hi all,
o 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:rdb20@pitt.edu]
*Sent:* Thursday, March 31, 2016 1:26 PM
*To:* public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org; linikujp@gmail.com; brian.lebaron@va.gov;
BHocum@genelex.com; CJVITALE@PARTNERS.ORG; Cui.Tao@uth.tmc.edu;
malone@Pharmacy.arizona.edu; daniela.oliveira@insight-centre.org;
eric@squishymedia.com; draper.evan@mayo.edu; george.lilly@va.gov;
gmcevoy@ashp.org; jschneider@pobox.com; harryh@pitt.edu;
jeffnielson@gmail.com; sundaram.medimmune@gmail.com; jschneider@pobox.com;
jrhorn@u.washington.edu; jklimek@ncpdp.org; jp@rxdoc.me;
jmbanda@stanford.edu; kak59@pitt.edu; kim.nolen@pfizer.com;
laura.slaughter@gmail.com; lori.idemoto@gmail.com;
peters@pharmacy.arizona.edu; maria.herrero@kcl.ac.uk;
Breitenstein.Matthew@mayo.edu; MBrochhausen@uams.edu;
matthias.samwald@meduniwien.ac.at; michel.dumontier@stanford.edu;
Michael.Miller@systemsbiology.org; michael.liebman@ipqanalytics.com;
mail@jackpo.org; nancy@worldvista.org; nick.tatonetti@columbia.edu;
hassanzadeh@us.ibm.com; yongqunh@med.umich.edu; olivier@nlm.nih.gov;
beyan@dbis.rwth-aachen.de; nytroe@idi.ntnu.no;
ratnesh.sahay@insight-centre.org; rdb20@pitt.edu; Freimuth.Robert@mayo.edu;
Sam.habiel@gmail.com; scott.nelson.rx@gmail.com; serkanayvaz@gmail.com;
valerie@genelex.com; xjing2007@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
o 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
o 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
o No objection was raised to this idea
o An github project and initial draft:
§ GitHub project: *https://github.com/W3C-HCLS/w3c-ddi
<https://github.com/W3C-HCLS/w3c-ddi>*
§ Example draft : http://goo.gl/7ZaE94
o 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
o 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
o 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.
o 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.
o 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
o 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
o Look for doodles to schedule new meetings after April
o Work on user scenario and standard desiderata google docs when sent out
o 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
rdb20@pitt.edu
Office: 412-648-9219
Twitter: @bhaapgh