210 likes | 229 Views
An advanced tool enabling public editing, commenting, translation, and peer review of content, with features like public scoring, mini questionnaires, and proposal mechanisms. Users can generate and manage proposals for structural and content changes, facilitating interactive feedback in a structured workflow. The platform supports linearization generation and persistence of objects for efficient management.
E N D
Editing Commenting Translation Tool Browsing Print Generation Public Commenting Peer Review Linearization Generation Public Proposals Public Scoring Mini questionnaires
Public Commenting • Open to public • Comments attachable to concepts or property values • Allows threads • Keeps track of changes of the content that it is attached to. • Supports moderation of comments
Public Scoring • Allows the public to give scores on individual property values. (i.e. descriptions, synonyms, etc.) • Similar to stars or up vote / down vote mechanisms used in various sites.
Public Mini Questionnaires Is this category in the right place? Yes No • Is the definition clearly formulated • 1 Very Clear • 2 • 3 • 4 • 5 Not clear at all
Proposal Mechanism • Allows public to propose changes in the classification • Content of individual concepts. • Classification hierarchy (structural changes) • Proposal can be attached to concepts at any level in the classification. • There may be multiple proposals attached to one ICD concept. Users of the tool generate proposals Feedback / filter by web of trust TAG ME applies changes
Proposals for Structural Changes • This type of proposals involves changes in the classification hierarchy mainly by splitting or moving concepts. • These proposals will include a text explaining the changes together with some additional structured content about the proposal. • These proposals can be attached to multiple ICD concepts.
Content Proposals • The actual proposal will be done by editing a clone of the ICD11 concept • A proposal might suggest changes to one or more of the content model parameters • It may be as simple as suggesting a synonym • Or it might have a several of the content model parameters filled in including the ones bound to a value set.
Peer Reviewing - 1 Request review • The tool will keep a pool of Reviewers • The TAG Managing Editor will be in charge of sending the content to reviewers when it’s ready. • The tool will provide a mechanism to select the unit to be reviewed together with reviewer(s) from the pool to start the process. • The tool will automatically notify the reviewer with a hyperlink to a web form that he/she will use for the review Tag managing editor Reviewer Send review
Peer Reviewing – 2 • Review of the foundation and linearization hierarchy • The unit of review in this case will be a sub-tree of a linearization. • Reviewers of this type for the linearizations will be mainly horizontal TAGs (MTAG, MbTAG and their work groups) • The review will be done by filling a template form. • Review of concept content • The unit of review in this case will be one concept • Reviewers will be domain experts. • The review will be done by filling a template form
Translation Tool • Allows translation of ICD-11 content • Uses a translation memory filled with pre-existing translations of ICD-10 • To support the translation workflow
Editing Commenting Translation Tool Browsing Print Generation Public Commenting Peer Review Public Scoring Mini questionnaires Linearization Generation Public Proposals
WHO Stanford Public Platform ? Public Commenting Browsing iCat Scoring Mini Questionnaire Linearization Generation Persisted objects Print Generation Peer Review iCatdb dump Loader Public Proposals
Proposal Processing at the iCat • After the some of the proposal items are accepted the platform would expose the following information in a web service • iCat periodically checks this service and applies the changes.