Archived Discussions

General Observable and Investigation Model Project Group Notifications

IHTSDO Observable PG: Face-to-face meeting in Crystal City, VA, USA (collabnet topic id: topc6153)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
IHTSDO Observable PG: Face-to-face meeting in Crystal City, VA, USA	Dear All, here's some practical details about the upcoming meeting in Crystal City. There will be GotoMeeting access to the meeting for those unable to join physically. There are two sessions in two different rooms and with two different GotoMeeting lines. Please see attached document for details The meetings are Monday 13.30-17.00 EDT (17.30-21.00 UTC) and Wednesday 09.00-12.30 (13.00-16.30 UTC). On the agenda: * Intro to the Observables model * The LOINC agreement and consequences for the Observables project * Discussions of the results of the Clinical Observables test * AOB Regards, Daniel	dkarlsson	Tue Oct 01 07:53:37 Z 2013	post9031	topc6153
Re: IHTSDO Observable PG: Face-to-face meeting in Crystal City, VA, USA	The "raw" results of the Clinical Observables test can be found here: https://csfe.aceworkspace.net/sf/go/doc8920?nav=1 /Daniel	dkarlsson	Tue Oct 01 07:54:51 Z 2013	post9032	topc6153
Re: IHTSDO Observable PG: Face-to-face meeting in Crystal City, VA, USA	Dear All, due to a tight schedule and in order to get Kent and David in the meeting room on Monday we will advance the meeting to 13.00 EDT (17.00 UTC), i.e. we will start 1 PM sharp with the LOINC agreement discussion. Regards, Daniel	dkarlsson	Tue Oct 01 09:35:48 Z 2013	post9033	topc6153

IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2014-07-28 20.00 UTC (collabnet topic id: topc6966)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2014-07-28 20.00 UTC	Dear All, it is Observables time again on Monday July 28 20.00 UTC. On the agenda is: * Any CollabNet discussions * F2f meeting in Amsterdam Oct 2014 * Function observables * Sample observables * Susceptibility observables * Any other business /Daniel Meeting ID: 457-038-453 https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/457038453 Use your microphone and speakers (VoIP) - a headset is recommended. Or, call in using your telephone. Denmark: +45 (0) 89 88 05 39 Australia: +61 2 8355 1039 Austria: +43 (0) 7 2088 2172 Belgium: +32 (0) 42 68 0180 Canada: +1 (647) 497-9379 Finland: +358 (0) 931 58 4588 France: +33 (0) 182 880 934 Germany: +49 (0) 811 8899 6929 Ireland: +353 (0) 19 036 187 Italy: +39 0 294 75 15 37 Netherlands: +31 (0) 108 080 116 New Zealand: +64 (0) 9 801 0294 Norway: +47 21 51 81 86 Spain: +34 911 23 4248 Sweden: +46 (0) 852 500 516 Switzerland: +41 (0) 435 0824 41 United Kingdom: +44 20 3657 6779 United States: +1 (213) 493-0015 Denmark (toll-free): 8090 1927 Israel (toll-free): 1 809 494 273 Singapore (toll-free): 800 101 2999 Access Code: 457-038-453 Audio PIN: Shown after joining the meeting	dkarlsson	Sun Jul 27 20:23:23 Z 2014	post10349	topc6966

IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2012-07-09 UTC 20.00 (collabnet topic id: topc4792)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2012-07-09 UTC 20.00	Dear Everyone, there is an upcoming Observables meeting this Monday at UTC20.00. I've written a document on some considerations for representing relational observables in non-lab use cases which I would like to discuss: https://csfe.aceworkspace.net/sf/docman/do/downloadDocument/projects.observable_and_investigation_mod/docman.root.project_group_meetings.project_group_meetings_2012.2012_07_09/doc6068 Thanks to Michael for providing examples (and a good discussion). Details: Phone: Line 2 GotoMeeting: 753-566-160 Instructions and phone numbers: https://csfe.aceworkspace.net/sf/go/doc4996?nav=1 Regards, Daniel	dkarlsson	Fri Jul 06 14:56:35 Z 2012	post6976	topc4792
Re: IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2012-07-09 UTC 20.00	A new version of the document has been uploaded. /Daniel	dkarlsson	Sun Jul 08 09:54:32 Z 2012	post6979	topc4792

IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting details for Wednesday 12 Oct (collabnet topic id: topc3874)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting details for Wednesday 12 Oct	Dial-in instructions, not the ususal IHTSDO number! (please see attached file): Line 2 Moderator Code: 68019909 Participate Code: 88020407 (Number external people need to dial in)	dkarlsson	Tue Oct 11 21:50:05 Z 2011	post5521	topc3874

IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2013-06-10 UTC 20.00 (collabnet topic id: topc5930)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2013-06-10 UTC 20.00	Dear All, there is, as usual, an upcoming Observables meeting this second Monday of the month. On the agenda: * clinical observables test https://csfe.aceworkspace.net/sf/go/doc8400?nav=1 * project planning Practical details: Meeting ID: 753-566-160 https://www1.gotomeeting.com/join/753566160 Use your microphone and speakers (VoIP) - a headset is recommended. Or, call in using your telephone (new phone numbers) . Australia: +61 2 8355 1024 Austria: +43 (0) 7 2088 1403 Canada: +1 (647) 497-9351 Sweden: +46 (0) 852 503 499 United Kingdom: +44 (0) 207 151 1857 United States: +1 (619) 550-0006 Access Code: 753-566-160 Audio PIN: Shown after joining the meeting /Daniel	dkarlsson	Fri Jun 07 10:42:24 Z 2013	post8636	topc5930

IHTSDO Observable PG: IHTSDO Observable PG: Sydney meeting 11-12 October 2011 (collabnet topic id: topc3753)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
IHTSDO Observable PG: IHTSDO Observable PG: Sydney meeting 11-12 October 2011	Dear Everyone, to organize meeting room and phone lines etc. could everyone planning to attend or call in to the Sydney meeting please send me an email, preferably as soon as possible. Regards, Daniel, co-chair	dkarlsson	Sun Sep 25 13:48:02 Z 2011	post5349	topc3753

IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2013-09-23 (collabnet topic id: topc6139)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2013-09-23	Dear All, we will continue our discussion of the results of the observables test this Monday Sep 23 at 20.00 UTC. On the agenda is: * any CollabNet discussions * clinical observables test results * face2face meeting planning More results will be posted on CollabNet closer to Monday. Regards, Daniel Practical details: Meeting ID: 753-566-160 https://www1.gotomeeting.com/join/753566160 Use your microphone and speakers (VoIP) - a headset is recommended. Or, call in using your telephone (new phone numbers) Australia: +61 2 8355 1024 Austria: +43 (0) 7 2088 1403 Canada: +1 (647) 497-9351 Sweden: +46 (0) 852 503 499 United Kingdom: +44 (0) 207 151 1857 United States: +1 (619) 550-0006 Access Code: 753-566-160 Audio PIN: Shown after joining the meeting /Daniel	dkarlsson	Thu Sep 19 11:20:33 Z 2013	post9008	topc6139

IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2014-08-11 20.00 UTC (collabnet topic id: topc7007)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2014-08-11 20.00 UTC	Dear All, there is an Observables meeting tomorrow Monday 2014-08-11 20.00 UTC. On the agenda is: * CollabNet discussions - To "function" or not to "function" * Susceptibility observables * Sample observables * Any other business /Daniel Meeting ID: 457-038-453 https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/457038453 Use your microphone and speakers (VoIP) - a headset is recommended. Or, call in using your telephone. Denmark: +45 (0) 89 88 05 39 Australia: +61 2 8355 1039 Austria: +43 (0) 7 2088 2172 Belgium: +32 (0) 42 68 0180 Canada: +1 (647) 497-9379 Finland: +358 (0) 931 58 4588 France: +33 (0) 182 880 934 Germany: +49 (0) 811 8899 6929 Ireland: +353 (0) 19 036 187 Italy: +39 0 294 75 15 37 Netherlands: +31 (0) 108 080 116 New Zealand: +64 (0) 9 801 0294 Norway: +47 21 51 81 86 Spain: +34 911 23 4248 Sweden: +46 (0) 852 500 516 Switzerland: +41 (0) 435 0824 41 United Kingdom: +44 20 3657 6779 United States: +1 (213) 493-0015 Denmark (toll-free): 8090 1927 Israel (toll-free): 1 809 494 273 Singapore (toll-free): 800 101 2999 Access Code: 457-038-453 Audio PIN: Shown after joining the meeting	dkarlsson	Sun Aug 10 20:50:21 Z 2014	post10403	topc7007

IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2012-09-10 UTC 20.00 (collabnet topic id: topc4976)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2012-09-10 UTC 20.00	Dear All, on the agend for tonight is: * more potential issues from walkthrough of previously modeled examples * face-to-face meeting planning Details: Phone: Line 2 GotoMeeting: 753-566-160 Instructions and phone numbers: https://csfe.aceworkspace.net/sf/go/doc4996?nav=1 Regards, Daniel	dkarlsson	Mon Sep 10 06:12:45 Z 2012	post7258	topc4976
Re: IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2012-09-10 UTC 20.00	LOINC and NPU examples files are updated. https://csfe.aceworkspace.net/sf/go/projects.observable_and_investigation_mod/docman.root.projects /Daniel	dkarlsson	Mon Sep 10 08:25:10 Z 2012	post7259	topc4976

IHTSDO Observable PG: Recording of Observables Group teleconference 11 March 2013 (collabnet topic id: topc5759)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
IHTSDO Observable PG: Recording of Observables Group teleconference 11 March 2013	The teleconference from today has been recorded, and the recording posted as doc7844 in the observables project group - Documents - Project group meetings 2013 subfolder 2013 03 11	kspackman	Mon Mar 11 23:20:37 Z 2013	post8321	topc5759

IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2013-05-13 UTC 20.00 (collabnet topic id: topc5871)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2013-05-13 UTC 20.00	Dear Everyone, upcoming meeting this Monday, the 2013-05-13T20.00UTC. On the agenda is: * Discussion-thread discussions: - IS ABOUT * Lab test planning - Modelers guide construction * Meeting planning Practical details: Meeting ID: 753-566-160 https://www1.gotomeeting.com/join/753566160 Use your microphone and speakers (VoIP) - a headset is recommended. Or, call in using your telephone (new phone numbers). Australia: +61 2 8355 1024 Austria: +43 (0) 7 2088 1403 Canada: +1 (647) 497-9351 Sweden: +46 (0) 852 503 499 United Kingdom: +44 (0) 207 151 1857 United States: +1 (619) 550-0006 Access Code: 753-566-160 Audio PIN: Shown after joining the meeting /Daniel	dkarlsson	Wed May 08 12:40:59 Z 2013	post8523	topc5871

IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2015-02-23 20.00 UTC (collabnet topic id: topc7400)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2015-02-23 20.00 UTC	Dear Everyone, There is again an Observables meeting coming up this Monday 2015-02-23 at 20.00 UTC. Note the (not-any-longer-so) new GotoMeeting number: 201-313-901 On the agenda is: Minutes from last meeting Review of action items Any CollabNet discussions "New" observables documents IS ABOUT Impression observables discussion I posted links the the Observables project inception/elaboration documents. Please report of there are problems accessing the documents. Cheers, Daniel New GotoMeeting/telephone details as of 2015-01-13. The detalis are: Meeting ID: 201-313-901 https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/201313901 Use your microphone and speakers (VoIP) - a headset is recommended. Or, call in using your telephone. Access Code: 201-313-901 More phone numbers: https://global.gotomeeting.com/201313901/ numbersdisplay.html	dkarlsson	Fri Feb 20 12:41:22 Z 2015	post10999	topc7400

IHTSDO Observable PG: Observables document and next meeting (collabnet topic id: topc7582)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
IHTSDO Observable PG: Observables document and next meeting	Dear all, first, I'm currently working on updating the Observables inception/elaboration document and new versions will appear in this folder: https://csfe.aceworkspace.net/sf/docman/do/listDocuments/projects.observable_and_investigation_mod/docman.root.projects.observables_document_review Any review and/or comments to the document is appreciated. Note that the document will be updated frequently. I will be travelling at the time of the next planned meeting, so I propose to move the meeting to Monday the Aug 17. I would like to have a discussion about the Observables document (above). Is that ok? Cheers, Daniel	dkarlsson	Fri Jul 31 09:06:37 Z 2015	post11378	topc7582
Re: IHTSDO Observable PG: Observables document and next meeting	Monday the 17 of August works for me. Suzanne	ssantamaria	Mon Aug 03 18:40:11 Z 2015	post11387	topc7582
Re: IHTSDO Observable PG: Observables document and next meeting	Ok, I got positive responses for Aug 17, so let's move the Aug 10 meeting to Aug 17. I'll send out a separate notice! /Daniel	dkarlsson	Tue Aug 04 07:08:30 Z 2015	post11390	topc7582

IHTSDO Observable PG: Observables PG meeting 2012-01-23 UTC 20.00 (collabnet topic id: topc4221)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
IHTSDO Observable PG: Observables PG meeting 2012-01-23 UTC 20.00	Dear Everyone, true to our tradition, there is an upcoming Observables meeting this Monday. The agenda will include: * generic property types (Ed Cheethams post https://csfe.aceworkspace.net/sf/discussion/do/listPosts/projects.observable_and_investigation_mod/discussion.general_observable_and_investiga.topc4203) * techniques (how would we model e.g. the adult cuff of a adult cuff size, left arm systolic blood pressure?) * 2012 lab test Details: Phone: Line 2 GotoMeeting: 753-566-160 Instructions and phone numbers: https://csfe.aceworkspace.net/sf/go/doc4996?nav=1 Regards, Daniel	dkarlsson	Fri Jan 20 07:39:17 Z 2012	post6090	topc4221

IHTSDO Observable PG: Possible Episodes... - Observables... coordination and collaboration (collabnet topic id: topc2828)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
IHTSDO Observable PG: Possible Episodes... - Observables... coordination and collaboration	Dear Everyone, during the Events, Conditions, Episodes PG meeting yesterday we had a discussion on any issues where the two PGs tasks overlap and which might need a collaborative effort. Please read the summary by Ed Cheetham in the post on the ECE PG space: https://csfe.aceworkspace.net/sf/go/post3766 Regards, Daniel	dkarlsson	Thu Feb 17 16:59:53 Z 2011	post3771	topc2828
Re: IHTSDO Observable PG: Possible Episodes... - Observables... coordination and collaboration	I've done some thinking about how the changes in Observables, and Observation results, can be represented via the proposed changes in Findings/disorders (moving to "condition" as a single top level as discussed in the ECE group). The two models seem to be fitting together. But there is more work to be done obviously. See attached. I've been "stress-testing" the revised models against some of the pre-coordination roadmap patterns. It seems to be a reasonable foundation.	kspackman	Mon Mar 21 16:04:18 Z 2011	post3993	topc2828

