Minutes of caDSR Content Administrators and Software Joint Meeting

**March 12, 2007, 3:00 -- 4:30 p.m. (DRAFT)**

+-------------------------------------+--------------------------------+
| **Attendees**                       | **Organization**               |
+=====================================+================================+
| ######### Steve Alred               | Oracle                         |
+-------------------------------------+--------------------------------+
| ######### Becky Angeles             | ScenPro                        |
+-------------------------------------+--------------------------------+
| ######### Alice Birnbaum            | NIDCR                          |
+-------------------------------------+--------------------------------+
| ######### Jenny Brush               | ScenPro                        |
+-------------------------------------+--------------------------------+
| ######### Brian Campbell            | EMMES                          |
+-------------------------------------+--------------------------------+
| ######### Janice Chilli             | SAIC                           |
+-------------------------------------+--------------------------------+
| ######### Mary Cooper               | SAIC                           |
+-------------------------------------+--------------------------------+
| ######### Tommie Curtis             | SAIC                           |
+-------------------------------------+--------------------------------+
| Brian Davis                         | 3rd Millennium                 |
+-------------------------------------+--------------------------------+
| Kathleen Gundry                     | SAIC                           |
+-------------------------------------+--------------------------------+
| Larry Hebel                         | Scenpro                        |
+-------------------------------------+--------------------------------+
| ######### Jon Iverson               |                                |
+-------------------------------------+--------------------------------+
| ######### Dianne Reeves             | NCICB                          |
+-------------------------------------+--------------------------------+
| Nicole Thomas                       | MSD                            |
+-------------------------------------+--------------------------------+
| ######### Claire Wolfe              | TerpSys                        |
+-------------------------------------+--------------------------------+

**1. Updates**

**a. VCDE Small Group Meetings**

Mary Cooper gave an update on the caBIG VCDE small group that was
convened to address proposed changes to existing standards, and on the
process for reviewing and revising existing standards. She reported that
the VCDE WS approved the changes to the Address Postal Code, Age, Person
and Organization Role CDEs and the small group was in the process of
documenting the process they used to review the standards. The final
document is being reviewed by the small group and should be posted soon
to the VCDE CDE standards website.

**b. Data Standards Status**

Mary presented an update on the VCDE small group working on the Body
Mass Index standard. The group is addressing how to reuse existing
standards in UML models. The small group came up with a model hybrid
view. There current discussion concerns 2 classes: the person class to
include height and weight and source (both for BMI and person
information) and another class for body mass index. The details of the
CDEs are under discussion. The small group will propose a unit of
measure for height and a unit of measure for weight within the person
class.

Brenda Maeske noted that the unit of measure standard had proposed
subsets like lab unit of measure. Dianne Reeves said she wanted to see
what the group had suggested. Mary said that it was consistent with the
template, using UCUM codes, but adds a qualifier. This opens the door to
creating millions of specific unit of measure CDEs. This may have to be
addressed in implementation guidance.

Dianne said that the need for guidance for implementation of these
standards was critical. Mary said that when she brought the standard in
for review, the structure of the proposed UML model guidance using the
standards was included. No one else in the meeting had a comment on the
proposal. Updates will be brought to the context administrators meeting
in the future.

Claire Wolfe said that the association with unit of measure with weight
or height should be handled by the UCUM code.

**2. Data Standard Presentation -- Body Surface Area**

Mary presented the draft data standard, reviewing the issues. She stated
that the focus of the standard is to capture a numeric value for a
person's BSA, and that Body Surface Area (BSA) is an indicator of
metabolic mass She proposed that the unit of measure should be built
into the value domain because there is only one option for
reporting/recording the data. Mary presented the current CDEs in the
caDSR for Body Surface Area. The caDSR does include methods of
calculating BSA, and references to where they are used.

The issue was raised about promoting existing CDEs with Patient as the
Object Class. A discussion of whether the Object Class should be
Person/Patient/Participant or Body Surface Area was briefly conducted,
as CTEP has a CDE, Patient Body Surface Area Measurement, but this CDE
is not consistent with the other standards that have been adopted. Mary
proposed possible modifications to the CTEP CDEs, to make the proposed
standard consistent with BMI standard CDEs, and Brian Campbell indicated
that CTEP would be willing to modify the existing CDE to promote
standardization and reuse. Mary proposed a single CDE for Person Body
Surface Area Value, including rules that captured the method of
calculation or determination of BSA.

Bev Meadows said that Ideal Body Weight or Actual Surface Area may be
used in dosing medication. Mary will look into existence of ideal weight
and lean weight body surface area. Dianne said they are used in breast
cancer studies. Bev said she would send a URL with some examples.

