[COAS-List] Re: Units Quantities and Measurements (UQandM)

[Tim Brinson <tim@protocol.com>]

I never responded to Richard's message before but I offer strong support
for it.  As Richard mentioned CORBAmed will be dealing with this NOW
(well next week and the week after in Helsinki) for the Clinical
Observations Access Service (COAS).  While the COAS RFP final submission
deadline is for late August the submitters currently think it should be
post poned a few meetings.

We are already looking at models for Measurements from various
healthcare efforts.  Please forward any ideas on modeling measurements
by Monday 20 July so we can consider them at next week's meeting in
Denver.  On Monday 27 July (in Helsinki) the COAS submitters will be
meeting all day and this subject is in scope for that meeting too.  You
are invited to attend.  

We know this will not be the end all for modeling measurements but we
need something now that can be massaged over the next few months.  Our
experience with them can also provide feedback to any larger
standardization effort.  The COAS effort will also be concerned about
how measurements can be passed efficiently between remote systems.


Regards,

Tim Brinson


Richard Dixon wrote:
> 
> Hi everyone,
> 
> Before the Orlando meeting, I raised the issue of UQ&M with Harold and I
> know there was some discussion on the topic.  I tried to get those
> interested in this together briefly at Orlando, but as it turned out  most
> of the interest was from CORBAmed - maybe because folks didn't get chance to
> come/see the notice or maybe because the HealthCare domain has more demands
> on this than others.
> 
> A brief summary of specific points before and at Orlando:
> 
> * Should measurements be part of Common Domain Objects (CDOs), independent
> of the BOCA?
> * Should a "measurement" type be included within further BOCA-related RFPs?
> * Should some form of Measurements or Quantitative Observations RFP be
> issued?
> * Can we come up with a 'common' spec for measurements and keep all Domains
> happy?
> 
> If I have this correct (Jeanette, please correct me if I haven't), the
> MES/MC Working Group of the Manufacturing DTF took the following
> assumptions:
> 
> "In addition to being requested for specifics within domain RFPs, types such
> as 'measurements' should alos be specified as part of the BOCA extensions as
> BocaValueTypes in the BOCA II RFP in the BO DTF."
> "Some group of interested folks need to do a 'test case' definition of a
> type that is clearly useful within and outside of business objects
> ... If there are methods that would not make sense outside of BOCA we should
> define the subset that was common and thereby be compatible with the BOCA
> superset"
> "Specific domain efforts could ask submitters to reply to specific domain
> reqs on types such as Measurement' ..."
> 
> Tim (Slidel) raised the question:
> "Is there a mechanism by which domain specifications can work either
> independently or within the BOCA? ... It is certainly a repeating problem
> that as soon as something appears to be more globally useful it
> gets pushed towards the BODTF..."
> 
> Several people expressed the view that they felt 'Measurements' and other
> CDOs should be developed independently of the BOCA.
> 
> Ed Barkmeyer mentioned ISO 10303-41:1994 and another spec in
> pharmaceuticals.  I know someone from Stats (Chris?) gave me a further ref
> at Orlando (if only I could find where I wrote this down).
> 
> >From the CORBAmed perspective, something is needed asap for, among other
> things, the Clinical Observation Access Service (COAS) work.  I have models
> for Units, Quantities and Measurements that I will certainly be happy to put
> into the pot and I know others (Pablo for one) have other good models and
> work done on this.
> 
> Since, as we know, the issue of UQ&M crops up in many domains, it seems IMHO
> that - in parallel to what individual DTFs have to produce themselves - we
> should try to pool what everyone is doing and see if we can indeed define
> Common Domain Objects.
> 
> Now, we could carry on discussing exactly whether the results should be part
> of the BOCA or not or how generic the results can be etc. for a long time,
> but IMHO it does not matter (at least at this stage).  What matters is that
> we try to get the model/work together - we can decide what to do with the
> result later or in parallel, but let's get down to the work.
> 
> So, in order to try to do this, I am quite happy to volunteer to take a lead
> (hence this email) unless anyone else wants to.  Can I in doing so, request
> that anyone who has or knows of a specific paper, RFP (or specific part
> thereof), standards doc (or part of), in-house model, etc.  that we can take
> as input , please respond with an email with either the document(s) attached
> or a reference to where and *how* to get hold of them or a person to
> contact.
> 
> I have been putting a draft together of many of the issues involved with
> UQ&M which I could get tidied up and circulate if anyone wants to see it.
> 
> Anyway, look forward to hearing from you,
> 
> Best regards,
> Richard
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------
> Dr. Richard Dixon
> Medical Informatics Group (MIG)
> University of Hull
> Hull HU6 7RX
> UK
begin:          vcard
fn:             Tim Brinson
n:              Brinson;Tim
org:            Protocol Systems, Inc.
adr:            8500 SW Creekside Place;;;Beaverton;Oregon;97008-7107;USA
email;internet: tim@protocol.com
title:          Systems Software Lead
tel;work:       503 526 4392
tel;fax:        503 526 4200
note:           <img src=http://aco.protocol.com/pids/tbrinson.jpg>
x-mozilla-cpt:  ;0
x-mozilla-html: TRUE
version:        2.1
end:            vcard