Review of Community Comments on Common Data Elements
Metadata Identity and Provenance
The data element “Description” was added. “Textual Description of the Artifact” was added as the data element description.
The data element “Artifact Documentation” was added. It is described as a reference to the documentation of the artifact itself as opposed to where it is derived from (it’s source).
The data element “Publisher” replaced “Artifact Content Information.” The Publisher is the organization making the artifact available for download. “Contact Information for Publisher” was added as the data element description.
“Sponsors” was deleted in the description of the “Contributors” data element and “Editors” was added.
“Licensing, Usage, and Restrictions” were added as data elements. They cover entitlement and intellectual property issues and are described as “Information, if any, about licenses, restrictions, or other steps necessary to access the artifact.” In the future, these three data elements will be separated. The Use Case Team will work with Tom Kuhn to create descriptions for each.
Under the “Status History” data element, “date approved and date/time stamp” was added to the additional notes.
Under the “Status” data element, “active” was removed from the original notes.
Under the data element “Catalog,” “epidemic outbreaks” was added to additional notes.
The data element “Key Terms” was added. They are key terms for searching and finding specific artifact types. Mesh is optional.
The data element “Quality of Evidence” was change to “Quality of Evidence Scheme.” It is the rating scheme for rating quality of evidence.
The data element “Evidence Recommendation Strength” was change to “Recommendation Strength Scheme.”
The data element “Quality of Evidence Rating Scheme” was changed to “Quality of Evidence Score.”
The data element “Evidence Recommendation Strength” was changed to “Recommendation Strength Score.”
The data element “Performance Measures” was changed to “Quality Measures.”
How do we intend to allow for extensibility?
“Technologically it’s not difficult; we just need to agree to do so.”
“This is something that is extremely difficult to answer without an implementation. This may be a requirement on the implementation choice but I don’t know if it’s part of the data model.”
“Extensibility is not going to be static…It will then move to the Standards Development Organizations.”
Event Conditions Action Rules
Aziz led the WG through the Event Conditions Action Rules Table. The Use Case Team will post the Table on the Wiki for comment from the WG and comments will be reviewed at the next All Hands meeting on 8/23/12.
Cross-check common metadata elements with the CDS Consortium
Distribute WebEx Chats to the Internal Support team and post meeting minutes.
Community Action Items
Vivian Coates and Richard Shiffman
Cross-check common metadata elements with the Guideline Elements Model.
Cross-check common metadata elements with eRecommendations Project.
Develop definitions/descriptions for Licensing, Usage, and Restrictions.
Provide Pre-Consensus End-to-End Review on the CDS Artifact Sharing Use Case. More specifically, please review Sections 1 – 10, Section 12 and Appendix A of the CDS Artifact Sharing Use Case. When reviewing this document, we ask that you utilize the feedback form on the Wiki to provide your comments and/or suggested revisions. Please provide all feedback by 8:00 PM 8/20/2012.
Use Case Link (v.10): http://wiki.siframework.org/file/view/ONC_HeD_UC1_DRAFT_v10.docx
Feedback Form Link: http://wiki.siframework.org/HeD+CDS+Artifact+Sharing+Use+Case
Provide comments on the Event Condition Action Rules Data Elements using the form found below. To ensure your comments are discussed during the 8/23 All Hands Meeting, please submit all comments by 8:00 PM on 8/22.
Link to Document: HeD_Data_Elements_01_ECA_Rules_DRAFT_v08.docx
Feedback Form Link: http://wiki.siframework.org/HeD+Data+Element+SWG+Feedback