HCLS TC Minutes 30 November 2006

HCLS Minutes-- thanks Joanne for stepping in!


HCLS  30 November 2006
Joanne Luciano - scribe - turned over to Eric, Tonya, Vipul for editing....

Topic 1:
Main focus of discussion needs to be the conclusion of BMC paper.

Eric - What is happening now is we keep adding and churning rather than settling. Should we ask for extension or in to publish separate pieces.  The problem is likely a symptom of the dynamics of writing a paper as a group.

Are talking of the vision and what we doing towards that?

Alan: Not as comfortable with the vision thing. We can't not have a vision, but wants it to be somewhat educational. Wants the reader to come away with the thought they could do something they couldn't do before. Another concern is the use case is not exercised yet. It is scary to him to put it out (i.e. in the paper) if it is not tested yet. It is safer to talk about work after the work has been done. Proposes we do more more, then then write about it. The use case is not complete enough to write about.

Joanne: Suggests we state the vision and what we have been able to achieve so far, noting what the issues we face are towards achieving this vision. This would be informative, educational and timely.

Alan: That is reasonable, but it is not what is done in the paper so far.

Scott: Agrees with Alan to add a dimension of interest and refer to some of the more typifying articles on the subject, i.e. classic articles, as these would be helpful for those trying to get a hold on what HCLS is.

Eric: Vision is over used. It is important - it appears we don't all see the same thing thing (elephant metaphor) - some see the vision as data representation, some see it more about being ontologically rich and saying things about domain, however, this is an inclusive environment. The goal that encompasses these vision can be shared at later time, i.e. things can be connected later rather than up front, but it is a difficult task.  Doesn't see connection [in the paper] of using technology, i.e. can we pull it together to work with it?  Suggestion of what works with certain forms of the data.

Joanne: [I wasn't able to record what I said because I was saying it.]

Scott: That's what Alan suggested, i.e. being specific about pitfalls, discussing the barriers, to put things into perspective

Alan: Thinks there is a good story to tell and a paper to write.
Asks if anyone thinks it can be ready in this time scale.

Eric:  Reports that Ivan said it is not good to rush it.  The paper is going through a lot of gyrations for a paper due in a week. Eric agrees with the reasoning.

Scott: The vision should be clear and clean, keep it simple. 
Can do this introductory material at same time talking about work in progress.

Alan concurs. Things don't have to be finished to tell a good story.

Eric: Summarizes:
* Paper & group need more time to focus on key issues 
* Need clearer vision
* Need to get further with specific activities 

Eric: In a note from Kei [Kei joined later]: Raises 3 points. Wants to get a sense form the group. He is trying to get an extension - eric says go for another date.

Matthias - There is already enough in the paper of that it is worth going forward. 
Shouldn't focus on vision, but should report on experience gained, of which we have enough to talk about. Specifically:
data sets
pros oand cons
Also argues we shouldn't miss the chance to publish in the special issue what experiences we have to date.

Joanne - supporting Matthias.

[Kei joins call]
Eric summarizes to Kei... 

Kei - What are constraints and options if can't make the deadline?
Kei reports that the editors want to submit to BMC by end of this year so they are requesting a deadline of Dec 15 so they can arrange a quick review & revision cycle to submit to BMC by end of year.

One option is, as a group if we think we can, then to propose a deadline - Kei can talk to see if they can accommodate. Another option is that we can submit to BMC directly. If we submit directly we lose the advantage of a quick review and very close publication date (early next year, possibly February 2--7)

Kei asks what our status is if we can get an additional a week or two.
The current page target is 15 pages for a research paper.

Joanne raises the question to the group... If we don't think we can write a quality research paper or lessons learnt paper, are there other categories we can consider? That would either be shorter or be something the group would feel more comfortable doing?

Kei said he could ask the editors if there are other options, such as a commentary paper which would be about 6 pages.

Alan & Scott ask: What is the theme of the special issue?

Kei:  Semantic e-Science.

Alan: A commentary is more feasible.

Joanne: Let's hear from others who have not spoken

Vipul: Suggests a change in process: Each contribute a one-line suggestion of what the goal of the paper is. Then Kei decides theme and orchestrates to parcel it out.

Kei reports on the current pieces:
Vision
Usecases (Parkinson, Alzheimer's)
Preliminary Results - that can be discussed in an interesting way.
Conclusions - Matthias:
Advantages and disadvantages in hcls domain
Future outlook

Vipul: - delivering use cases and nice messages
- describe experiences, lesson's learned

both will give enough for 15 page limit

Alan: Getting it on paper in writing is not trivial 

Eric: Do we all agree on the take home message?
Vipul: Increase awareness awareness
Proposing Health Care and Life sciences vision

Tonya: Likes awareness and vision.... defining the value propopstion to the ___ community with an illustrative example - Also, has to be fun for Kei, something he is interested in pursuing. Suggests he take the input and come back with 3 different possible visions that he would do, aggregating perspective and then do it.

Eric - Alan wants people to participate, but how? We need to say how and it would be good if we could offer a place on web to do it.

Tonya agrees .... 

Eric adds space or multiple spaces to get involved in.  We don't offer that (yet, hopes we will soon)

Scott: Wonders if everyone sees target audience the same. He sees it as the bioiformatician who has maybe started to understand the benefits of XML / referring to the nature article / beyond XML.

Eric asks Tonya: Are there clinicians that we are targeting?  