IHTSDO Observable PG: Observable and Investigation Model Project August 22, 2011 meeting details (collabnet topic id: topc3632)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
IHTSDO Observable PG: Observable and Investigation Model Project August 22, 2011 meeting details	Hello Observable and Investigation Model Project group, Here are the coordinates for the upcoming Observables and Investigation Model Project group meeting: Date: August 22, 2011 Time: 20:00 – 21:00 UTC GoTo meeting link: https://www1.gotomeeting.com/join/753566160 GoTo meeting ID: 753-566-160 Conference call: IHTSDO Line #2, Pass Code 54362# The agenda will include: 1.functional observables (ICF examples available from https://csfe.aceworkspace.net/sf/go/doc4262?nav=1) 2.planning for face-to-face meeting 3.aob Dial in codes AUSTRALIA BRISBANE +61 731234424 CANADA TORONTO +1 4168000350 DENMARK COPENHAGEN +45 43396372 LITHUANIA VILNIUS +370 52058946 NETHERLANDS AMSTERDAM +31 202629995 NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND +64 99250305 SWEDEN STOCKHOLM +46 852507971 UNITED KINGDOM BIRMINGHAM +44 1213142062 UNITED STATES CHICAGO +1 3124966622 UNITED STATES LOS ANGELES +1 2133253224 UNITED STATES WASHINGTON +1 2022924256 Softphone users World ext 1601	mstark	Fri Aug 19 13:28:41 Z 2011	post5149	topc3632

IHTSDO Observable PG: Discussion on representing biosurveillance specimens (collabnet topic id: topc2857)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
IHTSDO Observable PG: Discussion on representing biosurveillance specimens	Dear all This is a (hopefully successful) attempt to alert this group to a discussion on the representation of biosurveillance specimen types. Jim Case and I have posted a couple of comments, and we would value observables project expertise with regard to the relationship between physical objects referred to in the context of a specimen, and their intended representation in the draft observables model. Any input would be greatly valued. Kind regards Ed Cheetham	edcheetham	Wed Mar 02 17:59:33 Z 2011	post3842	topc2857

IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting details for Monday 28 Nov 2011 20.00-21.00 UTC (collabnet topic id: topc4093)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting details for Monday 28 Nov 2011 20.00-21.00 UTC	Dear Everyone, time for Observables again. The (proposed) agenda: * Concluding on the draft observables model. * Planning of 2012. The "signifcant" test and non-lab... Phone: Line 2 GotoMeeting: 753-566-160	dkarlsson	Sun Nov 27 20:07:08 Z 2011	post5899	topc4093

IHTSDO Observable PG: Next observables meeting on the 13th of February (collabnet topic id: topc4226)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
IHTSDO Observable PG: Next observables meeting on the 13th of February	Dear All, the next Observables meeting will be on the 13th of February, not the 6th as I said on the call. The meetings are on the 2nd and 4th every month. Sorry for any inconvenience. /Daniel	dkarlsson	Tue Jan 24 07:08:41 Z 2012	post6097	topc4226

Meeting 2013-03-25 UTC 20.00 (collabnet topic id: topc5772)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
Meeting 2013-03-25 UTC 20.00	Dear All, this Monday there is yet another Observables meeting scheduled. On the agenda is: * Results from member forum prioritization * Susceptibility observables * Data collection form for Venous Thromboembolism from VA project * Lab test planning - status of planning so far, what needs to be done? * Project meeting planning Also, see the project home page for more information and links. /Daniel Meeting ID: 753-566-160 https://www1.gotomeeting.com/join/753566160 Use your microphone and speakers (VoIP) - a headset is recommended. Or, call in using your telephone (new phone numbers) . Australia: +61 2 8355 1024 Austria: +43 (0) 7 2088 1403 Canada: +1 (647) 497-9351 Sweden: +46 (0) 852 503 499 United Kingdom: +44 (0) 207 151 1857 United States: +1 (619) 550-0006 Access Code: 753-566-160 Audio PIN: Shown after joining the meeting	dkarlsson	Tue Mar 19 11:41:20 Z 2013	post8342	topc5772

IHTSDO Observable PG: BP OWL file (collabnet topic id: topc6585)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
IHTSDO Observable PG: BP OWL file	Dear All, a new version has been uploaded: https://csfe.aceworkspace.net/sf/go/doc9621?nav=1 /Daniel	dkarlsson	Mon Mar 24 21:10:57 Z 2014	post9750	topc6585

IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2013-01-28 UTC 20.00 (collabnet topic id: topc5431)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2013-01-28 UTC 20.00	Dear Everyone, an Observables meeting is upcoming this Monday Jan 28 at 20.00UTC. The agenda includes: * Aggregation and observables, i.e. max, min, peak, average etc. * Lab test planning * New front page contents * Project meeting planning Meeting details: 1. Please join my meeting. https://www1.gotomeeting.com/join/753566160 2. Use your microphone and speakers (VoIP) - a headset is recommended. Or, call in using your telephone. Australia: +61 2 8355 1024 Austria: +43 (0) 7 2088 1403 Canada: +1 (647) 497-9351 Sweden: +46 (0) 852 503 499 United Kingdom: +44 (0) 207 151 1857 United States: +1 (619) 550-0006 Access Code: 753-566-160 Audio PIN: Shown after joining the meeting Meeting ID: 753-566-160 Calling from another country? Reply and a number will be provided. /Daniel	dkarlsson	Thu Jan 24 13:55:55 Z 2013	post7911	topc5431

IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2012-10-08 UTC 20.00 (collabnet topic id: topc5105)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2012-10-08 UTC 20.00	Dear All, there is, as you might already guess, an Observable and Investigation Model Project meeting coming up. This will be the last teleconference before the face2face in Stockholm on Saturday 2012-10-27. Agenda: * f2f am - laboratory medicine - presentation of principles and walk through of examples - help needed with good examples * f2f pm - observables NEC - suggestions for topics to be discussed include indexes and calculations, processes, functions Details: Phone: Line 2 GotoMeeting: 753-566-160 https://csfe.aceworkspace.net/sf/go/doc6192?nav=1 Regards, Daniel	dkarlsson	Fri Oct 05 15:10:20 Z 2012	post7434	topc5105

IHTSDO Observable PG: Nursing observables (collabnet topic id: topc6813)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
IHTSDO Observable PG: Nursing observables	Dear All, find the documents from last meeting posted here: https://csfe.aceworkspace.net/sf/go/doc10465?nav=1 https://csfe.aceworkspace.net/sf/go/doc10506?nav=1 If you would like to review the proposals until next meeting (Monday June 9 20.00 UTC time) that would be appreciated. Regards, Daniel	dkarlsson	Mon Jun 02 07:28:45 Z 2014	post10149	topc6813

IHTSDO Observable PG: Observables PG meeting 2011-05-09 UTC 20.00 (collabnet topic id: topc3016)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
IHTSDO Observable PG: Observables PG meeting 2011-05-09 UTC 20.00	Dear all, the proposed agenda for the meeting tonight is: * Ranges for observable attributes, pre-condition value in particular * Use of tools (Protege?) * Observable, Observable result, and Observation procedure Access details to be posted soon. Regards, Daniel	dkarlsson	Mon May 09 12:47:21 Z 2011	post4244	topc3016
Re: IHTSDO Observable PG: Observables PG meeting 2011-05-09 UTC 20.00	Hello Observable and Investigation Model Project group, Here are the coordinates for the upcoming Observables and Investigation Model Project group meeting: Date: May 9, 2011 Time: 20:00 – 21:00 UTC GoTo meeting link: https://www1.gotomeeting.com/join/753566160 GoTo meeting ID: 753-566-160 Conference call: IHTSDO Line #4, Pass Code 54362# Dial in codes AUSTRALIA BRISBANE +61 731234424 CANADA TORONTO +1 4168000350 DENMARK COPENHAGEN +45 43396372 LITHUANIA VILNIUS +370 52058946 NETHERLANDS AMSTERDAM +31 202629995 NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND +64 99250305 SWEDEN STOCKHOLM +46 852507971 UNITED KINGDOM BIRMINGHAM +44 1213142062 UNITED STATES CHICAGO +1 3124966622 UNITED STATES LOS ANGELES +1 2133253224 UNITED STATES WASHINGTON +1 2022924256 Softphone users World ext 1601	mstark	Mon May 09 13:23:17 Z 2011	post4246	topc3016

IHTSDO Observable PG: GotoMeeting ID (collabnet topic id: topc3875)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
IHTSDO Observable PG: GotoMeeting ID	609-242-432 /Daniel	dkarlsson	Tue Oct 11 22:36:59 Z 2011	post5522	topc3875

IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2015-09-14 20.00 UTC (collabnet topic id: topc7623)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2015-09-14 20.00 UTC	Dear Everyone, a short reminder that there will be an Observables meeting, not next Monday but the Monday after that. On that meeting I would like to discuss the Observables Inception/Elaboration document and although I still have things to add (like process observables guidance) I would like to get the review started with what is presently available. So I propose that Version 10 (currently the latest version, also attached) is used for review before the upcoming Observables meeting. https://csfe.aceworkspace.net/sf/docman/do/downloadDocument/projects.observable_and_investigation_mod/docman.root.projects.observables_document_review/doc12777/10 Regards, Daniel	dkarlsson	Fri Sep 04 16:06:21 Z 2015	post11463	topc7623
Re: IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2015-09-14 20.00 UTC	Hi All, just a reminder of the upcoming meeting this Monday at 20.00 UTC. Details: Meeting ID: 201-313-901 https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/201313901 Use your microphone and speakers (VoIP) - a headset is recommended. Or, call in using your telephone. Access Code: 201-313-901 More phone numbers: https://global.gotomeeting.com/201313901/numbersdisplay.html Regards, Daniel	dkarlsson	Fri Sep 11 14:41:41 Z 2015	post11473	topc7623
Re: IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2015-09-14 20.00 UTC	Dear All, having GotoMeeting problems. Please wait a minute and I will set up an alternative. I'll be back /Daniel	dkarlsson	Mon Sep 14 19:59:52 Z 2015	post11476	topc7623
Re: IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2015-09-14 20.00 UTC	Dear All, please use this instead: https://join.me/137-118-102 /Daniel	dkarlsson	Mon Sep 14 20:01:56 Z 2015	post11477	topc7623

IHTSDO Observable PG: Observable and Investigation Model Project March 28, 2011 meeting details (collabnet topic id: topc2929)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
IHTSDO Observable PG: Observable and Investigation Model Project March 28, 2011 meeting details	Hello Observable and Investigation Model Project group, Here are the coordinates for the upcoming Observables and Investigation Model Project group meeting: Date: March 28, 2011 Time: 20:00 – 21:00 UTC GoTo meeting link: https://www1.gotomeeting.com/join/753566160 GoTo meeting ID: 753-566-160 Conference call: IHTSDO Line #4, Pass Code 54362# Dial in codes AUSTRALIA BRISBANE +61 731234424 CANADA TORONTO +1 4168000350 DENMARK COPENHAGEN +45 43396372 LITHUANIA VILNIUS +370 52058946 NETHERLANDS AMSTERDAM +31 202629995 NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND +64 99250305 SWEDEN STOCKHOLM +46 852507971 UNITED KINGDOM BIRMINGHAM +44 1213142062 UNITED STATES CHICAGO +1 3124966622 UNITED STATES LOS ANGELES +1 2133253224 UNITED STATES WASHINGTON +1 2022924256 Softphone users World ext 1601	mstark	Wed Mar 23 17:24:40 Z 2011	post4011	topc2929
Re: IHTSDO Observable PG: Observable and Investigation Model Project March 28, 2011 meeting details	The items discussed at the March 28th meeting will be: * Continued examination of value sets for observables attributes * Kent's proposal on linking Observables and Findings (https://csfe.aceworkspace.net/sf/go/post3993)	dkarlsson	Mon Mar 28 13:22:18 Z 2011	post4021	topc2929

IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2013-08-12 UTC 20.00 (collabnet topic id: topc6031)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2013-08-12 UTC 20.00	Dear Everyone, next meeting is this Monday Aug 12 20.00 UTC. On the agenda is: * Any CollabNet discussions (no new ones so far) * Workbench training session (will be recorded) * Further discussion on the clinical observables test, hopefully leading to officially kick-starting the test Practical details: Meeting ID: 753-566-160 https://www1.gotomeeting.com/join/753566160 Use your microphone and speakers (VoIP) - a headset is recommended. Or, call in using your telephone (new phone numbers) Australia: +61 2 8355 1024 Austria: +43 (0) 7 2088 1403 Canada: +1 (647) 497-9351 Sweden: +46 (0) 852 503 499 United Kingdom: +44 (0) 207 151 1857 United States: +1 (619) 550-0006 Access Code: 753-566-160 Audio PIN: Shown after joining the meeting /Daniel	dkarlsson	Fri Aug 09 07:37:01 Z 2013	post8796	topc6031

IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting Monday 2014-06-23 20.00 UTC (collabnet topic id: topc6844)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting Monday 2014-06-23 20.00 UTC	Dear All, there is an Observables meeting on Monday June 23 20.00 UTC. On the agenda is: * Meeting planning TOWARDS Microbiology reporting project * CollabNet discussions * Alpha release * Sample observables * Summer planning * Any other business /Daniel Meeting ID: 457-038-453 https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/457038453 Use your microphone and speakers (VoIP) - a headset is recommended. Or, call in using your telephone. Denmark: +45 (0) 89 88 05 39 Australia: +61 2 8355 1039 Austria: +43 (0) 7 2088 2172 Belgium: +32 (0) 42 68 0180 Canada: +1 (647) 497-9379 Finland: +358 (0) 931 58 4588 France: +33 (0) 182 880 934 Germany: +49 (0) 811 8899 6929 Ireland: +353 (0) 19 036 187 Italy: +39 0 294 75 15 37 Netherlands: +31 (0) 108 080 116 New Zealand: +64 (0) 9 801 0294 Norway: +47 21 51 81 86 Spain: +34 911 23 4248 Sweden: +46 (0) 852 500 516 Switzerland: +41 (0) 435 0824 41 United Kingdom: +44 20 3657 6779 United States: +1 (213) 493-0015 Denmark (toll-free): 8090 1927 Israel (toll-free): 1 809 494 273 Singapore (toll-free): 800 101 2999 Access Code: 457-038-453 Audio PIN: Shown after joining the meeting	dkarlsson	Thu Jun 19 11:17:38 Z 2014	post10188	topc6844

IHTSDO Observable PG: Observable and Investigation Model Project March 14, 2011 meeting details (collabnet topic id: topc2898)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
IHTSDO Observable PG: Observable and Investigation Model Project March 14, 2011 meeting details	Hello Observable and Investigation Model Project group Here are the coordinates for the upcoming Observables and Investigation Model Project group meeting: Date: March 14, 2011 Time: 20:00 – 21:00 UTC GoTo meeting link: https://www1.gotomeeting.com/join/753566160 GoTo meeting ID: 753-566-160 Conference call: IHTSDO Line #4, Pass Code 54362# The agenda will include the following: * minutes of last meeting * specimen model discussions * property types * other value sets: processes, technique, precondition value Dial in codes AUSTRALIA BRISBANE +61 731234424 CANADA TORONTO +1 4168000350 DENMARK COPENHAGEN +45 43396372 LITHUANIA VILNIUS +370 52058946 NETHERLANDS AMSTERDAM +31 202629995 NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND +64 99250305 SWEDEN STOCKHOLM +46 852507971 UNITED KINGDOM BIRMINGHAM +44 1213142062 UNITED STATES CHICAGO +1 3124966622 UNITED STATES LOS ANGELES +1 2133253224 UNITED STATES WASHINGTON +1 2022924256 Softphone users World ext 1601	mstark	Mon Mar 14 12:35:48 Z 2011	post3943	topc2898
Re: IHTSDO Observable PG: Observable and Investigation Model Project March 14, 2011 meeting details	Hi Daniel & Kent I was hoping to dial in to this call, but something's come up which means I may miss it or will be, at best, late. Apologies in advance. Ed	edcheetham	Mon Mar 14 19:38:47 Z 2011	post3948	topc2898

IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2015-06-08 20.00 UTC (collabnet topic id: topc7521)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2015-06-08 20.00 UTC	Dear Everyone, welcome to join the Observables call on Monday June 8 at 20.00 UTC. The agenda has the following items: * Minutes from last meeting * Review of action items * Any CollabNet discussions * Observables inception/elaboration document * Malignancy with gene mutation - Observables/Observation results/Findings * IS ABOUT - "presence" observables * Planning ahead The agenda is available with clickable links here: https://csfe.aceworkspace.net/sf/wiki/do/viewPage/projects.observable_and_investigation_mod/wiki/FrontPage?_message= 1431254766238#section-FrontPage-NextMeeting Cheers, Daniel The GotoMeeting detalis are: Meeting ID: 201-313-901 https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/201313901 Use your microphone and speakers (VoIP) - a headset is recommended. Or, call in using your telephone. Access Code: 201-313-901. Phone numbers: https://global.gotomeeting.com/201313901/ numbersdisplay.html	dkarlsson	Fri Jun 05 13:40:15 Z 2015	post11281	topc7521

IHTSDO Observable PG: IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting details for Monday 14 Nov 2011 20.00-21.00 UTC (collabnet topic id: topc3976)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
IHTSDO Observable PG: IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting details for Monday 14 Nov 2011 20.00-21.00 UTC	Dear Everyone, The Observables meeting series is starting again after the very good discussions during the Sydney conference. The meetings are held, as usual, on the 2nd and 4th Monday of the month at 20.00-21.00 UTC. Phone: Line 2 GotoMeeting: To be announced... Agenda: * TOWARDS definition. Issued raised by Ed Cheetham on a clearer definition of the TOWARDS realtionship type. * Concluding on the draft observables model. We now have some experiences of the draft model and we know that there are some issues (e.g. missing value restrictions, complexity of mathematical expressions). * Planning of 2012. We have some tasks to do in 2012; a beta test and a proposal for a "non-lab" observables model. Regards, Daniel	dkarlsson	Fri Nov 11 14:31:23 Z 2011	post5737	topc3976
Re: IHTSDO Observable PG: IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting details for Monday 14 Nov 2011 20.00-21.00 UTC	The GotoMeeting ID is 753-566-160 /Daniel	dkarlsson	Fri Nov 11 14:47:20 Z 2011	post5738	topc3976

IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2015-08-17 20.00 UTC (collabnet topic id: topc7595)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2015-08-17 20.00 UTC	Dear All, an Observables meeting is to be held Monday Aug 17 at 20.00 UTC. On the agenda: * Minutes * Any CollabNet discussions * Pathology Observables * Observables inception/elaboration document See the project [home page\|https://csfe.aceworkspace.net/sf/projects/observable_and_investigation_mod/] for a marked-up list of items. Details: Meeting ID: 201-313-901 https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/201313901 Use your microphone and speakers (VoIP) - a headset is recommended. Or, call in using your telephone. Access Code: 201-313-901 More phone numbers: https://global.gotomeeting.com/201313901/numbersdisplay.html	dkarlsson	Fri Aug 14 20:25:03 Z 2015	post11402	topc7595
Re: IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2015-08-17 20.00 UTC	Dear All, I'm sorry but I have caught something bad with flu-like symptoms and will not be able to chair the meeting today/tonight/this morning. There is a meeting planned for next week. If you still wan't to keep the meeting, maybe Farzaneh or Suzanne could start? Regards, Daniel	dkarlsson	Mon Aug 17 17:46:25 Z 2015	post11406	topc7595

IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2013-03-11 UTC 20.00 (collabnet topic id: topc5737)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2013-03-11 UTC 20.00	Dear All, on Monday the Observables agenda will include: * Susceptibility observables * Observables, Observation Results, Observation Procedures, and Situations Meeting ID: 753-566-160 https://www1.gotomeeting.com/join/753566160 Use your microphone and speakers (VoIP) - a headset is recommended. Or, call in using your telephone (new phone numbers). Australia: +61 2 8355 1024 Austria: +43 (0) 7 2088 1403 Canada: +1 (647) 497-9351 Sweden: +46 (0) 852 503 499 United Kingdom: +44 (0) 207 151 1857 United States: +1 (619) 550-0006 Access Code: 753-566-160 Audio PIN: Shown after joining the meeting	dkarlsson	Thu Mar 07 20:26:05 Z 2013	post8290	topc5737
Re: IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2013-03-11 UTC 20.00	Hi Daniel I can't see Kent's slide deck (Observation Results/Situations/Procedures...) on the Observables site. It would be good to have a read through the slides so that I can get an understanding of how it relates to the LEGO project before the Monday meeting. Thanks Michael	mosborne	Sat Mar 09 20:02:26 Z 2013	post8299	topc5737

IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2014-02-10 20.00 UTC (collabnet topic id: topc6454)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2014-02-10 20.00 UTC	Dear All, Observablers will meet again on Monady 2014-02-10 at 20.00 UTC! Hopefully we can finish off the blood pressure discussions. A new version of the blood pressure OWL file is on CollabNet with one of the proposed solutions to the "two processes" problem. More will follow. https://csfe.aceworkspace.net/sf/docman/do/listDocuments/projects.observable_and_investigation_mod/docman.root.projects.alpha_release.alpha_release_1 On the agenda is: * Any current CollabNet discussions * Alpha release: Blood pressure continued * Planning for 2014 * Any other business GotoMeeting details for this (and coming) meeting(s): 1. Please join my meeting. https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/457038453 2. Use your microphone and speakers (VoIP) - a headset is recommended. Or, call in using your telephone. Denmark: +45 (0) 89 88 05 39 Australia: +61 2 8355 1039 Austria: +43 (0) 7 2088 2172 Belgium: +32 (0) 42 68 0180 Canada: +1 (647) 497-9379 Finland: +358 (0) 931 58 4588 France: +33 (0) 182 880 934 Germany: +49 (0) 811 8899 6929 Ireland: +353 (0) 19 036 187 Italy: +39 0 294 75 15 37 Netherlands: +31 (0) 108 080 116 New Zealand: +64 (0) 9 801 0294 Norway: +47 21 51 81 86 Spain: +34 911 23 4248 Sweden: +46 (0) 852 500 516 Switzerland: +41 (0) 435 0824 41 United Kingdom: +44 20 3657 6779 United States: +1 (213) 493-0015 Denmark (toll-free): 8090 1927 Israel (toll-free): 1 809 494 273 Singapore (toll-free): 800 101 2999 Access Code: 457-038-453 Audio PIN: Shown after joining the meeting Meeting ID: 457-038-453 GoToMeetingR Online Meetings Made EasyR	dkarlsson	Thu Feb 06 16:12:24 Z 2014	post9559	topc6454

IHTSDO Observable PG: Observables PG meeting 2012-04-16 UTC 20.00 (collabnet topic id: topc4463)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
IHTSDO Observable PG: Observables PG meeting 2012-04-16 UTC 20.00	Dear Everyone, there is an upcoming meeting this Monday at 20.00 UTC. Day-light savings time may be in effect in your country! On the agenda: * lab test 2012, test plan and modelers guide * non-lab examples, what domains to consider? * vital signs? * pain assessment? Details: Phone: Line 2 GotoMeeting: 753-566-160 Instructions and phone numbers: https://csfe.aceworkspace.net/sf/go/doc4996?nav=1 Regards, Daniel	dkarlsson	Fri Apr 13 19:19:17 Z 2012	post6505	topc4463

IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2015-01-12 20.00 UTC (collabnet topic id: topc7346)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2015-01-12 20.00 UTC	Dear All, there is an Observables call on Monday Dec 8 at 20.00 UTC. This will (most probably) be the last meeting of 2014. On the agenda is: Agenda: * Minutes from last meeting * Review of action items * Any CollabNet discussions * IS ABOUT * Observables - relation to other content projects * Impression observables discussion * Vital signs observables - inception/elaboration document Cheers, Daniel Meeting ID: 457-038-453 https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/457038453 Use your microphone and speakers (VoIP) - a headset is recommended. Or, call in using your telephone. Denmark: +45 (0) 89 88 05 39 Australia: +61 2 8355 1039 Austria: +43 (0) 7 2088 2172 Belgium: +32 (0) 42 68 0180 Canada: +1 (647) 497-9379 Finland: +358 (0) 931 58 4588 France: +33 (0) 182 880 934 Germany: +49 (0) 811 8899 6929 Ireland: +353 (0) 19 036 187 Italy: +39 0 294 75 15 37 Netherlands: +31 (0) 108 080 116 New Zealand: +64 (0) 9 801 0294 Norway: +47 21 51 81 86 Spain: +34 911 23 4248 Sweden: +46 (0) 852 500 516 Switzerland: +41 (0) 435 0824 41 United Kingdom: +44 20 3657 6779 United States: +1 (213) 493-0015 Denmark (toll-free): 8090 1927 Israel (toll-free): 1 809 494 273 Singapore (toll-free): 800 101 2999 Access Code: 457-038-453 Audio PIN: Shown after joining the meeting	dkarlsson	Fri Jan 09 04:19:49 Z 2015	post10888	topc7346
Re: IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2015-01-12 20.00 UTC	Dear All, I'm having problems starting GotoMeeting. Will try some more, if anyone else has a solution to "Connection failed..." when everything else is working fine, please let me know. /Daniel	dkarlsson	Mon Jan 12 20:03:57 Z 2015	post10898	topc7346
Re: IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2015-01-12 20.00 UTC	Dear All, please try this link instead: https://global.gotomeeting.com/meeting/join/966018973 /Daniel	dkarlsson	Mon Jan 12 20:12:16 Z 2015	post10899	topc7346

IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2015-03-23 20.00 UTC (collabnet topic id: topc7430)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2015-03-23 20.00 UTC	Dear Everyone, there's an Observables meeting on Monday 2015-03-23 20.00 UTC! We have the Observables document review which is due April 10 so I would like to focus on that document. (This is the last meeting before April 10, but I suppose we would be allowed to stretch the deadline until April 13 when the next Obs call is) On the agenda is: * Minutes from last meeting * Review of action items * Any CollabNet discussions * Review of observables documents * IS ABOUT * Impression observables discussion Cheers, Daniel New GotoMeeting/telephone details as of 2015-01-13. The detalis are: Meeting ID: 201-313-901 https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/201313901 Use your microphone and speakers (VoIP) - a headset is recommended. Or, call in using your telephone. Access Code: 201-313-901 More phone numbers: https://global.gotomeeting.com/201313901/ numbersdisplay.html	dkarlsson	Fri Mar 20 10:24:10 Z 2015	post11076	topc7430

IHTSDO Observable PG: Switching to VOIP (collabnet topic id: topc5391)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
IHTSDO Observable PG: Switching to VOIP	Dear All, after a meeting of sub-standard audio quality and stability we could try the option of using Voice Over IP, i.e. speaking into and listening to the computer instead of the phone. However, this would lead to a change in the GotoMeeting number and also that there is not (automatically) a telephone number to call. Is there anyone who like to participate in hte Observables work but cannot (for some reason) use VOIP and rather would like to keep to the phone line? Please provide any comments before 2013-01-21. Regards, Daniel PS. BFO and Biotop documents are uploaded to this folder: https://csfe.aceworkspace.net/sf/docman/do/listDocuments/projects.observable_and_investigation_mod/docman.root.project_group_meetings.project_group_meetings_2013.2013_01_14 DS.	dkarlsson	Mon Jan 14 21:12:35 Z 2013	post7859	topc5391
Re: IHTSDO Observable PG: Switching to VOIP	Actually the gotomeeting number will stay the same. We can (in addition to computer microphone and audio) provide telephone dial-in numbers that will connect to the gotomeeting audio for the meeting. Different telephone numbers are provided for different countries - this is standard operating procedure for gotomeeting audio. But it's simpler to set up if everyone just uses their computer mic & audio.	kspackman	Mon Jan 14 21:54:24 Z 2013	post7861	topc5391
Re: IHTSDO Observable PG: Switching to VOIP	It's not actually that hard to set up, and we already have a request for phone numbers, so ... here they are (if you don't see your country listed, let me know): 1. Please join my meeting. https://www1.gotomeeting.com/join/753566160 2. Use your microphone and speakers (VoIP) - a headset is recommended. Or, call in using your telephone. Australia: +61 2 8355 1024 Austria: +43 (0) 7 2088 1403 Canada: +1 (647) 497-9351 Sweden: +46 (0) 852 503 499 United Kingdom: +44 (0) 207 151 1857 United States: +1 (619) 550-0006 Access Code: 753-566-160 Audio PIN: Shown after joining the meeting Meeting ID: 753-566-160	kspackman	Mon Jan 14 22:05:04 Z 2013	post7862	topc5391

IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2015-08-24 20.00 UTC (collabnet topic id: topc7603)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2015-08-24 20.00 UTC	Dear All, so, there WILL be a meeting on Monday at 20.00 UTC. We keep the agenda from last time! * Minutes * Any CollabNet discussions * Pathology Observables * Observables inception/elaboration document See the project [home page\|https://csfe.aceworkspace.net/sf/projects/observable_and_investigation_mod/] for a marked-up list of items. Details: Meeting ID: 201-313-901 https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/201313901 Use your microphone and speakers (VoIP) - a headset is recommended. Or, call in using your telephone. Access Code: 201-313-901 More phone numbers: https://global.gotomeeting.com/201313901/numbersdisplay.html	dkarlsson	Fri Aug 21 15:40:52 Z 2015	post11424	topc7603

IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2015-04-13 20.00 UTC (in 20 minutes) (collabnet topic id: topc7460)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2015-04-13 20.00 UTC (in 20 minutes)	Dear All, there is indeed a meeting coming up right now. We will be focusing on the Observables review and the discussion that has been taking place in the forum over the last week/weeks. Regards, Daniel New GotoMeeting/telephone details as of 2015-01-13. The detalis are: Meeting ID: 201-313-901 https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/201313901 Use your microphone and speakers (VoIP) - a headset is recommended. Or, call in using your telephone. Access Code: 201-313-901 More phone numbers: https://global.gotomeeting.com/201313901/ numbersdisplay.html	dkarlsson	Mon Apr 13 19:43:18 Z 2015	post11134	topc7460

