Content Managers Advisory Group

Page tree

Actions:

DateRequested ActionRequester(s)Action required by:Comments
     
  

 

  

CMAG 2017 Work Plan

 

Describes the aims and objectives of the Content Managers Advisory Group (CMAG) throughout 2017.

Overall objectives

The main purpose of the Content Managers Advisory Group in 2017 is to provide IHTSDO with national perspectives on identified content topics and issues through provision of advice and feedback.  

Meetings

Teleconferences

Teleconferences will be held every month on the second Tuesday of the month, and alterations to timing of meetings will be notified in advance (within 2 working weeks)

Face-to-Face meetings

The Content Managers AG plans to meet at both IHTSDO Business meetings during the year.

April 2017 - London, UK

  • Business meeting scheduled April 23rd-26th, 2017
  • CMAG plans to meet for one full or half day during IHTSDO business meeting
  • Agenda to be agreed

October 2017 - Bratislava, Slovak Republic

  • Business meeting scheduled October 15th-20th, 2017
  • CMAG plans to meet for one full or half day  during IHTSDO business meeting
  • Agenda to be agreed

2017 Activities

ActivityScopeDeliverablesTimeframe (suggested)LeadStatus
Provision of national perspectives on current SNOMED CT content projects and topicsRelevant current SNOMED CT content projects and topics as identified by the IHTSDO Content team
  1. Items will be raised as relevant over the course of the year. For each item raised the deliverable will be input and/or feedback as required within mutually agreed timeframes.
Provision of input on the topic/s within set timeframes as agreed by the CMAG and Content Team.

Cathy Richardson together with relevant IHTSDO Content team member for item being discussed.

Ongoing work plan item with topics and issues raised as required.

March 2017 status: First item for 2017 Care plans being presented at March meeting.

Prioritisation of the IHTSDO Content Tracker

Prioritisation of the IHTSDO Content Tracker issues at the component level.

Components explained: What the fields in the Content Tracker mean#Components

  1. Identification of the components are a 'high' and 'medium' priority for resolution by members.
    1. Within those of high priority- the key priorities should be identified.
  2. Prioritisation of the IHTSDO Content Tracker components using the Priorisation criteria and taking into account the Member input provided.
    1. At a minimum the top 20 components should be identified.
  1. Due by XXXX
  2. The top twenty are due by 28th February 2017

1. Cathy Richardson with support from Elaine Wooler and Linda Parisien

2. Sub group activity with the following members:

  1. Completed 21 February 2017

  2. Completed 2 March 2017
Development of collaboration on content development between Members

National extensions

  1. A Confluence page where Members provide information on their current content development.
    • Includes population of the page and agreement on the frequency of updates
  2. (On hold) An agreement (developed in collaboration with the IHTSDO) for the regular updating of the MultiEnglish browser
    • http://multibrowser.ihtsdotools.org/
    • Includes- frequency of updates, when information is to be submitted by, format etc.
    • Given need for internal IT resources to support this - item is on hold. May or may not be done for 2017.
  3. Analysis of the extension content with
    1. identification of areas where
      1. two or more countries have developed content
      2. content has been developed by one country that is of value to another country
    2. identification of duplication of content e.g. equivalence.
    3. A proposal on how to manage content identified in points a and b.

Item 3 is dependent on tooling and the work occurring in the Modelling Advisory Group.

  1. Due by April face to face meeting.
  2. On hold
  3. Due by (provisional):
    • Initial update: April Face to Face
    • Analysis reporting: October Face to Face
  1. Matt Cordell with support from Cathy Richardson
  2. XXXX (small sub group activity) with support from XXXX (IHTSDO IT team staff member- if agreed with Rory)
  3. Olivier Bodenreider (sub group activity) with support from:
  1. TBA

  2. Being transferred for consideration for the 2018 work plan.

  3. March 2017 status update:
    • 9 extensions/editions have been collected
    • Analysis has commenced
    • Preliminary report provided at April meeting.


Communication

  • The Content Managers AG will enable two-way communication between the IHTSDO Authoring Team and its Members on areas relevant to SNOMED CT content development.
  • The primary routes for communications will be the Content Managers AG Confluence Space and AG Meetings.
  • Communications to the Content Managers AG will by default, be publicly accessible on the AG Confluence Space.
  • Information that is not for public view may also be shared on pages that are accessible to Content Managers AG members only. Requests for closed areas must be sent to cri@ihtsdo.org prior to posting materials.

Criteria for measuring success

The key criteria for success of the Content Managers AG in 2017 will be related to the timely provision of advice and feedback to support the IHTSDO Content Development Roadmap and the 2017 Content Work Plan. The measures of success will relate to the achievement of the deliverables as set out in the 2017 activities section above. 


 

  File Modified
No files shared here yet.

 

Links:

Actions: 

DateRequested actionRequester(s)Response required by:
 7 December 2016

 Please review the CMAG 2017 Work Plan focusing on

  1. 2017 deliverables
    1. Do you see the deliverables as achievable? If no, which deliverable do you see should be dropped? Should anything additional be added?
    2. Which collaboration deliverable(s) would you be willing to assist the group with achieving? Lead or support role?
      1. The time lines for achieving these deliverables will be determined by those undertaking the work in discussion with the Group chairs.
  2. Overall work plan:
    1. Please review the other sections of the plan and comment if any changes are required.

