W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org > April 2016

PDDI Info Task Force (Content sub-group) - Minutes/recording for 3/31

From: Richard Boyce <rdb20@pitt.edu>
Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2016 07:45:50 -0400
To: <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>, <malone@Pharmacy.arizona.edu>, <draper.evan@mayo.edu>, <gmcevoy@ashp.org>, <jeffnielson@gmail.com>, <jrhorn@u.washington.edu>, <jp@rxdoc.me>, <jmbanda@stanford.edu>, <lori.idemoto@gmail.com>, <michel.dumontier@stanford.edu>, <michael.liebman@ipqanalytics.com>, <mail@jackpo.org>, <nancy@worldvista.org>, <hassanzadeh@us.ibm.com>, <Sam.habiel@gmail.com>, <scott.nelson.rx@gmail.com>, <serkanayvaz@gmail.com>, <valerie@genelex.com>
Message-ID: <57249AEE.7040706@pitt.edu>
Dear Colleagues,

Below are pasted the minutes of the Content sub-group for the PDDI DDI 
Minimum Information Model Task Force [1].


    Minutes for 4/29/2016 (Content subgroup)


In Attendance : Evan Draper, Lori Idemoto, Brian LeBaron, Sam Habiel, 
Richard Boyce, Michael Liebman, Dan Malone, Scott Nelson, John Poikonen, 
Scott Nelson


Meeting recording: http://goo.gl/lbmkDI(some missing audio for the first 
2 minutes)


Meeting:

  *

    Update from the Standard subteam

      o

        Toward writing an Interest Group Note

          +

            Rich re-organized the initial draft note to focus on
            introduction and background with stakeholder descriptions,
            use cases, and user scenarios

              #

                An github project and initial draft:

                  *

                    GitHub project: https://github.com/W3C-HCLS/w3c-ddi

                  *

                    Example draft : http://goo.gl/7ZaE94

          +

            Rich created google docs that we will write in and then the
            editors will migrate the content into the W3C note format

              #

                These are linked to from the http://goo.gl/7ZaE94 and
                also listed here:

                  *

                    Introduction and motivation for the  W3C DDI Minimum
                    Information Model IG Note <https://goo.gl/YWRMV3>

                  *

                    Stakeholder Descriptions
                    <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1AbWuONYTrFOV95OhjlRwrm3ZJy5jjvzJ-dywO5OZyFY/edit#>

                  *

                    DDI Minimum Information Model User Scenarios
                    <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1HE8r8nmJBHRrtbE6YrNfK00Ztkev44-dNk-Rm6MP92U/edit>

                  *

                    Knowledge Representation Core Considerations
                    <https://docs.google.com/document/d/14saXL4qhusPHxxN1Aymc5z_u7vH3j3V-YF9TKNjRxLQ/edit>


      o

        Progress on definitions

          +

            Discussion of stakeholders

              #

                Rich has pulled this into two google docs in the format
                of user profile and scenarios for discussion by the
                sub-team with the goal of finalizing by the next call

                  *

                    Stakeholder Descriptions
                    <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1AbWuONYTrFOV95OhjlRwrm3ZJy5jjvzJ-dywO5OZyFY/edit#>and
                    DDI Minimum Information Model User Scenarios
                    <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1HE8r8nmJBHRrtbE6YrNfK00Ztkev44-dNk-Rm6MP92U/edit>

                      o

                        He will send a request to complete a qualtrics
                        survey eliciting feedback on each user scenario

          +

            We agreed as a team to use the following process for moving
            the current suggested definitions
            <https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1dhUp496riwZ0AHqRP7I85oEvuP2jjEI0rcw1Fcm2zI8/edit#gid=0>to
            final definitions as follows:

              #

                For a given information category (e.g., clinical
                consequences) Rich will summarize the currently
                suggested candidate definitions

                  *

                    Including any references to the terminologies or
                    publications where they came from

                  *

                    He will also show examples of the definitions from
                    the contextualizing decision trees created for the
                    included interactions
                    <https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1DIeIuo7tZ6nVvd6MdO2xzzLtOSPXjAHI-DdBe9M3kiw/edit>

              #

                Rich will create a qualtrics survey for each summary to
                elicit agreement on a final proposed definition

                  *

                    This process likely be iterative


  *

    PDDIs to focus on

      o

        The content workgroup agreed upon 10 PDDIs to include:
        https://goo.gl/rYpmjt

          +

            These cover the following information aspects:

              #

                can (and should) be contextualized for specific patients
                or clinical circumstances,

              #

                applies at the class level, does not apply at the class
                level,

              #

                the mechanism is known and is pharmacokinetic, the
                mechanism is known and is pharmacodynamic

          +

            More forthcoming...

      o

        Decision trees useful for contextualizing the PDDIs, provide
        management options, and linking to relevant evidence will be
        created for all of them

          +

            Done already for 2 of the 10 now included

              #

                It was agreed that Rich could share the completed
                decision trees with standard development team members as
                PDF documents with clear attribution and a “do not
                share” watermark

  *

    Next steps

      o

        All will complete doodles to schedule new meetings for the next
        few months

      o

        Rich will create a qualtrics survey for each summary to elicit
        feedback/suggestions on two PDDIs for which the mechanism is not
        known

          +

            Other surveys will likely follow to finalize the PDDIs for
            the remaining categories

      o

        Work will begin on decision trees for the accepted pairs -
        review can occur at each of the next meetings


-- 
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
Received on Saturday, 30 April 2016 11:46:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:21:57 UTC