IHTSDO Observable PG: Observables PG meeting 2012-02-13 UTC 20.00 (collabnet topic id: topc4263)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
IHTSDO Observable PG: Observables PG meeting 2012-02-13 UTC 20.00	Dear Everyone, in line with our 2nd-and-4th-Monday-of-the-month schedule, there is a Observables PG meeting this Monday, the 13th of February at 20.00 UTC. On the agenda is the test plan, which I will distribute later today, so stay tuned for more information. Details: Phone: Line 2 GotoMeeting: 753-566-160 Instructions and phone numbers: https://csfe.aceworkspace.net/sf/go/doc4996?nav=1 Regards, Daniel	dkarlsson	Fri Feb 10 07:07:48 Z 2012	post6185	topc4263
Re: IHTSDO Observable PG: Observables PG meeting 2012-02-13 UTC 20.00	Dear Everyone, I've posted a draft of the test plan for our 2012 test. This will be discussed on Monday! https://csfe.aceworkspace.net/sf/go/doc5304?nav=1 Regards, Daniel	dkarlsson	Fri Feb 10 14:59:49 Z 2012	post6188	topc4263

IHTSDO Observable PG: Face-to-face meeting in Stockholm (collabnet topic id: topc4880)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
IHTSDO Observable PG: Face-to-face meeting in Stockholm	Dear All, we need to start setting up the face-to-face meeting in October. First, I need to know if we should arrange for telecommunications (speaker phone and GotoMeeting). Could everyone NOT going to Stockholm who would like to call in please make themselves heard before Wednesday next week? In case I have not heard anything I will not make any such arrangements. Thanks, Daniel	dkarlsson	Thu Jul 26 22:05:05 Z 2012	post7105	topc4880

IHTSDO Observable PG: Observables PG meeting 2012-03-26 UTC 20.00 (collabnet topic id: topc4405)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
IHTSDO Observable PG: Observables PG meeting 2012-03-26 UTC 20.00	Dear All, I just found that I didn't send out the details for this meeting! Today/night/morning we'll discuss the test plan. Details: Phone: Line 2 GotoMeeting: 753-566-160 Instructions and phone numbers: https://csfe.aceworkspace.net/sf/go/doc4996?nav=1 Regards, Daniel	dkarlsson	Mon Mar 26 18:54:41 Z 2012	post6412	topc4405

IHTSDO Observable PG: Observables PG meeting 2012-04-30 UTC 20.00 (collabnet topic id: topc4493)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
IHTSDO Observable PG: Observables PG meeting 2012-04-30 UTC 20.00	Dear All, there is an upcoming Observables meeting this Monday at 20.00 UTC. We'll continue discussing non-laboratory observables. I'll put more suggestions/proposals/examples in time for the meeting. Details: Phone: Line 2 GotoMeeting: 753-566-160 Instructions and phone numbers: https://csfe.aceworkspace.net/sf/go/doc4996?nav=1 Regards, Daniel	dkarlsson	Fri Apr 27 16:41:50 Z 2012	post6555	topc4493

IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2014-09-08 20.00 UTC (collabnet topic id: topc7116)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2014-09-08 20.00 UTC	Dear All, Observables time again on Monday (or Tuesday down under) at 20.00 UTC. This time the agenda is a bit thinner, and the meeting might be shorter, as some projects are in "waiting mode", e.g. a function and activity project is about to start and the sample observables are awaiting input. On the agenda: Any CollabNet discussions Susceptibility observables Any other business Meeting ID: 457-038-453 https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/457038453 Use your microphone and speakers (VoIP) - a headset is recommended. Or, call in using your telephone. Denmark: +45 (0) 89 88 05 39 Australia: +61 2 8355 1039 Austria: +43 (0) 7 2088 2172 Belgium: +32 (0) 42 68 0180 Canada: +1 (647) 497-9379 Finland: +358 (0) 931 58 4588 France: +33 (0) 182 880 934 Germany: +49 (0) 811 8899 6929 Ireland: +353 (0) 19 036 187 Italy: +39 0 294 75 15 37 Netherlands: +31 (0) 108 080 116 New Zealand: +64 (0) 9 801 0294 Norway: +47 21 51 81 86 Spain: +34 911 23 4248 Sweden: +46 (0) 852 500 516 Switzerland: +41 (0) 435 0824 41 United Kingdom: +44 20 3657 6779 United States: +1 (213) 493-0015 Denmark (toll-free): 8090 1927 Israel (toll-free): 1 809 494 273 Singapore (toll-free): 800 101 2999 Access Code: 457-038-453 Audio PIN: Shown after joining the meeting	dkarlsson	Fri Sep 05 12:27:37 Z 2014	post10531	topc7116

IHTSDO Observable PG: Observables meeting Monday May 26 20.00 UTC (collabnet topic id: topc6797)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
IHTSDO Observable PG: Observables meeting Monday May 26 20.00 UTC	Dear All, Observables meeting again Monday May 26 20.00 UTC! Agenda: * Any current CollabNet discussions * Observables from Nursing SIG * SemanticHealthNet representation of situations * If time: Sample observables * Any other business /Daniel GotoMeeting details: Meeting ID: 457-038-453 https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/457038453 Use your microphone and speakers (VoIP) - a headset is recommended. Or, call in using your telephone. Denmark: +45 (0) 89 88 05 39 Australia: +61 2 8355 1039 Austria: +43 (0) 7 2088 2172 Belgium: +32 (0) 42 68 0180 Canada: +1 (647) 497-9379 Finland: +358 (0) 931 58 4588 France: +33 (0) 182 880 934 Germany: +49 (0) 811 8899 6929 Ireland: +353 (0) 19 036 187 Italy: +39 0 294 75 15 37 Netherlands: +31 (0) 108 080 116 New Zealand: +64 (0) 9 801 0294 Norway: +47 21 51 81 86 Spain: +34 911 23 4248 Sweden: +46 (0) 852 500 516 Switzerland: +41 (0) 435 0824 41 United Kingdom: +44 20 3657 6779 United States: +1 (213) 493-0015 Denmark (toll-free): 8090 1927 Israel (toll-free): 1 809 494 273 Singapore (toll-free): 800 101 2999 Access Code: 457-038-453 Audio PIN: Shown after joining the meeting	dkarlsson	Sun May 25 19:47:23 Z 2014	post10126	topc6797
Re: IHTSDO Observable PG: Observables meeting Tuesday May 27 20.00 UTC	Dear All, sorry, wrong day! Meeting will be Tuesday May 27 due to Memoral Day in the US! /Daniel	dkarlsson	Sun May 25 19:48:27 Z 2014	post10127	topc6797

IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2013-08-26 UTC 20.00 (collabnet topic id: topc6064)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2013-08-26 UTC 20.00	Dear All, a brand new Observables meeting is coming up next Monday. To save some time, Kent and me have decided to simplify the test set up and to use an Excel spreadsheet instead of the workbench set up this time around. The Excel spreadsheet is avaialble here: https://csfe.aceworkspace.net/sf/docman/do/downloadDocument/projects.observable_and_investigation_mod/docman.root.projects.clinical_observables_test/doc8788 in the clinical observables test folder: https://csfe.aceworkspace.net/sf/docman/do/listDocuments/projects.observable_and_investigation_mod/docman.root.projects.clinical_observables_test On the agenda: * any CollabNet discussions * start of the clinical observables test * walkthrough of the Excel sheet, example * project meeting planning Practical details: Meeting ID: 753-566-160 https://www1.gotomeeting.com/join/753566160 Use your microphone and speakers (VoIP) - a headset is recommended. Or, call in using your telephone (new phone numbers) Australia: +61 2 8355 1024 Austria: +43 (0) 7 2088 1403 Canada: +1 (647) 497-9351 Sweden: +46 (0) 852 503 499 United Kingdom: +44 (0) 207 151 1857 United States: +1 (619) 550-0006 Access Code: 753-566-160 Audio PIN: Shown after joining the meeting /Daniel	dkarlsson	Mon Aug 19 12:58:09 Z 2013	post8842	topc6064
Re: IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2013-08-26 UTC 20.00	Dear All, please notice that there is an Observables meeting today Monday 2013-08-26 20.00 UTC, especially since we're planning to kick off the clinical observables test. So, if you have the possibility of participating in the test, pleas join today/tonight/this morning. Regards, Daniel	dkarlsson	Mon Aug 26 04:49:02 Z 2013	post8862	topc6064

IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2014-08-25 20.00 UTC (collabnet topic id: topc7028)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2014-08-25 20.00 UTC	Dear All, Observables time again on Monday (or Tuesday down under) at 20.00 UTC. On the agenda: Any CollabNet discussions Property types Susceptibility observables (Sample observables) Any other business Meeting ID: 457-038-453 https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/457038453 Use your microphone and speakers (VoIP) - a headset is recommended. Or, call in using your telephone. Denmark: +45 (0) 89 88 05 39 Australia: +61 2 8355 1039 Austria: +43 (0) 7 2088 2172 Belgium: +32 (0) 42 68 0180 Canada: +1 (647) 497-9379 Finland: +358 (0) 931 58 4588 France: +33 (0) 182 880 934 Germany: +49 (0) 811 8899 6929 Ireland: +353 (0) 19 036 187 Italy: +39 0 294 75 15 37 Netherlands: +31 (0) 108 080 116 New Zealand: +64 (0) 9 801 0294 Norway: +47 21 51 81 86 Spain: +34 911 23 4248 Sweden: +46 (0) 852 500 516 Switzerland: +41 (0) 435 0824 41 United Kingdom: +44 20 3657 6779 United States: +1 (213) 493-0015 Denmark (toll-free): 8090 1927 Israel (toll-free): 1 809 494 273 Singapore (toll-free): 800 101 2999 Access Code: 457-038-453 Audio PIN: Shown after joining the meeting	dkarlsson	Fri Aug 22 15:02:05 Z 2014	post10438	topc7028

IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2012-05-28 UTC 20.00 (collabnet topic id: topc4593)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2012-05-28 UTC 20.00	Dear All, on the upcoming Observables meeting this Monday (28th of May) at 20.00 the following items will be discussed: * Observables in the procedure hierarchy * Respiration observables examples Details: Phone: Line 2 GotoMeeting: 753-566-160 Instructions and phone numbers: https://csfe.aceworkspace.net/sf/go/doc4996?nav=1 Regards, Daniel	dkarlsson	Fri May 25 07:54:29 Z 2012	post6695	topc4593

IHTSDO Observable PG: Cancelled Observables meeting Sep 22 (collabnet topic id: topc7168)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
IHTSDO Observable PG: Cancelled Observables meeting Sep 22	Dear All, the meeting on Monday 2014-09-22 is cancelled. Next meeting is 2014-10-13 20.00 UTC. Regards, Daniel	dkarlsson	Thu Sep 18 14:50:12 Z 2014	post10585	topc7168

IHTSDO Observable PG: Next Observables meeting (collabnet topic id: topc6593)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
IHTSDO Observable PG: Next Observables meeting	Dear All, according to our schedule the next Observables meeting would be on April 14 with the following meeting on the 28th. On April 14 I'm away and cannot chair or even participate in the meeting. April 28 is the first day of the IHTSDO business meetings in Copenhagen and April 21 is Easter Monday. There are a number of alternatives: we can have a meeting April 7, we can have a meeting Tuesday April 22, or any combination or non-combination of those days. What do you think? Regards, Daniel	dkarlsson	Wed Mar 26 10:25:32 Z 2014	post9762	topc6593
Re: IHTSDO Observable PG: Next Observables meeting	Dear All, next Observables meeting will be Tuesday April 22 20.00 UTC as this time slot seems to be the next available option to most people and although this is very out of sync with our regular schedule. Regards, Daniel	dkarlsson	Tue Apr 01 07:55:56 Z 2014	post9785	topc6593
Re: IHTSDO Observable PG: Next Observables meeting	Dear All, just a reminder that the next Observables meeting is on the April 22 (way off normal schedule). To start looking at the Sample Observables, I've posted an Excel file with all 131 concepts in the sample observable hierarchy (Jan 2014 release) plus some additional ones found laying around. One of the issues is that many of them are not in fact sample observables, but just observables (probably usually but not necessarily) analyzed on a sample. (Sample Observables being observables which INHERE IN a sample, typical example being Sample mass) As from our previous I did a first round of categorizing concepts into true, false, and possible (or ambiguous) sample observables. https://csfe.aceworkspace.net/sf/go/doc10160?nav=1 Regards, Daniel	dkarlsson	Fri Apr 11 14:28:41 Z 2014	post9832	topc6593
Re: IHTSDO Observable PG: Next Observables meeting	Dear All, a short reminder of the out-of-schedule Observables meeting today at 20.00 UTC. Regards, Daniel	dkarlsson	Tue Apr 22 14:25:38 Z 2014	post9876	topc6593

IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2013-07-22 UTC 20.00 (collabnet topic id: topc5977)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2013-07-22 UTC 20.00	Dear Everyone, an Observables meeting is planned for Monday July 22 20.00 UTC. On the agenda is: * CollabNet discussions * Workbench training session (will be recorded) * Further discussion on the clinical observables test Training examples are posted here: https://csfe.aceworkspace.net/sf/go/doc8529?nav=1 Test cases are published here: https://csfe.aceworkspace.net/sf/docman/do/listDocuments/projects.observable_and_investigation_mod/docman.root.projects. clinical_observables_test Practical details: Meeting ID: 753-566-160 https://www1.gotomeeting.com/join/753566160 Use your microphone and speakers (VoIP) - a headset is recommended. Or, call in using your telephone (new phone numbers) Australia: +61 2 8355 1024 Austria: +43 (0) 7 2088 1403 Canada: +1 (647) 497-9351 Sweden: +46 (0) 852 503 499 United Kingdom: +44 (0) 207 151 1857 United States: +1 (619) 550-0006 Access Code: 753-566-160 Audio PIN: Shown after joining the meeting /Daniel	dkarlsson	Fri Jul 19 07:42:29 Z 2013	post8726	topc5977
Re: IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2013-07-22 UTC 20.00	Dear all, I was unable to participate yesterday, but I reiterate my availability for the testing. Tell me what I have to do! Cheers, Stefan	sschulz	Tue Jul 23 14:27:10 Z 2013	post8741	topc5977

IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2013-09-09 UTC 20.00 (collabnet topic id: topc6108)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2013-09-09 UTC 20.00	Dear Everyone, Observables meeting yet again this Monday Sep 9 20.00 UTC! We will have input from the clinical observables test, specifically the vitals signs observables use cases. On the agenda: * any CollabNet discussions * clinical observables test * face2face meeting planning Practical details: Meeting ID: 753-566-160 https://www1.gotomeeting.com/join/753566160 Use your microphone and speakers (VoIP) - a headset is recommended. Or, call in using your telephone (new phone numbers) Australia: +61 2 8355 1024 Austria: +43 (0) 7 2088 1403 Canada: +1 (647) 497-9351 Sweden: +46 (0) 852 503 499 United Kingdom: +44 (0) 207 151 1857 United States: +1 (619) 550-0006 Access Code: 753-566-160 Audio PIN: Shown after joining the meeting /Daniel	dkarlsson	Thu Sep 05 09:13:10 Z 2013	post8944	topc6108

IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2013-05-28 20.00 UTC (collabnet topic id: topc5908)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2013-05-28 20.00 UTC	Dear All, as decided through the Doodle facility the next Observables meeting will be on the 28th of May, 20.00 UTC. Regards, Daniel	dkarlsson	Thu May 23 12:24:51 Z 2013	post8595	topc5908
Re: IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2013-05-28 20.00 UTC	Dear All, a short reminder of the meeting this night/afternoon/morning. On the agends: * face2face * CollabNet discussions * planning ahead On the item "planning ahead" I would like to ask the project group about how to best make progress for the non-lab observables. One proposal would be to perform a test similar to the lab test, but with a smaller extent, on a selected number of common observables use cases. If we could get volunteers to contribute we could have the bases of an elaboration document which in turn could progress non-lab observables. /Daniel Details (I assume): Meeting ID: 753-566-160 https://www1.gotomeeting.com/join/753566160 Use your microphone and speakers (VoIP) - a headset is recommended. Or, call in using your telephone (new phone numbers). Australia: +61 2 8355 1024 Austria: +43 (0) 7 2088 1403 Canada: +1 (647) 497-9351 Sweden: +46 (0) 852 503 499 United Kingdom: +44 (0) 207 151 1857 United States: +1 (619) 550-0006 Access Code: 753-566-160 Audio PIN: Shown after joining the meeting	dkarlsson	Tue May 28 13:46:25 Z 2013	post8614	topc5908

IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2015-01-26 20.00 UTC (collabnet topic id: topc7360)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2015-01-26 20.00 UTC	Dear All, Observables time again! Monday Jan 26 20.00 UTC is the time and date for the next GotoMeeting meeting. There is a new GotoMeeting ID this time (see below). Agenda: * Minutes from last meeting * Review of action items * Any CollabNet discussions * Sample observables * IS ABOUT - inception/elaboration document? * Vital signs observables - inception/elaboration document New GotoMeeting/telephone details as of 2015-01-13. The detalis are: Meeting ID: 201-313-901 https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/201313901 Use your microphone and speakers (VoIP) - a headset is recommended. Or, call in using your telephone. Access Code: 201-313-901 More phone numbers: https://global.gotomeeting.com/201313901/numbersdisplay.html	dkarlsson	Wed Jan 21 09:50:39 Z 2015	post10913	topc7360

IHTSDO Observable PG: Observables document review (collabnet topic id: topc7443)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
IHTSDO Observable PG: Observables document review	Dear All, I have started a number of new threads for the discussion of comments on the Observables inception/elaboration document. Please feel free to add further comments or provide input on the existing ones. A review form has also been filled in with the proposals presented in the discussion form. On the next Observables call we'll discuss the comments and agree on the review comments to be submitted. Documents are available here: https://csfe.aceworkspace.net/sf/docman/do/listDocuments/projects.observable_and_investigation_mod/docman.root.projects.observables_document_review?_message=1427708256698 Discussion forum is here: https://csfe.aceworkspace.net/sf/discussion/do/listTopics/projects.observable_and_investigation_mod/discussion.observables_inception_elaboratio Regards, Daniel	dkarlsson	Mon Mar 30 09:43:24 Z 2015	post11096	topc7443
Re: IHTSDO Observable PG: Observables document review	Dear All, the review comment form has been updated after discussion at the Observables meeting yesterday. Please review the review and provide comments to the comments. I plan to submit the review on Friday, if that's ok with everyone. Comments form: https://csfe.aceworkspace.net/sf/go/doc12151?nav=1 Regards, Daniel	dkarlsson	Tue Apr 14 06:54:44 Z 2015	post11135	topc7443

IHTSDO Observable PG: Observable and Investigation Model Project September 12, 2011 meeting details (collabnet topic id: topc3697)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
IHTSDO Observable PG: Observable and Investigation Model Project September 12, 2011 meeting details	Hello Observable and Investigation Model Project group, Here are the coordinates for the upcoming Observables and Investigation Model Project group meeting: Date: September 12, 2011 Time: 20:00 – 21:00 UTC GoTo meeting link: https://www1.gotomeeting.com/join/753566160 GoTo meeting ID: 753-566-160 Conference call: IHTSDO Line #2, Pass Code 54362# Agenda items will include: * non-lab observables (ICF examples) * planning of face-to-face meeting * planning for 2012, concrete proposals on work items Dial in codes AUSTRALIA BRISBANE +61 731234424 CANADA TORONTO +1 4168000350 DENMARK COPENHAGEN +45 43396372 LITHUANIA VILNIUS +370 52058946 NETHERLANDS AMSTERDAM +31 202629995 NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND +64 99250305 SWEDEN STOCKHOLM +46 852507971 UNITED KINGDOM BIRMINGHAM +44 1213142062 UNITED STATES CHICAGO +1 3124966622 UNITED STATES LOS ANGELES +1 2133253224 UNITED STATES WASHINGTON +1 2022924256 Softphone users World ext 1601	mstark	Fri Sep 09 14:24:29 Z 2011	post5251	topc3697

IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2014-10-13 20.00 UTC (collabnet topic id: topc7232)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2014-10-13 20.00 UTC	Dear All, a new Observables PG meeting is to be held on Monday Oct 13 20.00 UTC. On the agenda is: CollabNet discussions Face-to-face meeting agenda Pathology observables Susceptibility observables Any other business Meeting ID: 457-038-453 https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/457038453 Use your microphone and speakers (VoIP) - a headset is recommended. Or, call in using your telephone. Denmark: +45 (0) 89 88 05 39 Australia: +61 2 8355 1039 Austria: +43 (0) 7 2088 2172 Belgium: +32 (0) 42 68 0180 Canada: +1 (647) 497-9379 Finland: +358 (0) 931 58 4588 France: +33 (0) 182 880 934 Germany: +49 (0) 811 8899 6929 Ireland: +353 (0) 19 036 187 Italy: +39 0 294 75 15 37 Netherlands: +31 (0) 108 080 116 New Zealand: +64 (0) 9 801 0294 Norway: +47 21 51 81 86 Spain: +34 911 23 4248 Sweden: +46 (0) 852 500 516 Switzerland: +41 (0) 435 0824 41 United Kingdom: +44 20 3657 6779 United States: +1 (213) 493-0015 Denmark (toll-free): 8090 1927 Israel (toll-free): 1 809 494 273 Singapore (toll-free): 800 101 2999 Access Code: 457-038-453 Audio PIN: Shown after joining the meeting	dkarlsson	Wed Oct 08 14:04:37 Z 2014	post10688	topc7232
Re: IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2014-10-13 20.00 UTC	Dear All, as I have become aware of holidays in North America on Monday I would like to ask those planning to attend if moving to Tuesday 14 would make things easier? If there is no more information from me, we will keep the meeting on Monday Oct 13. /Daniel	dkarlsson	Wed Oct 08 15:27:13 Z 2014	post10689	topc7232

IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting on Monday cancelled (collabnet topic id: topc6188)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting on Monday cancelled	Dear All, the meeting on Monday Oct 14 is cancelled due to travelling for many ITHSDO business meeting visitors (including me) and possibly also due to the 267031002\|SNOMED CT fatigue\| that may be experienced after hours of meetings. I would propose that we will have a meeting on Monday 21 20.00 UTC (which is out of our normal schedule). Would that be at all possible? /Daniel	dkarlsson	Sat Oct 12 13:10:23 Z 2013	post9078	topc6188

IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2014-07-14 20.00 UTC (collabnet topic id: topc6925)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2014-07-14 20.00 UTC	Dear All, here is an Observables meeting on Monday July 14 20.00 UTC, i.e. today (or tomorrow in Oceania). On the agenda is: * Any CollabNet discussions * Function observables * Sample observables * Susceptibility observables * Any other business /Daniel Meeting ID: 457-038-453 https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/457038453 Use your microphone and speakers (VoIP) - a headset is recommended. Or, call in using your telephone. Denmark: +45 (0) 89 88 05 39 Australia: +61 2 8355 1039 Austria: +43 (0) 7 2088 2172 Belgium: +32 (0) 42 68 0180 Canada: +1 (647) 497-9379 Finland: +358 (0) 931 58 4588 France: +33 (0) 182 880 934 Germany: +49 (0) 811 8899 6929 Ireland: +353 (0) 19 036 187 Italy: +39 0 294 75 15 37 Netherlands: +31 (0) 108 080 116 New Zealand: +64 (0) 9 801 0294 Norway: +47 21 51 81 86 Spain: +34 911 23 4248 Sweden: +46 (0) 852 500 516 Switzerland: +41 (0) 435 0824 41 United Kingdom: +44 20 3657 6779 United States: +1 (213) 493-0015 Denmark (toll-free): 8090 1927 Israel (toll-free): 1 809 494 273 Singapore (toll-free): 800 101 2999 Access Code: 457-038-453 Audio PIN: Shown after joining the meeting	dkarlsson	Mon Jul 14 07:30:31 Z 2014	post10290	topc6925

IHTSDO Observable PG: Observables teleconference April 25, 2011 20:00 UTC (collabnet topic id: topc2979)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
IHTSDO Observable PG: Observables teleconference April 25, 2011 20:00 UTC	For those not still away on holiday, we'll still have the telecon. Suggested items for discussion (from Daniel Karlsson): Identifying parts of the project: 1. the development and quality assurance of the current obs. model for lab, 2. discussions on how to progress the shift from the current lab situation to the new obs. model, 3. the elaboration of using the current model for non-lab cases, 4. the position of the new observables model in the total SNOMED CT Concept Model (e.g. the ECE collaboration, conditions, etc.). Which of these should we focus on in the near term, and what tools/methods should we be using?	kspackman	Mon Apr 25 19:00:08 Z 2011	post4147	topc2979

IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting malfunction (collabnet topic id: topc6522)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting malfunction	Dear All, sorry for not starting the meeting as expected, having GotoMeeting issues. Will send a notification if the meeting is started. Otherwise, next meeting will be 10th of March 2014. Again, sorry for any inconvenience. /Daniel	dkarlsson	Mon Feb 24 20:16:33 Z 2014	post9658	topc6522
Re: IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting malfunction	Dear All, seems like the meeting was off today. After another restart I actually managed to get GotoMeeting started but unfortunately too late. Let's meet next time March 10 20.00 UTC and I'll make sure this will not happen again. Regards, Daniel	dkarlsson	Mon Feb 24 20:51:18 Z 2014	post9659	topc6522

IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2014-12-08 20.00 UTC (collabnet topic id: topc7316)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2014-12-08 20.00 UTC	Dear All, there is an Observables call on Monday Dec 8 at 20.00 UTC. This will (most probably) be the last meeting of 2014. On the agenda is: Agenda: * Minutes from last meeting * Review of action items * Any CollabNet discussions * Impression observables discussion * Vital signs observables - inception/elaboration document Cheers, Daniel Meeting ID: 457-038-453 https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/457038453 Use your microphone and speakers (VoIP) - a headset is recommended. Or, call in using your telephone. Denmark: +45 (0) 89 88 05 39 Australia: +61 2 8355 1039 Austria: +43 (0) 7 2088 2172 Belgium: +32 (0) 42 68 0180 Canada: +1 (647) 497-9379 Finland: +358 (0) 931 58 4588 France: +33 (0) 182 880 934 Germany: +49 (0) 811 8899 6929 Ireland: +353 (0) 19 036 187 Italy: +39 0 294 75 15 37 Netherlands: +31 (0) 108 080 116 New Zealand: +64 (0) 9 801 0294 Norway: +47 21 51 81 86 Spain: +34 911 23 4248 Sweden: +46 (0) 852 500 516 Switzerland: +41 (0) 435 0824 41 United Kingdom: +44 20 3657 6779 United States: +1 (213) 493-0015 Denmark (toll-free): 8090 1927 Israel (toll-free): 1 809 494 273 Singapore (toll-free): 800 101 2999 Access Code: 457-038-453 Audio PIN: Shown after joining the meeting	dkarlsson	Fri Dec 05 13:29:37 Z 2014	post10840	topc7316

IHTSDO Observable PG: IHTSDO Observable PG: Observable and Investigation Model Project July 11th 20-21 UTC (collabnet topic id: topc3254)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
IHTSDO Observable PG: IHTSDO Observable PG: Observable and Investigation Model Project July 11th 20-21 UTC	Dear Everyone, details for tonight's Observables meeting are: Date: July 11, 2011 Time: 20:00 – 21:00 UTC GoTo meeting link: https://www1.gotomeeting.com/join/753566160 GoTo meeting ID: 753-566-160 Conference call: IHTSDO Line #4, Pass Code 54362# Agenda: * BioTop bridge description document (https://csfe.aceworkspace.net/sf/go/doc4093?returnUrlKey=1310214356254) * Preparations for face-to-face meeting - proposal: 1/2 day lab, 1/2 day non-lab - time and participation - preparations of use cases for discussion * Planning for 2012 - lab implementation - non-lab use cases (e.g. ICF, clinical LOINC) Regards, Daniel	dkarlsson	Mon Jul 11 12:29:46 Z 2011	post4685	topc3254

IHTSDO Observable PG: Observable and Investigation Model Project June 13, 2011 meeting details (collabnet topic id: topc3092)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
IHTSDO Observable PG: Observable and Investigation Model Project June 13, 2011 meeting details	Hello Observable and Investigation Model Project group, Here are the coordinates for the upcoming Observables and Investigation Model Project group meeting: Date: June 13, 2011 Time: 20:00 – 21:00 UTC GoTo meeting link: https://www1.gotomeeting.com/join/753566160 GoTo meeting ID: 753-566-160 Conference call: IHTSDO Line #4, Pass Code 54362# The agenda will include: 1. Observables-BioTop bridge (continued from last meeting) 2. Lab observables status Dial in codes AUSTRALIA BRISBANE +61 731234424 CANADA TORONTO +1 4168000350 DENMARK COPENHAGEN +45 43396372 LITHUANIA VILNIUS +370 52058946 NETHERLANDS AMSTERDAM +31 202629995 NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND +64 99250305 SWEDEN STOCKHOLM +46 852507971 UNITED KINGDOM BIRMINGHAM +44 1213142062 UNITED STATES CHICAGO +1 3124966622 UNITED STATES LOS ANGELES +1 2133253224 UNITED STATES WASHINGTON +1 2022924256 Softphone users World ext 1601	mstark	Mon Jun 13 16:05:28 Z 2011	post4430	topc3092

IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2012-12-10 UTC 20.00 (collabnet topic id: topc5299)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2012-12-10 UTC 20.00	Dear All, Observables meeting time again, last meeting for 2012. On the agenda is a discussion on some lab observables we didn't have time for in Stockholm. Additionally, some lab observables touch on the "Observables about procedures" issue, which also happens to be a priority 1 item on the content tracker. Details: Phone: Line 2 GotoMeeting: 753-566-160 https://csfe.aceworkspace.net/sf/go/doc6192?nav=1 Regards, Daniel	dkarlsson	Fri Dec 07 14:40:28 Z 2012	post7728	topc5299

IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2014-11-10 20.00 UTC (collabnet topic id: topc7282)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2014-11-10 20.00 UTC	Dear Everyone, there is an Observables call on Monday Nov 10 at 20.00 UTC (remember day-light saving time changes!). On the agenda is: * Any CollabNet discussions * Three short discussions * Sample/Histopathology observables - what do the qualities/observables inhere in? * Vital signs observables - restart of the vital signs discussions * Planning ahead - role of the Observables project (and other similar projects) * LOINC-mapping discussions - discussions from the face-to-face meeting (rest of the time) Meeting ID: 457-038-453 https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/457038453 Use your microphone and speakers (VoIP) - a headset is recommended. Or, call in using your telephone. Denmark: +45 (0) 89 88 05 39 Australia: +61 2 8355 1039 Austria: +43 (0) 7 2088 2172 Belgium: +32 (0) 42 68 0180 Canada: +1 (647) 497-9379 Finland: +358 (0) 931 58 4588 France: +33 (0) 182 880 934 Germany: +49 (0) 811 8899 6929 Ireland: +353 (0) 19 036 187 Italy: +39 0 294 75 15 37 Netherlands: +31 (0) 108 080 116 New Zealand: +64 (0) 9 801 0294 Norway: +47 21 51 81 86 Spain: +34 911 23 4248 Sweden: +46 (0) 852 500 516 Switzerland: +41 (0) 435 0824 41 United Kingdom: +44 20 3657 6779 United States: +1 (213) 493-0015 Denmark (toll-free): 8090 1927 Israel (toll-free): 1 809 494 273 Singapore (toll-free): 800 101 2999 Access Code: 457-038-453 Audio PIN: Shown after joining the meeting	dkarlsson	Sat Nov 08 14:27:11 Z 2014	post10763	topc7282

IHTSDO Observable PG: Observables: GotoMeeting details for Sydney meeting (collabnet topic id: topc3871)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
IHTSDO Observable PG: Observables: GotoMeeting details for Sydney meeting	Dear Everyone, the GotoMeeting ID is 702-174-192 Regards, Daniel	dkarlsson	Mon Oct 10 21:25:07 Z 2011	post5517	topc3871

IHTSDO Observable PG: October 24 Observables meeting is cancelled (collabnet topic id: topc3899)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
IHTSDO Observable PG: October 24 Observables meeting is cancelled	Please note that the October 24 Observables meeting is cancelled. The next meeting is scheduled for November 14.	mstark	Thu Oct 20 20:05:12 Z 2011	post5565	topc3899

IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2015-04-27 20.00 UTC (collabnet topic id: topc7474)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2015-04-27 20.00 UTC	Dear All, there will be an Observables PG call on Monday, even though there is an IHTSDO Business Meeting going on. To reduce the risk of time zone confusion syndromes, please check your time zone carefully, e.g. using one of the online services: http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?iso=20150427T2000 On the agenda: Minutes from last meeting Review of action items Any CollabNet discussions Review of observables documents Functioning domain observables IS ABOUT - what remains to do Impression observables discussion Planning ahead Cheers, Daniel The GotoMeeting detalis are: Meeting ID: 201-313-901 https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/201313901 Use your microphone and speakers (VoIP) - a headset is recommended. Or, call in using your telephone. Access Code: 201-313-901. Phone numbers: https://global.gotomeeting.com/201313901/numbersdisplay.html	dkarlsson	Thu Apr 23 19:21:46 Z 2015	post11159	topc7474
Re: IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2015-04-27 20.00 UTC	Dear Everyone, I have arranged a room for the Observables PG meeting for those of us who are in Copenhagen. The room is GATE 10 - Room G. I'll be there and anyone who wants to join is more than welcome. Note that apart from that some of us might be in the same room, this will be a normal Observables PG GotoMeeting call! Cheers, Daniel	dkarlsson	Fri Apr 24 09:33:12 Z 2015	post11160	topc7474
Re: IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2015-04-27 20.00 UTC	We've been asked by Jim Campbell to have a look at an Inceptionand/Elaboration document about "Malignancy with gene mutation". It's on the agenda for the meeting tonight (UTC). https://csfe.aceworkspace.net/sf/go/doc12349?nav=1 /Daniel	dkarlsson	Mon Apr 27 05:31:56 Z 2015	post11163	topc7474

IHTSDO Observable PG: July 25 Meeting Cancellation: Observables (collabnet topic id: topc3393)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
IHTSDO Observable PG: July 25 Meeting Cancellation: Observables	Hello Team Please be advised that the July 25 Observables meeting has been cancelled. Sincerely, Monique	mstark	Mon Jul 25 12:58:17 Z 2011	post4855	topc3393

IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2014-11-24 20.00 UTC (collabnet topic id: topc7300)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2014-11-24 20.00 UTC	Dear All, there is an Observables call on Monday Nov 24 at 20.00 UTC (day-light saving time is NOT in effect!). On the agenda is: Agenda: * Minutes from last meeting * Review of action items * Any CollabNet discussions * Vital signs observables - inception/elaboration document Cheers, Daniel Meeting ID: 457-038-453 https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/457038453 Use your microphone and speakers (VoIP) - a headset is recommended. Or, call in using your telephone. Denmark: +45 (0) 89 88 05 39 Australia: +61 2 8355 1039 Austria: +43 (0) 7 2088 2172 Belgium: +32 (0) 42 68 0180 Canada: +1 (647) 497-9379 Finland: +358 (0) 931 58 4588 France: +33 (0) 182 880 934 Germany: +49 (0) 811 8899 6929 Ireland: +353 (0) 19 036 187 Italy: +39 0 294 75 15 37 Netherlands: +31 (0) 108 080 116 New Zealand: +64 (0) 9 801 0294 Norway: +47 21 51 81 86 Spain: +34 911 23 4248 Sweden: +46 (0) 852 500 516 Switzerland: +41 (0) 435 0824 41 United Kingdom: +44 20 3657 6779 United States: +1 (213) 493-0015 Denmark (toll-free): 8090 1927 Israel (toll-free): 1 809 494 273 Singapore (toll-free): 800 101 2999 Access Code: 457-038-453 Audio PIN: Shown after joining the meeting	dkarlsson	Fri Nov 21 15:43:27 Z 2014	post10808	topc7300

IHTSDO Observable PG: Next Observables meeting (collabnet topic id: topc5883)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
IHTSDO Observable PG: Next Observables meeting	Dear All, the next Observables meeting was scheduled for the May 27th 2013 which happens to be Memorial Day in the US. We're trying to find an alternative day for the meeting. Please respond by using the doodle below: http://doodle.com/5nk4z8yv69m432fn Regards, Daniel	dkarlsson	Mon May 13 21:05:58 Z 2013	post8540	topc5883
Re: IHTSDO Observable PG: Next Observables meeting	Dear All, could I please remind everyone interested to review the Doodle for the next meeting. http://doodle.com/5nk4z8yv69m432fn Regards, Daniel	dkarlsson	Mon May 20 14:54:30 Z 2013	post8554	topc5883

IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2013-01-14 UTC 20.00 (collabnet topic id: topc5390)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2013-01-14 UTC 20.00	Dear All, a Happy New Year and welcome to the first Observables meeting of 2013. On the agenda is: * update on BFO2 by Stefan Schulz * planning for 2013 (the 2012 test, clinical use cases) * if time, aggregation and observables Details: Phone: Line 2 GotoMeeting: 753-566-160 https://csfe.aceworkspace.net/sf/go/doc6192?nav=1 Regards, Daniel	dkarlsson	Fri Jan 11 14:27:14 Z 2013	post7856	topc5390

IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2013-12-23 20.00 UTC (collabnet topic id: topc6337)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2013-12-23 20.00 UTC	Dear All, there is an Observables meeting this Monday (2013-12-23) at 20.00 UTC. We will continue our discussion of the remaining vital signs observables, i.e. respiratory rate and blood pressure. On the agenda is: * any ~CollabNet discussions * alpha release respiratory rate - OWL file is available https://csfe.aceworkspace.net/sf/go/doc9553?nav=1 blood pressure - missing attributes for aggregation and process parts (e.g. systolic phase, a wave) * AOB Regards, Daniel GotoMeeting details for this (and coming) meeting(s): 1. Please join my meeting. https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/457038453 2. Use your microphone and speakers (VoIP) - a headset is recommended. Or, call in using your telephone. Denmark: +45 (0) 89 88 05 39 Australia: +61 2 8355 1039 Austria: +43 (0) 7 2088 2172 Belgium: +32 (0) 42 68 0180 Canada: +1 (647) 497-9379 Finland: +358 (0) 931 58 4588 France: +33 (0) 182 880 934 Germany: +49 (0) 811 8899 6929 Ireland: +353 (0) 19 036 187 Italy: +39 0 294 75 15 37 Netherlands: +31 (0) 108 080 116 New Zealand: +64 (0) 9 801 0294 Norway: +47 21 51 81 86 Spain: +34 911 23 4248 Sweden: +46 (0) 852 500 516 Switzerland: +41 (0) 435 0824 41 United Kingdom: +44 20 3657 6779 United States: +1 (213) 493-0015 Denmark (toll-free): 8090 1927 Israel (toll-free): 1 809 494 273 Singapore (toll-free): 800 101 2999 Access Code: 457-038-453 Audio PIN: Shown after joining the meeting Meeting ID: 457-038-453 GoToMeetingR Online Meetings Made EasyR	dkarlsson	Thu Dec 19 14:33:25 Z 2013	post9365	topc6337

IHTSDO Observable PG: Observables test started (collabnet topic id: topc6080)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
IHTSDO Observable PG: Observables test started	Dear All, the clinical observables test procedures document is posted: https://csfe.aceworkspace.net/sf/docman/do/downloadDocument/projects.observable_and_investigation_mod/docman.root.projects.clinical_observables_test/doc8810 Regards, Daniel	dkarlsson	Mon Aug 26 21:10:51 Z 2013	post8866	topc6080

IHTSDO Observable PG: The upcoming Observables meeting (collabnet topic id: topc4733)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
IHTSDO Observable PG: The upcoming Observables meeting	Dear Everyone, There is a call scheduled for Monday June 25th 20.00 UTC. I will be away on vacation and will not be able to participate (or chair!). There are things to discuss so if anyone else would be willing to chair could you please reply to this message. Otherwise we could cancel this meeting and speak again on the 9th of July, same time, same GotoMeeting. Regards, Daniel	dkarlsson	Wed Jun 20 08:12:56 Z 2012	post6881	topc4733
Re: IHTSDO Observable PG: The upcoming Observables meeting	Dear All, as I mentioned earlier, I am away this Monday (2012-06-25) and cannot chair the meeting. I got one additional non-attendance reply and thus I think the meeting could be cancelled this time. The next meeting will be on the 9th of July 20.00 UTC. Regards, Daniel	dkarlsson	Sun Jun 24 21:03:15 Z 2012	post6903	topc4733

IHTSDO Observable PG: Timing of Observables... meetings (collabnet topic id: topc2818)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
IHTSDO Observable PG: Timing of Observables... meetings	Due to conflicts with other PGs, the Observables PG meetings will be held the 2nd and 4th Monday of the Month at 20.00 UTC starting 28th of February. This is, as some of you might notice, not the first time the schedule is moved around. Let's hope this will be the last! So next meeting is 28th of February 2011 at 20.00 UTC. /Daniel	dkarlsson	Tue Feb 15 21:25:37 Z 2011	post3751	topc2818
Re: IHTSDO Observable PG: Timing of Observables... meetings	Hi Everyone, Here are the coordinates for the February 28 meeting: Date: February 28, 2010 Time: 20:00 – 21:00 UTC GoTo meeting link: https://www1.gotomeeting.com/join/449470233 GoTo meeting ID: 449-470-233 Conference call: IHTSDO Line #3, Pass Code 54362# Dial in codes AUSTRALIA BRISBANE +61 731234424 CANADA TORONTO +1 4168000350 DENMARK COPENHAGEN +45 43396372 LITHUANIA VILNIUS +370 52058946 NETHERLANDS AMSTERDAM +31 202629995 NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND +64 99250305 SWEDEN STOCKHOLM +46 852507971 UNITED KINGDOM BIRMINGHAM +44 1213142062 UNITED STATES CHICAGO +1 3124966622 UNITED STATES LOS ANGELES +1 2133253224 UNITED STATES WASHINGTON +1 2022924256 Softphone users World ext 1601	mstark	Tue Feb 22 16:54:36 Z 2011	post3792	topc2818

IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2013-06-24 UTC 20.00 (collabnet topic id: topc5947)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2013-06-24 UTC 20.00	Dear All, there is, as you might expect, an Observables meeting this fourth Monday of the month. On the agenda is the clinical observables test https://csfe.aceworkspace.net/sf/docman/do/listDocuments/projects.observable_and_investigation_mod/docman.root.projects.clinical_observables_test and mainly: * test cases * test plan * technical set up Practical details: Meeting ID: 753-566-160 https://www1.gotomeeting.com/join/753566160 Use your microphone and speakers (VoIP) - a headset is recommended. Or, call in using your telephone (new phone numbers) . Australia: +61 2 8355 1024 Austria: +43 (0) 7 2088 1403 Canada: +1 (647) 497-9351 Sweden: +46 (0) 852 503 499 United Kingdom: +44 (0) 207 151 1857 United States: +1 (619) 550-0006 Access Code: 753-566-160 Audio PIN: Shown after joining the meeting /Daniel	dkarlsson	Thu Jun 20 07:19:28 Z 2013	post8667	topc5947

IHTSDO Observable PG: Next Observables meeting (collabnet topic id: topc5365)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
IHTSDO Observable PG: Next Observables meeting	Dear All, given the normal Observables schedule, i.e. 2nd and 4th of the month, the next meeting would be on the 14th of January. This time conflicts with the HL7 meeting in Phoenix. Could anyone with a conflict please respond so we can see if we need to change day for this meeting? Regards, Daniel	dkarlsson	Wed Jan 02 13:44:55 Z 2013	post7823	topc5365
Re: IHTSDO Observable PG: Next Observables meeting	Dear All, only one reply so far. This means that the meeting will be held on the 14th as per the normal schedule. Regards, Daniel	dkarlsson	Mon Jan 07 10:24:00 Z 2013	post7836	topc5365

IHTSDO Observable PG: Agenda for face-to-face meeting in Stockholm (collabnet topic id: topc5131)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
IHTSDO Observable PG: Agenda for face-to-face meeting in Stockholm	Dear All, here's a draft agenda for the Stockholm face-to-face meeting: Start at 10.00 - new time 10.00-12.30 Laboratory medicine * Introduction and principles * Examples * Next steps - Testing of the Observables model * Discussion Lunch 13.30-17.00 Technical/ontological discussions * Indexes and calculated observables * Functions and abilities * Processes * Observables and information entities * Observables in information models GotoMeeting details will be published. Regards, Daniel	dkarlsson	Wed Oct 17 19:56:11 Z 2012	post7474	topc5131

IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2013-11-25 20.00 UTC (collabnet topic id: topc6265)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2013-11-25 20.00 UTC	Dear All, yet another Observables meeting is coming up! This time around it's held on Monday Nov 25 at 20.00 UTC. OWL files for body temperatures and heart rates have been uploaded for project group review: https://csfe.aceworkspace.net/sf/docman/do/listDocuments/projects.observable_and_investigation_mod/docman.root.projects.alpha_release.alpha_release_1 Additionally I would like the groups comments on what kind of documentation would be needed to support use of these Observables and also what should be the next area after temperatures and heart rates, and then again, the next area after vital signs. So, on the agenda is: * Any current CollabNet discussions * Alpha release * Any other business Please not the new GotoMeeting details and, for those who did not attend last time, also that daylight saving time status might have changed. Regards, Daniel GotoMeeting details for this (and coming) meeting(s): 1. Please join my meeting. https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/457038453 2. Use your microphone and speakers (VoIP) - a headset is recommended. Or, call in using your telephone. Denmark: +45 (0) 89 88 05 39 Australia: +61 2 8355 1039 Austria: +43 (0) 7 2088 2172 Belgium: +32 (0) 42 68 0180 Canada: +1 (647) 497-9379 Finland: +358 (0) 931 58 4588 France: +33 (0) 182 880 934 Germany: +49 (0) 811 8899 6929 Ireland: +353 (0) 19 036 187 Italy: +39 0 294 75 15 37 Netherlands: +31 (0) 108 080 116 New Zealand: +64 (0) 9 801 0294 Norway: +47 21 51 81 86 Spain: +34 911 23 4248 Sweden: +46 (0) 852 500 516 Switzerland: +41 (0) 435 0824 41 United Kingdom: +44 20 3657 6779 United States: +1 (213) 493-0015 Denmark (toll-free): 8090 1927 Israel (toll-free): 1 809 494 273 Singapore (toll-free): 800 101 2999 Access Code: 457-038-453 Audio PIN: Shown after joining the meeting Meeting ID: 457-038-453 GoToMeetingR Online Meetings Made EasyR	dkarlsson	Thu Nov 21 15:46:35 Z 2013	post9234	topc6265
Re: IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2013-11-25 20.00 UTC	Dear All, I've caught a bad cold and will not be able to chair or participate in the meeting today. If anyone else is willing to chair than that would be great. Regards, Daniel	dkarlsson	Mon Nov 25 13:14:49 Z 2013	post9244	topc6265
Re: IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2013-11-25 20.00 UTC	Dear All, I have not heard from anyone yet so I assume the meetings today is cancelled. Sorry for any inconvenience. /Daniel	dkarlsson	Mon Nov 25 19:04:52 Z 2013	post9245	topc6265

IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2013-07-08 UTC 20.00 (collabnet topic id: topc5954)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2013-07-08 UTC 20.00	Dear All, as expected, there will be an Observables meeting the second Monday of July. On the agenda is: * Workbench training session (will be recorded) * Further discussion on the clinical observables test Training examples are posted here: https://csfe.aceworkspace.net/sf/go/doc8529?nav=1 Test cases are published here: https://csfe.aceworkspace.net/sf/docman/do/listDocuments/projects.observable_and_investigation_mod/docman.root.projects.clinical_observables_test Practical details: Meeting ID: 753-566-160 https://www1.gotomeeting.com/join/753566160 Use your microphone and speakers (VoIP) - a headset is recommended. Or, call in using your telephone (new phone numbers) Australia: +61 2 8355 1024 Austria: +43 (0) 7 2088 1403 Canada: +1 (647) 497-9351 Sweden: +46 (0) 852 503 499 United Kingdom: +44 (0) 207 151 1857 United States: +1 (619) 550-0006 Access Code: 753-566-160 Audio PIN: Shown after joining the meeting /Daniel	dkarlsson	Thu Jun 27 11:16:27 Z 2013	post8680	topc5954

IHTSDO Observable PG: Observables PG meeting 2011-05-23 UTC 20.00 (collabnet topic id: topc3045)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
IHTSDO Observable PG: Observables PG meeting 2011-05-23 UTC 20.00	Dear Everyone, the meeting will include discussions on a Observables-to-BioTop bridge. An early version is posted here: https://csfe.aceworkspace.net/sf/docman/do/listDocuments/projects.observable_and_investigation_mod/docman.root.projects.modeling_examples A wiki page has been set up with some initial issues: https://csfe.aceworkspace.net/sf/wiki/do/viewPage/projects.observable_and_investigation_mod/wiki/BridgingTheObservablesModelToBioTop Regards, Daniel	dkarlsson	Fri May 20 13:23:25 Z 2011	post4298	topc3045

IHTSDO Observable PG: Observable and Investigation Model Project May 23, 2011 meeting details (collabnet topic id: topc3044)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
IHTSDO Observable PG: Observable and Investigation Model Project May 23, 2011 meeting details	Hello Observable and Investigation Model Project group, Here are the coordinates for the upcoming Observables and Investigation Model Project group meeting: Date: May 23, 2011 Time: 20:00 – 21:00 UTC GoTo meeting link: https://www1.gotomeeting.com/join/753566160 GoTo meeting ID: 753-566-160 Conference call: IHTSDO Line #4, Pass Code 54362# Dial in codes AUSTRALIA BRISBANE +61 731234424 CANADA TORONTO +1 4168000350 DENMARK COPENHAGEN +45 43396372 LITHUANIA VILNIUS +370 52058946 NETHERLANDS AMSTERDAM +31 202629995 NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND +64 99250305 SWEDEN STOCKHOLM +46 852507971 UNITED KINGDOM BIRMINGHAM +44 1213142062 UNITED STATES CHICAGO +1 3124966622 UNITED STATES LOS ANGELES +1 2133253224 UNITED STATES WASHINGTON +1 2022924256 Softphone users World ext 1601	mstark	Fri May 20 12:52:34 Z 2011	post4297	topc3044

IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2013-02-11 UTC 20.00 (collabnet topic id: topc5528)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2013-02-11 UTC 20.00	Dear Everyone, as usual, the Observables meeting is Monday Feb 11 20.00-21.00 UTC. On the agenda: The agenda includes: Behavioural observables Lab test planning - modelers guide New front page contents Project meeting planning There's been a switch of GotoMeeting/telephone details in order to allow using a computer for speaking and listening. The detalis are: Meeting ID: 753-566-160 https://www1.gotomeeting.com/join/753566160 Use your microphone and speakers (VoIP) - a headset is recommended. Or, call in using your telephone (new phone numbers). Australia: +61 2 8355 1024 Austria: +43 (0) 7 2088 1403 Canada: +1 (647) 497-9351 Sweden: +46 (0) 852 503 499 United Kingdom: +44 (0) 207 151 1857 United States: +1 (619) 550-0006 Access Code: 753-566-160 Audio PIN: Shown after joining the meeting	dkarlsson	Thu Feb 07 20:07:02 Z 2013	post8032	topc5528

IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2012-08-27 UTC 20.00 (collabnet topic id: topc4932)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2012-08-27 UTC 20.00	Dear All, meeting time again! This time I thought we could continue to discuss indexes/calculations to try to reach a (tentative) decision before the lab test starts. Further, I have gone through 100 LOINC examples from earlier work during the summer, and there are some issues which could be discussed. Documents are in the Projects folder (Re-analysis...) https://csfe.aceworkspace.net/sf/docman/do/listDocuments/projects.observable_and_investigation_mod/docman.root.projects Also, we need to discuss the contents of the face2face meeting. A proposal would be to have a walk through of the Observables model with lab focus (1/2 day), showing all changes/additions made since the draft standard was published. The rest of the day could be spent discussing current topics in non-laboratory observables. So, the agenda would include: * indexes/calculations * issues from walk through * face2face meeting Details: Phone: Line 2 GotoMeeting: 753-566-160 Instructions and phone numbers: https://csfe.aceworkspace.net/sf/go/doc4996?nav=1 Regards, Daniel	dkarlsson	Thu Aug 23 08:40:58 Z 2012	post7187	topc4932

IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2015-07-13 20.00 UTC (collabnet topic id: topc7553)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2015-07-13 20.00 UTC	Dear All, welcome to join the Observables call on Monday July 13 at 20.00 UTC. The agenda has the following items: * Minutes from last meeting * Review of action items * CollabNet discussions * Observation results HAS VALUE range * Observables inception/elaboration document * (Malignancy with gene mutation - Observables/Observation results/Findings if Jim Campbell is on the call) Cheers, Daniel The GotoMeeting detalis are: Meeting ID: 201-313-901 https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/201313901 Use your microphone and speakers (VoIP) - a headset is recommended. Or, call in using your telephone. Access Code: 201-313-901. Phone numbers: https://global.gotomeeting.com/201313901/numbersdisplay.html	dkarlsson	Fri Jul 10 07:37:14 Z 2015	post11332	topc7553

IHTSDO Observable PG: New GotoMeeting ID (collabnet topic id: topc7576)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
IHTSDO Observable PG: New GotoMeeting ID	Dear All, please use this GotoMeeting address for the meeting today. https://global.gotomeeting.com/meeting/join/966018973 Cheers, Daniel	dkarlsson	Mon Jul 27 19:56:22 Z 2015	post11367	topc7576

IHTSDO Observable PG: Observables document review (collabnet topic id: topc7431)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
IHTSDO Observable PG: Observables document review	Dear All, I've created a whole new forum for the review discussions: https://csfe.aceworkspace.net/sf/discussion/do/listTopics/projects.observable_and_investigation_mod/discussion.observables_inception_elaboratio Cheers, Daniel	dkarlsson	Mon Mar 23 21:06:15 Z 2015	post11078	topc7431

IHTSDO Observable PG: IHTSDO Observable PG: IHTSDO Observable PG: Sydney meeting 11-12 October 2011 (collabnet topic id: topc3851)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
IHTSDO Observable PG: IHTSDO Observable PG: IHTSDO Observable PG: Sydney meeting 11-12 October 2011	The Observables meeting has been given two slots: Tuesday 09.00-12.00 Wednsday 09.30-12.30 all local Sydney time (UTC+10) For those calling in, here are the details: Line # 1 Passcode: 21545# Instructions: 1. Use a dial-in number (list below) to dial the IHTSDO Conference System. 2. Choose telephone conference line by pressing 1 3. Enter the pass code 21545# AUSTRALIA BRISBANE +61 731234424 CANADA TORONTO +1 4168000350 CYPRUS NICOSIA +35722030509 DENMARK COPENHAGEN +45 43396372 ESTONIA TALLINN +372 6680309 LITHUANIA VILNIUS +370 52058946 NETHERLANDS AMSTERDAM +31 202629995 NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND +64 99250305 SINGAPORE SINGAPORE +65 31581162 SPAIN MADRID +34911875628 SWEDEN STOCKHOLM +46 852507971 SLOVENIA LJUBLJANA +38616002717 SLOVAK REPUBLIC BRATISLAVA +421233006932 UNITED KINGDOM BIRMINGHAM +44 1213142062 UNITED STATES CHICAGO +1 3124966622 UNITED STATES LOS ANGELES +1 2133253224 UNITED STATES WASHINGTON +1 2022924256	dkarlsson	Sat Oct 08 23:34:53 Z 2011	post5493	topc3851
Re: IHTSDO Observable PG: IHTSDO Observable PG: IHTSDO Observable PG: Sydney meeting 11-12 October 2011	If you are having difficulties jointing the observables call please email mst@ihtsdo.org	mstark	Mon Oct 10 23:32:58 Z 2011	post5518	topc3851

IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2014-03-10 20.00 UTC (collabnet topic id: topc6537)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2014-03-10 20.00 UTC	Dear All, the Observables PG is meeting yet again March 10 at 20.00 UTC. Notice that daylight saving time status might have changed since last time (as e.g. in the USA). I've uploaded a new OWL file reflecting the work done on process representation (very much inspired by the anatomy project) to solve the "two processes" problem. https://csfe.aceworkspace.net/sf/go/doc9879?nav=1 On the agenda is (as usual): Any current CollabNet discussions * Alpha release * Blood pressure, continued still... * Planning for 2014 * Any other business GotoMeeting details for this (and coming) meeting(s): 1. Please join my meeting. https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/457038453 2. Use your microphone and speakers (VoIP) - a headset is recommended. Or, call in using your telephone. Denmark: +45 (0) 89 88 05 39 Australia: +61 2 8355 1039 Austria: +43 (0) 7 2088 2172 Belgium: +32 (0) 42 68 0180 Canada: +1 (647) 497-9379 Finland: +358 (0) 931 58 4588 France: +33 (0) 182 880 934 Germany: +49 (0) 811 8899 6929 Ireland: +353 (0) 19 036 187 Italy: +39 0 294 75 15 37 Netherlands: +31 (0) 108 080 116 New Zealand: +64 (0) 9 801 0294 Norway: +47 21 51 81 86 Spain: +34 911 23 4248 Sweden: +46 (0) 852 500 516 Switzerland: +41 (0) 435 0824 41 United Kingdom: +44 20 3657 6779 United States: +1 (213) 493-0015 Denmark (toll-free): 8090 1927 Israel (toll-free): 1 809 494 273 Singapore (toll-free): 800 101 2999 Access Code: 457-038-453 Audio PIN: Shown after joining the meeting Meeting ID: 457-038-453	dkarlsson	Fri Mar 07 16:00:19 Z 2014	post9680	topc6537
Re: IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2014-03-10 20.00 UTC	Dear All, I've checked the GotoMeeting connection earlier today and it seems we are ok (as opposed to last week). I will report project progress to the Content Committee on Wednesday and I've prepared a short report. Please feel free to provide comments! https://csfe.aceworkspace.net/sf/go/doc9897?nav=1 Meeting ID: 457-038-453 https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/457038453 Use your microphone and speakers (VoIP) - a headset is recommended. Or, call in using your telephone. Denmark: +45 (0) 89 88 05 39 Australia: +61 2 8355 1039 Austria: +43 (0) 7 2088 2172 Belgium: +32 (0) 42 68 0180 Canada: +1 (647) 497-9379 Finland: +358 (0) 931 58 4588 France: +33 (0) 182 880 934 Germany: +49 (0) 811 8899 6929 Ireland: +353 (0) 19 036 187 Italy: +39 0 294 75 15 37 Netherlands: +31 (0) 108 080 116 New Zealand: +64 (0) 9 801 0294 Norway: +47 21 51 81 86 Spain: +34 911 23 4248 Sweden: +46 (0) 852 500 516 Switzerland: +41 (0) 435 0824 41 United Kingdom: +44 20 3657 6779 United States: +1 (213) 493-0015 Denmark (toll-free): 8090 1927 Israel (toll-free): 1 809 494 273 Singapore (toll-free): 800 101 2999 Access Code: 457-038-453 Audio PIN: Shown after joining the meeting	dkarlsson	Mon Mar 10 17:26:28 Z 2014	post9693	topc6537

IHTSDO Observable PG: Face-to-face meeting moved from Tuesday to Wednesday (collabnet topic id: topc6082)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
IHTSDO Observable PG: Face-to-face meeting moved from Tuesday to Wednesday	Forwarded from IHTSDO staff: I have discussed this with the team and can now advise that we are happy to move your second meeting session from Tuesday afternoon to Wednesday morning. We had been attempting to avoid clashes with the Open GA to encourage attendance at that meeting but we understand that you want as many of your members to be available as you can. Please note that your meetings are now as follows: Time: Mon 7th - 13:30-17:00 (pt1) & Wed 9th - 09:00-12:30 (pt2) Location: Sheraton Crystal City Attendees: 20 people (estimate) I have amended the registration site accordingly. Best wishes, Fleur	dkarlsson	Tue Aug 27 12:52:01 Z 2013	post8870	topc6082

