Task 3. Strategy for communication between biobanks, including a common nomenclature, compatible software techniques and appropriate information transmission polices Task 3 will be to explore a complete strategy for communication between biobank including a common nomenclature, compatible software techniques and appropriate information transmission policies. This all relates to information on specimens, laboratory results, phenotypes, exposures and genealogical data. Primary related deliverables: D5.2, D5.3, D5.5 Most work within WP5 has been concerned with Task 3 since this is the most extensive task. It is also dependent on the work performed in Tasks 1 and 2; primarily use cases 1 and 2 in Section 1.1.2. Major activities for Task 3 have been the creation of a shared data model for European biobanks. Two proposals for the design and architecture of an information management system for European biobanks have been developed. However, since the proposals focus on different layers of software technology – web services vs. the Set Definition Language (SDL) [13], they can also be considered to be complementary. In fact, it was suggested that the data schema (presented in D5.3) used for Prototype B in Section 1.3.3 could be viewed as an instance of the generalized metadata model discussed in Section 1.3.1. Part of Task 3 is also the work related to different service scenarios in Section 1.3.4 from D5.2, and the network model and implementation proposal from D5.5 presented in Section
Task 3. Strategy for communication between biobanks, including a common nomenclature, compatible software techniques and appropriate information transmission polices ▪ Data model and terminology
Task 3. 5.1 Identify best practices and lack of LTFU care
Figure 1. Map providing overview of LTFU care in Europe (xxxxx://xxx.xxxxxxx.xx/european-map/)
Task 3. Workshops to identify needs, preferences and barriers
Task 3. 5.6 Patient advocate/survivor-driven communication recommendations for HCPs
Task 3. 10: Promoting HiPEAC Start-Ups This task aims to stimulate members to create new start-ups by organising one yearly event. Additionally, we embrace start-up companies by quasi-automatically inviting them as member companies, so they get access to all the resources of the network. By promoting these companies, we hope to contribute to their success. This is the list of HiPEAC Start-Ups: Acumem xxxx://xxx.xxxxxx.xxx/xxx/ Erik Hagersten Caps Enterprise xxxx://xxx.xxxx-xxxxxxxxxx.xxx/ François Bodin Nanochronous xxxx://xxx.xxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx/xxxx/ Manolis Katevenis Nema Labs xxxx://xxx.xxxxxxxx.xxx/ Per Stenström QuviQ xxxx://xxx.xxxxx.xxx/ John Hughes Splitted desktop xxxx://xxx.xxxxxxxx-xxxxxxx.xxx/xx/ Olivier Temam INOCS xxxx://xxx.xxxxx.xxx Federico Angiolini Kalray xxxx://xxx.xxxxxx.xx Benoît Dupont de Dinechin In order to promote the start-ups, Peter Magnusson, founder of Virtutech was asked to give a keynote speech on start-ups at the ACACES Summer School. His speech was titled “What your mother should have taught you on entrepreneurship”. A presentation of the HiPEAC start-ups promotion activity was published in the HiPEAC Info 14, April 2008. Deeper presentations of each start-up have appeared in the next HiPEAC Infos, two start-up‟s at a time. We have currently presented Acumem, CAPS-Enterprise, Nanochronous, Nema Labs and Quviq in HiPEAC Info 15, 16 and 17. Since October, the coordinator of this task, Marco Cornero, left the consortium. The coordination of this task has, since the second period of HiPEAC, been taken over by the new partner, ST Grenoble, and its responsible scientist, Christian Bertin.
Task 3. 1: Conference 4 2.1. HiPEAC 2008 Conference, Goteborg 4 2.2. HiPEAC 2009 Conference, Paphos 10 2.3. Conference Ranking 16
Task 3. 1: Scientific coordination Progress towards objectives and significant results The main focus in this first reporting period for the scientific coordination of the work package has been on ensuring good communication and exchange of information between the participating working groups. To this end monthly phone meetings with short status reports from all partners involved where organized. Additionally the work package coordinators have joined meetings from WP5 and WP14 in order to discuss possible synergies and common activities. Dates Type of meeting Venue Attendance Indico link
Task 3. 2 Implement the code for under 3.1 defined specifications and integrating the results achieved in tasks 2.2 and 2.3.
Task 3. 2: Summer School 16 3.1. 4th International Summer School – 2008 16 3.2. 5th International Summer School – 2009 21
