simtk.org

Here is a candidate list of terms to include in a glossary. These acquired through e-mail communications and discussions at the forum site. Please reply to the forum to add more terms.

• A- abstraction, accreditation, assumption
• B- big data
• C- calibration, causal, causality, certification, comparison, complete, computational, conceptual, confidence, context, credible, credibility
• D- data
• E- emulate, emulation, engineering, error, evaluation, evidence
• F- fidelity, forecasting
• G- guidance
• H- healthcare, hypothesis
• I- in silico, information, intention
• K- knowledge
• M- mapping, mathematical, mechanistic, mechanistic, metric, model, modeling, multiscale
• O- observable, open source, output
• P- phenomenon, physical, practice, predict, prediction, propogation
• Q- qualification
• R- referent, reproducibility, robust
• S- scope, sensitivity, simulate, simulation, standard, solution, stochastic
• T- theory, translation, translational
• U- uncertainty, usability, use, utility
• V- validation, variability, variance, verification, version, versioning

Through our initial discussions (Gary and myself), we decided to provide multiple definitions for each term:

• a dictionary definition,
• a definition proposed and utilized by the Committee,
• and domain specific usage (definitions).

For example, for the term "credible", the glossary entry may include:

Dictionary Definition
(from Merriam-Webster - http://www.merriam-webster.com)

Credible, adj. - offering reasonable grounds for being believed

Definition by the Committee
(a particular contextual use)

Credible - dependable with a desired certainty level to guide research or support decision making within a prescribed application domain and intended use; establishing reproducibility & accountability

Please help us fill in the definitions for the terms listed above. When providing definitions (dictionary, domain specific usage, or proposed committee definition, please provide references (if possible). Provide links to relevant literature (for definitions of terms) by replying to this forum. Alternatively, you can add these refences in the Zotero database.

Hi Ahmet,

Two more words you may want to consider are:
Traceability
Accountability

Although these may relate to other words the first is important to me and the latter is usually associated with it.

I hope you find those suitable.

Hi Ahmet,

This is a great list you and Gary have started.

I have learned that some confusions can arise when suing the flowing terms.

Qualitative and Quantitative - fore example quantitative vs qualitative V&V

Formal and Informal - fore example formal vs informal uncertainty quantification

First principles - I've learned that this can mean different things depending on the disciple under question. For instance, if one is using "first principles" to model muscle changes in response to high intensity exercise, this can mean different things to the model developer who may have a strong physics/engineering background, but something completely different to the muscle physiologist.

Other terms that may not have as much confusion about but I think we should clearly define are:

• Intended use or Context of Use
  Application Domain vs Validation Domain
  Documentation - e.g. model documentation, code documentation

I will post some proposed definitions for the list of therms that have been proposed so far.

I have a list of terms and definitions for terms to consider, but before our list of terms becomes too long, I’d like to propose the following:

• We may want to keep a list of just terms to peruse with links to the definition discussion for that term.
• Definitions should be parsimonious, i.e., as short as possible, while still including everything necessary (while still being adequate)
• Use authoritative definitions (with credible references), if available
• All responses for a given term should include all other responses for that term, by “Replying with Quote.” Or, we may want a ‘thread per term.’ This will prevent the need to scroll through multiple pages just to find other people’s inputs or thoughts on a given definition. Another way using BBCode is to create a table of terms, definitions, & commentary. This would be different than other Forum Topics, but it may help the flow of discussion. Are there other suggestions for organization?

Hi Ahmet,

John Rice from the Society for Simulation in Healthcare (SSH) sent me the link to Verification Validation & Accreditation Recommended Practice Guide (VVA RPG) from the Modeling & Simulation Coordination Office (MSCO) at DoD.

http://www.msco.mil/VVA_RPG.html

Specifically, it contains a long glossary document with many definitions. Here is a direct link to this document:

http://www.msco.mil/documents/RPG/VV&A% ... 0Terms.pdf

Since the resources of the committee are limited, it seems a good idea to avoid duplication of effort and reuse some of the work already done. If there are changes in definitions we want to make to adjust the document towards healthcare related modeling we can focus on these changes and just redefine the new entries we want.

There may be other sources of similar definitions that we may encounter and learn from. Yet this is the first one I saw that had a comprehensive glossary.

Also, I would suggest focusing on trying to define newer terms such as:
Big Data
Cloud
Natural Language Processing (NLP)
Machine Learning
High Performance Computing (HPC)
Evidence based medicine

There seems to be misunderstanding / confusion/ controversy with those newer terms that may not pass well between communities.

I hope this suggestion is accepted.

Ahmet,

Martin Steel posed a good question that prompted me to suggest that we define Multiscale Model or Multiscale Modeling so that we are all on the same page. I think a good place to start is with the definition IMAG uses:

"Multiscale biomedical modeling uses mathematics and computation to represent and simulate a physiological system at more than one biological scale. Biological scales include atomic, molecular, molecular complexes, sub-cellular, cellular, multi-cell systems, tissue, organ, multi-organ systems, organism, population, and behavior. These multiscale biomedical models may also include dynamical processes which span multiple time and length scales."

Hi All,

Based on the previous replies, I would need some clarification. Do you think it is necessary to establish individual entries for combined phrases, e.g. intended use, context of use, multiscale modeling? Shouldn't it be adequate if we provide definitions, for the listed phrases for example, intention, context, use, multiscale, modeling? Of course, there may be cases where we need to define the phrase, e.g. big data.

Ahmet

Hi Ahmet,

To your question, my opinion is:
1. Use Phrases or words
2. If good definition exists already - adopt and link to existing text.
3. Only if necessary - add clarification to fit our agenda

We may have no time for anything more deep with the men power and time we have - unless of course you do one of the following: extend the committee roster / increase time commitment from members / extend activity beyond 2 years / limit the number of terms in glossary / remove other tasks.

I suggest doing this on the fly and adding new definition only if a controversy/misunderstanding is detected or suspected. This seems to be most efficient, especially if we use the SVN repository to record all our changes.

I hope this makes sense.

aerdemir wrote:Hi All,

Based on the previous replies, I would need some clarification. Do you think it is necessary to establish individual entries for combined phrases, e.g. intended use, context of use, multiscale modeling? Shouldn't it be adequate if we provide definitions, for the listed phrases for example, intention, context, use, multiscale, modeling? Of course, there may be cases where we need to define the phrase, e.g. big data.

Ahmet

In my experience, not defining the "phrases" and just relying on the individual (disjoint) words will eventually lead to people inferring their own definition for the phrases. I think people want to see and refer to the meaning of multi-word terms (or phrases). It gives them a sense for the term, both for themselves and to convey to others in a succinct manner.

jbarhak wrote:DoD glossary

While I agree that we should not duplicate efforts of good work already accomplished, we also should not just take a particular venue's (e.g., DoD's) definition as it is. The DoD's glossary in particular has nuances that are particular to the military (e.g., commander focused) and they have many definitions that are circular (include the word or forms of the word in them that they are defining), which is against lexicographer's rules.

I don't think we need to have every possible term in this glossary, e.g., "cloud," which is a generically available term.

We may want to have a proposed list of terms (all terms that we suggest) and a list of terms we either will define or have defined.

If there existed a good generic M&S Dictionary, a lot of our concerns would be eliminated.
Here's a link to one that has software leanings: http://www.acm-sigsim-mskr.org/glossary.htm