Each sub-group must have:
The following existing sub-groups, based around specific tools, are proposed:
The following are tools that may have ad-hoc meetings on request by Members of the AG:
Additional Sub Groups will be setup for new or proposed tooling as deemed appropriate by the Members of the AG.
The Managed Service is outside of the scope of the Tooling User AG for the moment until it opens to a wider user base. Managed Service Members should contact Terance Shird for further information.
I agree with the proposed subgroups and meeting frequency. Especially Tooling Implementation/Deployment is a good idea!
Given that many group members seem to be mainly interested in one or a few of the tools I believe that this is a reasonably proposal. However, the proposal also increases the risk for different kinds of requests and advice on different tools because different people give the feedback. It is therefore a risk that the tools become more fragmented and diverse than ideally. I still believe that one group that meet frequently with members that are interested in and gives feedback to many of the tools would be better, but that is probably difficult to achieve on a volunteer basis.
I agree with the proposed subgroups. I do agree with Mikael that the (big) advisory user tooling group still should feedback on all tools, as a connection between the subgroups. It's a good idea to discuss in more detail in subgroups.
I think the need for sub-group make a lot of sense for discussing the weeds between the interested and concerned people. It allows for things to happen. The Tooling Advisory Group should make sure that alignments between the tools is proper.
I'm very happy to see a new sub-group for Implementation/Deployment. Will we also get from that group more details around selecting, setting up, integrating and maintaining relational databases and terminology servers that are using SNOMED CT?
That could be one of the topics, but that starts to reach into the Software Development group as it is technical and not a user oriented aspect of tooling.
Personally I share the concerns of Mikael. Besides that, with the proposed groups, I am happy to see that these groups cover all major responsability areas of an NRC with exception of extension management (authoring, release, distribution and maintenance). Maybe this could be the objective of an ad hoc group as well.
I suggest a sub-group for SCT authoring tool focusing on Extension authoring/QA/release. Now is a good time to do this as IHTSDO tech team is working with current Managed Service member countries on feature requirements to support extension authoring on the new authoring tooling platform. Having consistent authoring tool would help eliminate variations not only in tooling design/implementation, but streamline extension content modeling across SCT countries. This consistency is of great value to SCT adopter/implementer, in particular international vendors.
Tooling sub-groups should cover the needs of both IHTSDO Intl and member countries, translation, RefSet, Browser, Mapping tools either have supported or going to support extension content. This maximize the ROI on the tooling for SCT.
Whilst my main area of interest is Refset management, I have an interest in other areas too. It would be useful to have a brief run-down of other workstreams or I fear we may become too silo focused. I am sure the IHTSDO staff will attempt to ensure the product suite fits together well, but we have all seen products developing on parallel streams often fail to bring that overall consistency and cohesion that "suite" users need to minimise cognitive demands just to use the tool. However the proposals will allow us to focus on the specific tool we have interest in and ensure staff get the input they need to make the tools work for customers.
It is important that project teams do not over promise and under deliver, far better to limit expectations from the outset if development and/or service constraints are likely to impinge on delivery.
The proposal looks sensible, given that individuals will have different levels of interest in the various subjects and corresponding tools.
Thank you everyone for your comments. A few thoughts of my own...
It is the responsibility of IHTSDO to ensure that tools do not break into silos and work completely independently of each other. Whilst some of that does exist today, as much down to necessity as anything else, we attempt to ensure that all tools are developed and designed according the roadmap which we have discussed regularly. That is the approach that they all hang off. Breaking this AG to more sub-groups will have no impact on the single roadmap managed by IHTSDO but will be more useful for the organization to have targeted feedback from each service.
We need to be aware of the scope of the AG. Anything which covers releasing extensions is under the remit of the Terminology Release Advisory Group and anything of a more technical nature (such as database structures, etc) falls in the Software Development Advisory Group. This AG is for end users of the tools that exist, or are planned. If there is a wider Managed Service offering that will have a specific group(s) outside of the advisory group structure created for those Members involved (as there is already for current Managed Service Members).
Thanks again, we will very soon propose a schedule which is likely to start in September after the vacation-hit month of August!
Sorry for my belated comment - out of town and on leave...
I agree with the proposals and believe concrete things can be discussed in the sub-groups and provide fruitful advices.
Please add Palle G. Petersen to Reference Set Tooling Sub-group and the ad hoc Mapping Tooling group.
Also please add both Kell Greibe and me to the ad hoc Browsing Tooling group. Thanks/Camilla
I've added Palle to the refset group. At the moment there is not a planned sub-group for Mapping or Browsing, but when they are created, I will make sure you are both added.
Powered by a free Atlassian Confluence Community License granted to IHTSDO. Evaluate Confluence today.