Mary also showed a proposed CDE capturing the different methods as
permissible values, Person Body Surface Area Method Text Type. If the
group prefers, CDEs could be created to include the method as a
qualifier, which would increase the number of CDEs and would require the
names of the methods as CUIs. This example was Person Mosteller Body
Surface Area. Mary said this would conform to the UML model method of
CDE construction being discussed by the VCDE Small Group working with
BMI. In their proposed the UML Model has a class of BMI with value and
unit of measure attributes, related to Person class with attributes of
height, weight, height UOM, weight UOM, and information source. Within
BSA class, there would be attributes of Value, and UCUM Code. In the
Person class, there would be person height value, person weight value,
person height UCUM code, person weight UCUM code and person information
source type text.

Tommie Curtis asked if more than one method would be used. Bev said that
different formulas were used by different organizations. It was
suggested that the actual calculated values of the different methods
should be compared to see how if there are significant differences based
on method.

Other related CDEs could include Patient Disease BSA Number Category,
Patient Disease BSA Numeric Value, Patient Disease BSA Range Text Value.
These data elements represent the BSA that is involved in the amount of
disease that covers a body. These CDEs are not widely used and are not
included in the standard proposal at this time.

Mary identified several issues for discussion, including breaking out
the CDEs by method or using only one BSA CDE. Brenda said she
recommended a single CDE for BSA and a second CDE with the method types
in the value domain. She said that most of the comments she receives
concern confusion of multiple data standards that seem to be related, as
would be created by multiple BSA CDEs based on the different methods.

Next steps: Mary will present a detailed proposal reflecting these
comments for the next meeting. Tommie said that if people had use cases,
they could forward them to Mary

**3. Report on Tool Enhancement Requirement Discussions**

Tommie said that the group was to review the list of requirements and
feature requests from the last meeting. Becky Angeles prepared a list of
caCORE tools requirements.

Tommie sought some clarification on a couple of items. Steve Alred said
that it was important to get user ranking of the requests. There was
consensus to start on the design of the format of the download. Steve
said that the development team would not get to everything on the list.
Dianne said that a poll would be taken to prioritize the rest of the
requirements. Brenda took an action item to send an example of her needs
for the download formatting.

Tommie said that alphabetizing drop down lists should not be that hard
and would be very helpful.

Dianne said that the searching by Value Meaning Concepts was important.
This might need some clarification to understand this requirement.
Denise Warzel said the capability of finding equivalent CDEs had been
submitted by Brian Davis.

Tommie said that the 3.1 UML loader doesn't support adding permissible
values and related value meanings.during registration. This should be
corrected in the 3.2 UML model loader.

There was a discussion of the need to version a value domain to add
values to value domains in an update. Jon Iverson noted that sometimes
model owners didn't load values due to lack of agreement on the list of
values.

There were several requirements related to changing the browser tree,
and the ability to restructure it for viewing by different groups.

Other requirements for UML model browser, advanced search capability,
the Semantic Integration Workbench (SIW), and the Admin tool and form
builder and the curation tool were noted.

On the SIW requirements list, Claire commented that there is a need to
handle versioning. When loading an update, sometimes the value domains
have to be excluded because the loader tool is checking for duplication.
There is no good way to version the value domain using the loader and
this creates a problem in the load process. The loader also breaks when
finding a retired CDE that may duplicate something in the load.

Mary said that the curation and admin tools should work the same, and
there is a preference for using the Enter button.

Brian Davis brought up the issue of equivalent CDEs. Brian wants to add
a search for equivalency. Equivalency will need to be fully defined. For
example, something may have a class (email) and attribute (address) and
another model may have Email Address as an attribute in a class. Those
should be semantically equivalent. At this time, a text search can
produce some of these results, but doesn't actually determine semantic
equivalence. Denise said that only in the curation tool can you search
for concepts. Tommie said that there is a related requirement (#2 on
General Features). Brian said that this might belong in the UML Browser,
but Tommie said it would be useful in the CDE Browser as well. Brian
wanted to provide a tool to model builders that would help them to get
interaction with the related CDEs. Tommie said another meeting might be
needed to address these requirements.

There was a requirement for Short Name radio button selection. Dianne
explained that when you're on a DEC or VD, and you make a minor change
(for example, edit a CUI) you get a pop up message requiring selection
for a preferred short name. Dianne asked for clarification of the
business rules for this requirement. Larry Hebel should be able to
provide the business rules.

Dianne said there is a need for a streamlined Version process for any
component that would assist in versioning and retiring old items.