Given timelines the prioritisation work will be covered separately.

Please post your responses as comments below.

 Cathy Richardson

  • Camilla Wiberg Danielsen  Please review the 2017 Work Plan as noted in the requested actions. Thank you.  
  • Daniel Karlsson   Please review the 2017 Work Plan as noted in the requested actions. Thank you.  
  • Elaine Wooler   Please review the 2017 Work Plan as noted in the requested actions. Thank you.  
  • Elze de Groot    Please review the 2017 Work Plan as noted in the requested actions. Thank you.  
  • John Fountain    Please review the 2017 Work Plan as noted in the requested actions. Thank you.  
  • Linda Parisien    Please review the 2017 Work Plan as noted in the requested actions. Thank you.  
  • Matt Cordell   Please review the 2017 Work Plan as noted in the requested actions. Thank you.  
  • Olivier Bodenreider   Please review the 2017 Work Plan as noted in the requested actions. Thank you.  

7 Comments

  1. Linda Parisien

    Hi, Here are my comments:

    For the Prioritisation of the IHTSDO Content Tracker, I would suggest we start with the top 10 high priorities. I would also like to see the 'low hanging fruits' ones resolved asap.

    For the Development of collaboration on content development between Members, I would suggest that #1 be done sooner than April. #2 to me should ideally be aligned on the releases, usually within 3 months after the international release, twice a year. There should be discussion on what it means if member countries are not releasing their extensions twice a year. Could it be achieved for the after January 2017 release i.e. end of April?

    #3 is an exercise to analyse the content already developed by member countries. I wonder if discussion on new content should also be part of our activities, especially with the collaborative editing that is around the corner. Does IHTSDO has a view on how this will eventually happen from the member countries authoring tool to IHTSDO authoring tool?

     

  2. Linda Parisien

    Cathy, I don't seem to have the rights to tick the action item as completed.

     

  3. Camilla Wiberg Danielsen

    Hi, I'm not able to sign off the 2017 CMAG Work Plan. Apparently I do not have edit permission. /Camilla

     

  4. Linda Parisien

    Hi, I still can't mark the item as done. Here is the msg I get:

    Oops! You can't update this task because you are not allowed to edit the page it appears on.  Dismiss

  5. Olivier Bodenreider

    I am willing to take the lead on the Analysis of the extension content. I could use help in getting the content in the first place (all existing extensions in RF2). After I ingest them all in some repository, I should be able to share some of the material with whomever wants to help analyze it. Having the repository created by April so we can report preliminary result (at least quantitative) during the April meeting seems doable – but I am an eternal optimist. Assuming this works well, we should have a more refined analysis ready for Bratislava.

  6. Matt Cordell

    I'd be keen to work on the Analysis of the extension content too, (happy to let Olivier lead though (smile) ).

    The first obstacle is just getting all the content. I'd actually started trying to do this after the October meeting, just going through the proper channels - MLDS/NRCs, but it just becomes a nightmare of registrations and stuff that I just take too much time. So I'd push this to the effort to the Member Forum, by asking all Members that maintain an extension provide the content somewhere easy. Perhaps a confluence page - perhaps this ties into #1 (I'm happy to lead this part)
    Also limit the scope of analysis to core components, E.g. Concepts/Descriptions/Relationships. Ignore refsets for the moment.
    #2 should be pretty straight forward. It's really confirming the process, I'd even suggest IHTSDO is responsible for chasing updates. At the moment, the Multi-Browser is the only product out there where we (NRC) seem to be responsible for updating. All other 'implementations' are obliged (through the license) to keep their product up to date. Keep the process simple though, and do all updates at once, though there's a potential issue with version dependencies. I'm thinking after #1 is done we can get a better idea of the implications (e.g. differing release cycles)

    #3 I think these could all be delivered together. As I said above, a big part is just getting all the data, once that's done you could quickly pull some raw metrics (e.g. Counts and % defined etc.) say, by June. Further analysis would depend on the content, so perhaps aim for October? (I'm suspect it can be done with existing tooling / OWL conversions... if it does require tooling input I'm doubtful of success...)

    The Prioritisation is important too, though it seems like an ongoing task. I'd be interested to see which ones are low hanging fruit (apologies if I've missed). There's big items like that everyone probably agrees are important, however these likely have smaller dependencies (e.g. Qualifier heirarchy issues) that should/could be resolved first. So I think, prioritise the items, but the many might also need to be broken down/dependencies identified. Smaller items are likely to be delivered than larger. constraining scopes might even be useful.

  7. Elze de Groot

    I'm interested in the analysis of the extensions. I regular look at other extensions when we are working on a specific subject to see what already has been done in other countries. Our extensions grows quite fast now. So I'm really curious what will be the outcome of this analysis. Can I be added to the subgroup as well?