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.Miller@systemsbiology.org]
Sent: Friday, April 1, 2016 5:04 AM
To: Richard Boyce; 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; 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; Freimuth.Robert@mayo.edu; Sam.habiel@gmail.com; scott.nelson.rx@gmail.com; serkanayvaz@gmail.com; valerie@genelex.com; xjing2007@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:rdb20@pitt.edu<mailto:rdb20@pitt.edu>]
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2016 1:26 PM
To: public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org<mailto:public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>; linikujp@gmail.com<mailto:linikujp@gmail.com>; brian.lebaron@va.gov<mailto:brian.lebaron@va.gov>; BHocum@genelex.com<mailto:BHocum@genelex.com>; CJVITALE@PARTNERS.ORG<mailto:CJVITALE@PARTNERS.ORG>; Cui.Tao@uth.tmc.edu<mailto:Cui.Tao@uth.tmc.edu>; malone@Pharmacy.arizona.edu<mailto:malone@Pharmacy.arizona.edu>; daniela.oliveira@insight-centre.org<mailto:daniela.oliveira@insight-centre.org>; eric@squishymedia.com<mailto:eric@squishymedia.com>; draper.evan@mayo.edu<mailto:draper.evan@mayo.edu>; george.lilly@va.gov<mailto:george.lilly@va.gov>; gmcevoy@ashp.org<mailto:gmcevoy@ashp.org>; jschneider@pobox.com<mailto:jschneider@pobox.com>; harryh@pitt.edu<mailto:harryh@pitt.edu>; jeffnielson@gmail.com<mailto:jeffnielson@gmail.com>; sundaram.medimmune@gmail.com<mailto:sundaram.medimmune@gmail.com>; jschneider@pobox.com<mailto:jschneider@pobox.com>; jrhorn@u.washington.edu<mailto:jrhorn@u.washington.edu>; jklimek@ncpdp.org<mailto:jklimek@ncpdp.org>; jp@rxdoc.me<mailto:jp@rxdoc.me>; jmbanda@stanford.edu<mailto:jmbanda@stanford.edu>; kak59@pitt.edu<mailto:kak59@pitt.edu>; kim.nolen@pfizer.com<mailto:kim.nolen@pfizer.com>; laura.slaughter@gmail.com<mailto:laura.slaughter@gmail.com>; lori.idemoto@gmail.com<mailto:lori.idemoto@gmail.com>; peters@pharmacy.arizona.edu<mailto:peters@pharmacy.arizona.edu>; maria.herrero@kcl.ac.uk<mailto:maria.herrero@kcl.ac.uk>; Breitenstein.Matthew@mayo.edu<mailto:Breitenstein.Matthew@mayo.edu>; MBrochhausen@uams.edu<mailto:MBrochhausen@uams.edu>; matthias.samwald@meduniwien.ac.at<mailto:matthias.samwald@meduniwien.ac.at>; michel.dumontier@stanford.edu<mailto:michel.dumontier@stanford.edu>; Michael.Miller@systemsbiology.org<mailto:Michael.Miller@systemsbiology.org>; michael.liebman@ipqanalytics.com<mailto:michael.liebman@ipqanalytics.com>; mail@jackpo.org<mailto:mail@jackpo.org>; nancy@worldvista.org<mailto:nancy@worldvista.org>; nick.tatonetti@columbia.edu<mailto:nick.tatonetti@columbia.edu>; hassanzadeh@us.ibm.com<mailto:hassanzadeh@us.ibm.com>; yongqunh@med.umich.edu<mailto:yongqunh@med.umich.edu>; olivier@nlm.nih.gov<mailto:olivier@nlm.nih.gov>; beyan@dbis.rwth-aachen.de<mailto:beyan@dbis.rwth-aachen.de>; nytroe@idi.ntnu.no<mailto:nytroe@idi.ntnu.no>; ratnesh.sahay@insight-centre.org<mailto:ratnesh.sahay@insight-centre.org>; rdb20@pitt.edu<mailto:rdb20@pitt.edu>; Freimuth.Robert@mayo.edu<mailto:Freimuth.Robert@mayo.edu>; Sam.habiel@gmail.com<mailto:Sam.habiel@gmail.com>; scott.nelson.rx@gmail.com<mailto:scott.nelson.rx@gmail.com>; serkanayvaz@gmail.com<mailto:serkanayvaz@gmail.com>; valerie@genelex.com<mailto:valerie@genelex.com>; xjing2007@gmail.com<mailto: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
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
rdb20@pitt.edu<mailto:rdb20@pitt.edu>
Office: 412-648-9219
Twitter: @bhaapgh