There is a need for an extensibility flag on a value domain. There is a
need for a preferred definition flag. There is a problem when building
an enumerated list when you get into a loop in searching for concepts.
This should be a high priority item to fix. Larry Hebel said that work
is underway that will resolve this. Janice Chilli gave an example of
surgery and the ability to find a term with a good definition.

Janice mentioned GForge G4333, Collection Type, though it might have
been on the list. Steve said it was on the UML Model Browser list of
requirements. Janice clarified that it properly belonged to the CDE
Browser.

Janice said the GForge 4169, related to population of Preferred Question
should also be included.

Dianne commented that across the curation tool, there are different
behaviors for creating new administered items based on existing ones.
They should assigned today's date. There are inconsistent functions.

Denise said that the list of requirements will be sent back out after
some level of effort estimates are made. The user community will
prioritize a smaller list that will be proposed for the next release.

**4. Versioning Business Rules -- review of current rules and
identification of areas**

**where rules need to be developed.**

Tommie said that the item on versioning rules would need to be postponed
to the next meeting. She provided the caCORE workbook for Course 1040.
It was requested that participants review Chapter 8 for discussion next
time. Dianne said that rules for Forms and Templates in Form Builder are
also needed.

**Decisions Made:**

1\. The group agreed that in the BSA data standard proposal, a single
CDE for BSA and a second CDE with the method types in the value domain
is the preferred approach.

2\. There was consensus that when the Software Group is considering work
on Tool Enhancements the design of the format of the download is the
Content Group's first priority.

**Meeting Schedule January 2007:**

**[2007]{.underline}**

03/05 - Software

03/12 - Content

03/19 - Software

03/26 - Content

04/02 - Software

04/09 - Content

04/16 - Software

04/23 - Content

04/30 - Software

05/07 - Content

05/14 - Software

05/21 - Content

05/28 - [Holiday]{.underline}

06/04 - Content/Software

06/11 - Software

06/18 - Content

06/25 - Software

07/02 - Content

07/09 - Software

07/16 - Content

07/23 - Software

07/30 - Content

08/06 - Software

08/13 - Content

08/20 - Software

08/27 - Content

09/03 - [Holiday]{.underline}

09/10 - Content/Software

09/17 - Software

09/24 - Content

10/01 - Software

10/08 - [Holiday]{.underline}

10/15 - Software/Content

10/22 - Content

10/29 - Software

11/05 - Content

11/12 - Software

11/19 - Content

11/26 - Software

12/03 - Content

12/10 - Software

12/17 - Content

12/24 - [No meeting.]{.underline}

12/31 - [No meeting]{.underline}.

**[Follow Up/Action Items]{.underline}:**

+-------+------------------------+------------+-----------+-----------+
| **A   | **Task**               | **Assigned | **Date    | **Date    |
| ction |                        | To**       | Due**     | Co        |
| I     |                        |            |           | mpleted** |
| tem** |                        |            |           |           |
+=======+========================+============+===========+===========+
| 1     | Send out Agenda to be  | Tommie     | biweekly  | Ongoing   |
|       | reviewed for next      | Curtis     |           |           |
|       | meeting                |            |           |           |
+-------+------------------------+------------+-----------+-----------+
| 2     | Send out a request to  | Tommie     | TBD       | Ongoing   |
|       | the workspaces for CDE | Curtis     |           |           |
|       | standards.             |            |           |           |
|       |                        | Brian      |           |           |
|       |                        | Davis      |           |           |
+-------+------------------------+------------+-----------+-----------+
| 3     | Develop risk           | Dianne     | TBD       | Ongoing   |
|       | mitigation plan for    | Reeves     |           |           |
|       | usage of caDSR         |            |           |           |
|       | metadata that in not   | Tommie     |           |           |
|       | fully compliant with   | Curtis     |           |           |
|       | caDSR business rules   |            |           |           |
|       | and best practices.    |            |           |           |
+-------+------------------------+------------+-----------+-----------+
| 4     | Review Chapters 1-7 of | All        | 2/2/2007  | Ongoing   |
|       | the Curation Best      |            |           |           |
|       | Practices Manual       |            |           |           |
+-------+------------------------+------------+-----------+-----------+
| 5     | UML model example for  | Tommie     | 1/22/07   | Ongoing   |
|       | Person/Partic          | Curtis     |           |           |
|       | ipant/Patient/Subject, |            |           |           |
|       | etc.                   |            |           |           |
+-------+------------------------+------------+-----------+-----------+
| 6     | Provide use case for   | Brenda     | 3/26/07   | New       |
|       | customizing download   | Maeske     |           |           |
|       | Excel spreadsheet      |            |           |           |
|       | format.                |            |           |           |
+-------+------------------------+------------+-----------+-----------+