Tonya: Yes.

Joanne: Poses a question to get an upper bound and scope of what is in people's heads as she posed the question earlier about a 6-page paper (or other smaller paper) to get the lower bound. She asks: Do we have a book?

Response to former (lower bound - 6-page paper): Kei will check with publishers.
Response to book question (upper bound, edited volume multiple sub themes):  We don't have enough for a book now, though it is a thought for the future. Now we are focusing on papers that show incremental progress.

Eric: e-Science term to get not just people / targeting beyond bioinformacians...

Summarizes.  [ACTION] We will go through practical motions, send to Kei, he will feed back we will decide if we are supportive of it to try to do it by 2 wks. It is important to try to get something with quality by December 15.

Next topic:

WWW2007 -Banff, Alberta, Canada, May 8-12 2007, (www2007.org) by Dec 11th, The workshop organizers have to report to the WWW Workshop chair the milestones we make (Deadline dates for workshop submissions, Program Committee, Call for papers, deadline for submission, camera ready, website (needed)).  Open question, how to structure the workshop - if presentation, who to invite to give introductory talks etc.

Alan: Interested in helping if there is room on the organizing.
Eric: How many presentations can we have?  

Kei: Full-day workshop.

Eric:  Not beyond 30 minutes.

Send out deadlines and dates

Joanne: Explains that the organizing committee is currently tasked with deciding on the PC, the format, the dates, etc. so they can't be sent out yet, but we will send them to the group as soon as we can.

Alan:  Can we meet next week? Others concur specifically for the meeting to be about the paper. 

Agreed:  Next call week from today.


ACTION 1:  We will go through practical motions, send to Kei, he will feed back we will decide if we are supportive of it to try to do it by 2 wks. It is important to try to get something with quality by December 15. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/11/30-hcls-minutes.html#action01 <http://www.w3.org/2006/11/30-hcls-minutes.html#action01> ]

ACTION 2: Proposed next HCLS TC in Dec 7 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/11/30-hcls-minutes.html#action02 <http://www.w3.org/2006/11/30-hcls-minutes.html#action02> ]


----------------------------------------
Transcript follows:

30 Nov 2006

See also: IRC log <http://www.w3.org/2006/11/30-hcls-irc> 

Attendees

Present
Regrets
Chair
SV_MEETING_CHAIR
Scribe
eneumann

Contents

* Topics <http://www.w3.org/2006/11/30-hcls-minutes.html#agenda> 
* Summary of Action Items <http://www.w3.org/2006/11/30-hcls-minutes.html#ActionSummary> 
<samwaldmatthias> Hi Scott. Thanks for the corrections!
<samwaldmatthias> (I'm afraid the sound came from me. I will try to fix that)
<samwaldmatthias> I'm calling via Skype, normally that is shown as [IPcaller]
<jluciano2> +q
<chimezie> http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/minutes.html <http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/minutes.html>  - Tips for Taking Minutes
" A phone participant who does not have irc access can dial 41# to raise his or her hand. The mnemonic is 4=Hand, 1=up, #='enter'. "
waves hello to Tonya!
<jluciano2> who is speaking?
<jluciano2> there's too much noise on the liinel... when Matthias is done, someone on a clearer please summarize
BMC Journal Theme: Semantic e-Science
(...wonders if Tonya is scribing?)
<madgoat> encourage people to participate
<chimezie> value proposition for SW in hcls
<madgoat> teach people something
<madgoat> Make it seem like it is real enough to wade in
<madgoat> Explain well what the problem is
<madgoat> madgoat = alan, btw - new IRC client
paper: do we offer people a means and a place to get involved?
<alanr> ok. madgoat is banished
<alanr> for this paper, the question is not who we want to target, but who the audience *is*
target audience: bioinformaticians (benefits beyond xml), clinical informaticians, what else...
<alanr> I think people go to bioinformatics journal to learn how to do things
<chimezie> i'd add directors of research instititutions to the audience as well
<alanr> back - had to step out for a few minutes
action+ submit one-line paper objective to Kei, who will distill and send out the new focus to the group; if enough alignment, we will try and submit by the Dec 15 deadline.
<scribe> ACTION: submit one-line paper objective to Kei, who will distill and send out the new focus to the group; if enough alignment, we will try and submit by the Dec 15 deadline. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/11/30-hcls-minutes.html#action01 <http://www.w3.org/2006/11/30-hcls-minutes.html#action01> ]
<scribe> ACTION: Proposed next HCLS TC in Dec 7 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/11/30-hcls-minutes.html#action02 <http://www.w3.org/2006/11/30-hcls-minutes.html#action02> ]

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: Proposed next HCLS TC in Dec 7 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/11/30-hcls-minutes.html#action02 <http://www.w3.org/2006/11/30-hcls-minutes.html#action02> ]
[NEW] ACTION: submit one-line paper objective to Kei, who will distill and send out the new focus to the group; if enough alignment, we will try and submit by the Dec 15 deadline. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/11/30-hcls-minutes.html#action01 <http://www.w3.org/2006/11/30-hcls-minutes.html#action01> ]



[End of minutes]



Eric Neumann, PhD
co-chair, W3C Healthcare and Life Sciences,
and Senior Director Product Strategy
Teranode Corporation
411 1st Avenue South, Suite 700
Seattle, WA 98104
+1 (781)856-9132
www.teranode.com

Received on Thursday, 30 November 2006 20:22:31 UTC