[Standards] FW: MedBiq Specification review - Curriculum Inventory
vsmothers at jhmi.edu
Fri Jun 29 17:59:08 UTC 2012
Dear Standards Committee,
Please see the following comments submitted by Dan Rehak. We'll compile all comments and address them within the Curriculum Inventory working group, so please send any other comments you may have.
From: Daniel Rehak [mailto:daniel.rehak at gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, June 29, 2012 1:55 PM
To: Gabrielle Campbell
Cc: Valerie Smothers
Subject: Re: [Standards] MedBiq Specification review - Curriculum Inventory
Some technical comments, mostly things that are not clear or inconsistent.
ID is an attribute of event, sequence block, and integration block (I think that's all). It is described as "unique id". What is the scope of uniqueness of id -- just unique to this report, or globally unique across reports, or something else?
Does the language attribute apply to ALL strings? Are any just vocabulary terms that are not to be rendered in a specific language? Is there any problem with setting the language for the strings in the report, and then including a LOM element that has a lang string in a different language?
7.5 makes level required. 7.6 says optional. Also wanted to verify that both parts of 7.6 are independent and both can be omitted, e.g., <level number="10" />
Is each instance of level required to have a unique number, e.g., is it OK to have 5 levels and each be described as number 1, i.e., 1,1,1,1,1 ? Duplicate levels seems valid as written in the narrative. (I didn't explore to see if the XSD makes requirements not stated in the narrative).
Likewise, is it OK to say there are 3 levels, and then make the levels 3, 1, and 7? Having non sequential levels and non unique levels appears valid from the narrative.
If there are n levels, it appears that you need only supply one set of details, not a detail for each of the levels. Correct?
There does not seem to be a requirement that the sequence level match one of the level descriptions.
I suspect most of the above on levels are not what you intended and additional requirements are needed in the narrative (which probably can't be enforced at the schema level).
The use of the term "resource" appears confusing to the uninitiated My initial take was that it was a learning resource and I was expecting it to be a resource ID, not that it was a vocabulary of learning resource TYPES (had to look up the reference to see what you meant).
I believe there is a serious technical issue with saying that ordered sequence blocks are in the order of appearance. An XML file is a serialization format. You are stating that the serialization of the ordered sequence blocks is the order of their appearance. Unfortunately, XML processing is based on the post schema validation infoset (PSVI), not the file serlailization format. So (simplified example)
<item name="one"/> <item name="two"/> <item name="three"/>
can be interpreted by the XML processor as three, two, one., or one, three, two, ... and not necessarily one, two, three. Thus I believe you need to have an explicit ordering attribute.
Sorry if I've mis read something and I'm off on the comments.
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 9:09 AM, Gabrielle Campbell <gcampbell at aamc.org<mailto:gcampbell at aamc.org>> wrote:
Dear Standards Committee,
The MedBiquitous Curriculum Inventory draft specification is ready for your review and comment as part of the MedBiquitous standards development process.
The Curriculum Inventory specification provides a data structure that allows one to represent a health professions curriculum in a standard format. This structure then enables the exchange and aggregation of curriculum data across the continuum of professional education and training.
The Curriculum Inventory schema and specifications are available for download from:
The Standards Committee is charged with guiding specifications through the process of creating official ANSI standards and voting on the standards. The Standards Committee will work closely with the Curriculum Inventory working group to address any comments that are raised.
Please gather comments from within your organization and submit those comments through this email list by June 30.
Following the comment period and our work to address and resolve comments, we will initiate public review and balloting of the specifications.
Thanks to all those Standards Committee members who have participated in the working groups that drafted the specifications, and thanks to all of you for your continued participation in developing common standards to advance healthcare education and competence assessment.
Please let me know if anyone is receiving this email in error; we strive to keep the Standards Committee list current, but sometimes we still have incorrect contact names. Your assistance is greatly appreciated in helping keep this committee email list updated.
Chair, MedBiquitous Standards Committee
Senior Director, Business Strategy & Development
American Medical Colleges
2450 N Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20037-1127
T (202) 828-0643<tel:%28202%29%C2%A0828-0643> F (202) 828-0659<tel:%28202%29%C2%A0828-0659>
E gcampbell at aamc.org<mailto:gcampbell at aamc.org>
Tomorrow's Doctors, Tomorrow's Cures(r)
Standards mailing list
Standards at medbiq.org<mailto:Standards at medbiq.org>
Daniel R. Rehak, Ph.D.
Email: daniel.rehak at gmail.com<mailto:daniel.rehak at gmail.com>
Google Voice: +1 412 301 3040
Tel: +1 412 931 7317
Work: +1 412 931 7319
Mob: +1 412 805 7683
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Standards