In the Dec 9 notes<http://listserv.kumc.edu/pipermail/gpc-dev/2014q4/000925.html>, I see some questions about the process of approving terminology.
It's somewhat evolving, but a week or two I collected my notes in milestone:data-domains2<https://informatics.gpcnetwork.org/trac/Project/milestone/data-domains2>: As discussed Oct 28 (notes: #12<https://informatics.gpcnetwork.org/trac/Project/ticket/12>) priority domains for this milestone are: * GPC Demographics #67<https://informatics.gpcnetwork.org/trac/Project/ticket/67> * GPC Diagnoses #63<https://informatics.gpcnetwork.org/trac/Project/ticket/63> * GPC Vitals #23<https://informatics.gpcnetwork.org/trac/Project/ticket/23> * GPC Meds. #78<https://informatics.gpcnetwork.org/trac/Project/ticket/78> * Cancer Tumor Registry #185<https://informatics.gpcnetwork.org/trac/Project/ticket/185> In each case, the goals are to: * agree on design, including * which clinical workflows the data comes from * ETL details such as Epic clarity tables or NAACCR ETL scripts * deliver metadata in i2b2 * as .csv via cdt for sites to use (#76<https://informatics.gpcnetwork.org/trac/Project/ticket/76>) * on babel for browsing (#1<https://informatics.gpcnetwork.org/trac/Project/ticket/1>) Regarding "How do you know when something is final?" it can only be final when there is no possibility that new information will arise that merits revising the design. There's a risk of doing work based on a design that changes, but also, as noted on the call, there's an incentive to get involved early. (cf The Economic Importance of Standards<http://www.w3.org/2005/Talks/0518-stds-tbl/> by Tim Berners-Lee). Regarding "If a ticket is being closed - item is approved and that was the standard" that's close, but let me clarify: the owner of a ticket is to close the ticket when they believe they have completed the task. The reporter (aka customer) of the ticket gets notification that the ticket was closed and reopens if if they're not satisfied. Anyone who doesn't agree can reopen the ticket. Closing a ticket doesn't imply agreement by gpc-dev as a whole, though. It puts the ticket on the agenda of the next teleconference. Typically, the ticket is closed in a way that doesn't merit discussion, and it's just cited under "review of agenda". Anyone who thinks a ticket merits discussion can say so. Otherwise, once the call concludes, the group has agreed to the agenda. And once the notes have been out for the better part of the week and the "any comments on last week's notes?" question in the following teleconference gets no reply, then the group has agreed and everyone is party to the decision to close the ticket. It's still possible to re-open the ticket even after the group has agreed, provided there's new information that the group didn't consider when they made the decision. (That is: just coming along later and saying "I wasn't paying attention when that ticket got closed; I really think one of these other options that you considered is the right one" isn't cool.) I hope this explanation addresses the need for... Laurel will create a ticket for the process of approving terminology; will hand it off to Philip -- Dan
_______________________________________________ Gpc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://listserv.kumc.edu/mailman/listinfo/gpc-dev
