilization of the data
- Background is in NHS in the UK and knows NHS standards and learning more about other standards
Minimal Plan for the Fall
- Finish OMV Core + elements
- Review provenance models and may mean adjusting the core elements
- CTS2 and OMV alignment (Harold Solbrig is concerned with making sure that CTS2 is aligned with what is being agreed upon in this group)
- Analyze community review (possibly propose a process for including community input/feedback)
- NCBO has a community review mechanism that can be evaluated and possibly expanded
- Part of the Roadmap with milestones would require a small group of people needing to present to this group on the community input/feedback
- What are the practical changes being made in the review process is a little unclear.
- Looking at the idea of community input/feedback from the perspective of having nothing to start with and what's needed, and also from the perspective of looking at what NCBO process is and evaluating if that works and is sufficient.
- Tabular format can always be attached to something (as an entry into a set of community reviews), but in this case, we are talking about having a place for groups within the community to provide input/feedback adhoc to provide their feedback on terminologies
- End product is expected to be a white paper
Sherri and Stuart: Develop Strawman project plan for activities from now until end of January 2011
Sherri: Send PowerPoint presentation to Stuart Bell and Alan Barcroft