2010-02-10 - Audio Conference - Spec Update and open issues CMS

Conversation Parameters

Time: 2010-02-10 10:10 - 12:11 (CET)

Participants

Transcript

  1. WS presents CM Spec (LLMCMSS) Issue 0.6 (in work).
  2. PTC local user interface:
    1. PTC currently assumed to have no native (own) user interface.
    2. EK mentions there is a development under work of a native windows application interfacing to WiiMotes and Wii Balance board as a PTC implementation.
    3. Until further notice, PTC is still assumed "headless". If the official status changes (to PTC with own user interface) PTC integration will be handled like CTC as an "uncooperative" application in the sense of LLMCMSS.05.
    4. Anyway, the PTC user interface will need to provide an "Emergency" button like in the standard LLM LUI screens to enable the senior to call for help. Any uncooperative application may trigger an alarm flow via the CMS web-API. user dialogue control flow, however, has to be re-worked for this case, as for the time being, the LUI controls the confirmation dialogue and handles the (voice/SIP) call.
  3. WS mentions that it will be mandatory for medical domain experts to provide LRF presentation algorithms for training results, also if the training results are standardised, and that there may be 2 or 3 or even 4 presentations for the same training result: one for senior, one for relative, one for trainer and one for the therapist. LRF supports this setting, but domain experts have to support the algorithms. To support this, it is agreed that WS provide a sample (virtual) algorithm to serve as a blueprint.
  4. Discussion of Deployment Architecture/System Configuration:
    1. AB proposes that there should be no "local LLM server", only local terminals and DB-server(s). CMS service should run on local terminal and LRF service on DB-server-box. This would save one box.
    2. WS responds that this is possbile in principle, but the crucial element for both CMS and LRF is the powerful and reliable connection to the database. All others being equal, CMS could also run on DB-server, provided sufficient DB-connectivity. CMS and LRF should pose no big system load to the DB-server. IF CMS and LRF both run on DB-server, this also would save the server-box. Access to RUI by therapists and relatives could as well be handled on the DB-server-box.
    3. A follow-up voice conversation between WS, AB shall be scheduled at 12.2. or 15.2. to clarifiy last DB and site location issues
  5. Discussion of development project timeline handled in later follow-up-conversation between WH and WS.
    1. 20 Development items are identified and listed in LLMCMSS.07.
    2. Follow-Up information added:
      1. WS to create draft MS-project Gantt-chart covering the 20 development items and dependencies
      2. development teams to contribute efforts, elapsed time, possible constraints and changed dependencies.