IHTSDO Observable PG: IHTSDO Observable PG: IHTSDO Observable PG: Observable and Investigation Model Project August 8th 20-21 UTC (collabnet topic id: topc3535)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
IHTSDO Observable PG: IHTSDO Observable PG: IHTSDO Observable PG: Observable and Investigation Model Project August 8th 20-21 UTC	Dear Everyone, the next Observables meeting is this Monday (2011-08-08) 20.00-21.00 UTC. Details are: GoTo meeting link: https://www1.gotomeeting.com/join/753566160 GoTo meeting ID: 753-566-160 Conference call: IHTSDO Line #4, Pass Code 54362# On the agenda: BioTop bridge - object properties Observables and substances, see bridge document ICF examples, see Modelling examples [folder \|https://csfe.aceworkspace.net/sf/docman/do/listDocuments/projects.observable_and_investigation_mod/docman.root.projects.modeling_examples] AOB Regards, Daniel	dkarlsson	Fri Aug 05 13:30:55 Z 2011	post5011	topc3535

IHTSDO Observable PG: Observables PG meeting 2012-01-09 UTC 20.00 (collabnet topic id: topc4203)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
IHTSDO Observable PG: Observables PG meeting 2012-01-09 UTC 20.00	Dear All, the upcoming Observables meeting will be held Monday 9th January 2012 20.00 UTC. Agenda: Technique hierarchy, document: https://csfe.aceworkspace.net/sf/go/doc5153?nav=1 Laboratory testing strategy Phone: Line 2 GotoMeeting: 753-566-160	dkarlsson	Sun Jan 08 20:41:25 Z 2012	post6062	topc4203
Re: IHTSDO Observable PG: Observables PG meeting 2012-01-09 UTC 20.00	Daniel/all Maybe not for this call, but I wonder if I might post a question emerging from some UK work on representing lab results... Specifically, this work has adopted a compositional approach, one axis of which (although currently named differently) is concerned with specifying the property type being measured. Not particularly unusual, but a number of the test names (as would be requested for representation in SNOMED CT) are of the form: <component being measured> "level" The examples which are making me scratch my head the most are where the component is an enzyme - i.e. the actual property type for an instance might be be either a "mass concentration" or an "enzymic activity level". Constraints on the sensible/realistic property type values sit elswhere (i.e. not in SNOMED CT) determined by each component (and maybe other details). I'm not expecting that all this metadata can be squeezed into SNOMED CT, but it would be good if this approach could be supported. A couple of questions therefore: (1) Is the observables work anticipating/accomodating result names at this level of abstraction? I can see how the abstract/general/vague word 'level' may not stand up to formal scrutiny, but if accompanied by suitable metadata may be a very useful aspect of a compositional approach. (2) If 'level' (or similar) can be accommodated, I presume a reasonable modelling approach would be to use the 'least remote common ancestor' property type value which subsumes all sensible values for a particular component? I recall you mentioned the need for value restrictions - is that relevant here? I can elaborate more if you wish. Kind regards Ed	edcheetham	Mon Jan 09 17:49:05 Z 2012	post6063	topc4203
Re: IHTSDO Observable PG: Observables PG meeting 2012-01-09 UTC 20.00	Hi Daniel Can you share the link to GoTomeeting? Also, what is the dial-in number? Thanks. Mark	mroche	Mon Jan 09 20:05:51 Z 2012	post6064	topc4203
Re: IHTSDO Observable PG: Observables PG meeting 2012-01-09 UTC 20.00	Daniel This is the Daniel Moody 'model quality' paper I mentioned. Its conclusions (as to whether measuring data model quality is worth the effort!) are rather disheartening, but it does provide a useful framework (in particular section 2.2 and 2.3) within which to consider which aspects of a model (both its internal features and its external usability) we may feel are most usefully tested. Kind regards Ed	edcheetham	Mon Jan 09 21:20:51 Z 2012	post6066	topc4203

IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2013-12-09 20.00 UTC (collabnet topic id: topc6299)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2013-12-09 20.00 UTC	Dear Everyone, this second Monday of December an Observables GotoMeeting meeting is organized. We'll continue where we left of last time. OWL files for body temperatures and heart rates have been uploaded for project group review: https://csfe.aceworkspace.net/sf/docman/do/listDocuments/projects.observable_and_investigation_mod/docman.root.projects.alpha_release.alpha_release_1 Additionally I would like the groups comments on what kind of documentation would be needed to support use of these Observables and also what should be the next area after temperatures and heart rates, and then again, the next area after vital signs. So, on the agenda is: * Any current CollabNet discussions * Alpha release * Any other business Regards, Daniel GotoMeeting details for this (and coming) meeting(s): 1. Please join my meeting. https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/457038453 2. Use your microphone and speakers (VoIP) - a headset is recommended. Or, call in using your telephone. Denmark: +45 (0) 89 88 05 39 Australia: +61 2 8355 1039 Austria: +43 (0) 7 2088 2172 Belgium: +32 (0) 42 68 0180 Canada: +1 (647) 497-9379 Finland: +358 (0) 931 58 4588 France: +33 (0) 182 880 934 Germany: +49 (0) 811 8899 6929 Ireland: +353 (0) 19 036 187 Italy: +39 0 294 75 15 37 Netherlands: +31 (0) 108 080 116 New Zealand: +64 (0) 9 801 0294 Norway: +47 21 51 81 86 Spain: +34 911 23 4248 Sweden: +46 (0) 852 500 516 Switzerland: +41 (0) 435 0824 41 United Kingdom: +44 20 3657 6779 United States: +1 (213) 493-0015 Denmark (toll-free): 8090 1927 Israel (toll-free): 1 809 494 273 Singapore (toll-free): 800 101 2999 Access Code: 457-038-453 Audio PIN: Shown after joining the meeting Meeting ID: 457-038-453 GoToMeetingR Online Meetings Made EasyR	dkarlsson	Fri Dec 06 07:48:53 Z 2013	post9287	topc6299

IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2015-02-09 20.00 UTC (collabnet topic id: topc7383)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2015-02-09 20.00 UTC	Dear Everyone, There is again an Observables meeting coming up this Monday 2015-02-09 at 20.00 UTC. Not the new GotoMeeting number: 201-313-901 On the agenda: * Minutes from last meeting * Review of action items * Any CollabNet discussions * IS ABOUT - inception/elaboration document? * Impression observables discussion or see: https://csfe.aceworkspace.net/sf/projects/observable_and_investigation_mod/#section-FrontPage-NextMeeting New GotoMeeting/telephone details as of 2015-01-13. The detalis are: Meeting ID: 201-313-901 https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/201313901 Use your microphone and speakers (VoIP) - a headset is recommended. Or, call in using your telephone. Access Code: 201-313-901 More phone numbers: https://global.gotomeeting.com/201313901/numbersdisplay.html	dkarlsson	Fri Feb 06 13:08:11 Z 2015	post10965	topc7383

IHTSDO Observable PG: New forum for clinical observables (collabnet topic id: topc5933)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
IHTSDO Observable PG: New forum for clinical observables	Dear All, just created a new forum for any clinical observables test related discussions. https://csfe.aceworkspace.net/sf/discussion/do/listTopics/projects.observable_and_investigation_mod/discussion.clinical_observables_test /Daniel	dkarlsson	Tue Jun 11 12:59:57 Z 2013	post8642	topc5933

IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2012-07-23 UTC 20.00 (collabnet topic id: topc4872)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2012-07-23 UTC 20.00	Dear All, sorry for late notice, been on vacation. Tonight I hope to discuss the issue of indexes versus "true" qualities in representing observables. Slide deck will be posted! Details: Phone: Line 2 GotoMeeting: 753-566-160 Instructions and phone numbers: https://csfe.aceworkspace.net/sf/go/doc4996?nav=1 Regards, Daniel	dkarlsson	Mon Jul 23 14:16:58 Z 2012	post7091	topc4872

IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2014-06-09 20.00 UTC (collabnet topic id: topc6825)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2014-06-09 20.00 UTC	Dear All, a friendly reminder of the Observables meeting today at 20.00 UTC. We'll continue discussions from last meeting with the Nursing examples we didn't have time to scrutinize plus the current collabnet discussions. * Summer planning * Nursing observables * Current CollabNet discussions * Sample observables (if time permits ;) ) /Daniel GotoMeeting details: Meeting ID: 457-038-453 https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/457038453 Use your microphone and speakers (VoIP) - a headset is recommended. Or, call in using your telephone. Denmark: +45 (0) 89 88 05 39 Australia: +61 2 8355 1039 Austria: +43 (0) 7 2088 2172 Belgium: +32 (0) 42 68 0180 Canada: +1 (647) 497-9379 Finland: +358 (0) 931 58 4588 France: +33 (0) 182 880 934 Germany: +49 (0) 811 8899 6929 Ireland: +353 (0) 19 036 187 Italy: +39 0 294 75 15 37 Netherlands: +31 (0) 108 080 116 New Zealand: +64 (0) 9 801 0294 Norway: +47 21 51 81 86 Spain: +34 911 23 4248 Sweden: +46 (0) 852 500 516 Switzerland: +41 (0) 435 0824 41 United Kingdom: +44 20 3657 6779 United States: +1 (213) 493-0015 Denmark (toll-free): 8090 1927 Israel (toll-free): 1 809 494 273 Singapore (toll-free): 800 101 2999 Access Code: 457-038-453 Audio PIN: Shown after joining the meeting	dkarlsson	Mon Jun 09 09:13:40 Z 2014	post10162	topc6825

IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2014-01-13 20.00 UTC (collabnet topic id: topc6369)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2014-01-13 20.00 UTC	Dear All, welcome to the first Observable meeting of 2014! On the agenda is: * Any current CollabNet discussions * Alpha release ** Blood pressure (OWL file uploaded: https://csfe.aceworkspace.net/sf/go/doc9621?nav=1) * Any other business Regards, Daniel GotoMeeting details for this (and coming) meeting(s): 1. Please join my meeting. https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/457038453 2. Use your microphone and speakers (VoIP) - a headset is recommended. Or, call in using your telephone. Denmark: +45 (0) 89 88 05 39 Australia: +61 2 8355 1039 Austria: +43 (0) 7 2088 2172 Belgium: +32 (0) 42 68 0180 Canada: +1 (647) 497-9379 Finland: +358 (0) 931 58 4588 France: +33 (0) 182 880 934 Germany: +49 (0) 811 8899 6929 Ireland: +353 (0) 19 036 187 Italy: +39 0 294 75 15 37 Netherlands: +31 (0) 108 080 116 New Zealand: +64 (0) 9 801 0294 Norway: +47 21 51 81 86 Spain: +34 911 23 4248 Sweden: +46 (0) 852 500 516 Switzerland: +41 (0) 435 0824 41 United Kingdom: +44 20 3657 6779 United States: +1 (213) 493-0015 Denmark (toll-free): 8090 1927 Israel (toll-free): 1 809 494 273 Singapore (toll-free): 800 101 2999 Access Code: 457-038-453 Audio PIN: Shown after joining the meeting Meeting ID: 457-038-453 GoToMeetingR Online Meetings Made EasyR	dkarlsson	Fri Jan 10 14:12:56 Z 2014	post9407	topc6369

IHTSDO Observable PG: Observables PG meeting Monday 2012-03-12 UTC 20.00 (collabnet topic id: topc4361)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
IHTSDO Observable PG: Observables PG meeting Monday 2012-03-12 UTC 20.00	Dear all, there's an upcoming Observables meeting this Monday. On the agenda is: * More examples for the modelers guide - specific constructs of the model - specific use cases * Participants of the test Remember the daylight savings time! Details: Phone: Line 2 GotoMeeting: 753-566-160 Instructions and phone numbers: https://csfe.aceworkspace.net/sf/go/doc4996?nav=1 Regards, Daniel	dkarlsson	Sun Mar 11 21:09:31 Z 2012	post6351	topc4361

IHTSDO Observable PG: LOINC - SNOMED CT Cooperation Project Technology Preview - phase 2 is available (collabnet topic id: topc7629)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
IHTSDO Observable PG: LOINC - SNOMED CT Cooperation Project Technology Preview - phase 2 is available	Hi All, We recently published a second release of the Technology Preview of the LOINC - SNOMED CT Cooperative Project. This includes both the LOINC Term to SNOMED CT Expression reference set and the LOINC Part to SNOMED CT Map reference set. The release is distributed in a set of zipped files (in RF2, OWL and human readable formats). All files are available from the folder “LOINC - SNOMED CT Cooperative Project Technology Preview – phase 2”, to be found in the “Technology Preview Packages” area in the “SNOMED CT International Releases” project on the IHTSDO Workspace (https://csfe.aceworkspace.net/sf/go/rel2510). USE WITHIN CLINICAL SYSTEMS CANNOT BE SUPPORTED AT THIS TIME. The Technology Preview reference sets represent a proof of concept and are distributed for evaluation purposes only. They are not for use in production clinical systems or in clinical settings. We welcome your review and feedback. Please provide feedback by 16 November, 2015 via the online feedback form: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1L_a_VsXMWgdPve-1cc9k5Jlfn-ZpWbOQUJYOAA0Fhnk/viewform?usp=send_form. If you have any questions about the Technology Preview, or have difficulties downloading the files, please contact IHTSDO at LOINC-SNOMEDProject@ihtsdo.org. Best wishes, Suzanne	ssantamaria	Wed Sep 09 18:58:19 Z 2015	post11471	topc7629
Re: IHTSDO Observable PG: LOINC - SNOMED CT Cooperation Project Technology Preview - phase 2 is available	All, I apologize to anyone who tried to download the LOINC - SNOMED Cooperation Project Technology Preview files after my original post and were unable to. We had a glitch with the previous link I sent, but it should work now for you all. Please visit this site to download the files: https://csfe.aceworkspace.net/sf/frs/do/viewRelease/projects.snomed_ct_international_releases/frs.technology_preview_packages.loinc_snomed_ct_cooperative_pr_0. If you have any issues with this link, kindly let me know. Cheers, Suzanne	ssantamaria	Tue Sep 22 17:39:00 Z 2015	post11484	topc7629

IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2013-10-21 20.00 UTC (collabnet topic id: topc6198)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2013-10-21 20.00 UTC	Dear Observablers, there seems to be enough interest to have an off-schedule meeting on Monday 2013-10-21 at 20.00 UTC. On the agenda: Clinical observables test Alpha release Any other business Regards, Daniel Practical details: Meeting ID: 753-566-160 https://www1.gotomeeting.com/join/753566160 Use your microphone and speakers (VoIP) - a headset is recommended. Or, call in using your telephone (new phone numbers) Australia: +61 2 8355 1024 Austria: +43 (0) 7 2088 1403 Canada: +1 (647) 497-9351 Sweden: +46 (0) 852 503 499 United Kingdom: +44 (0) 207 151 1857 United States: +1 (619) 550-0006 Access Code: 753-566-160 Audio PIN: Shown after joining the meeting /Daniel	dkarlsson	Wed Oct 16 16:44:00 Z 2013	post9094	topc6198
Re: IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2013-10-21 20.00 UTC	Hi, for the alpha release discussion I have uploaded some (experimental) documents in the folder given below: The excel files (each with two sheets) contain all SNOMED CT body temperature and heart rate observables (that I could find!) defined according to the discussions so far (where applicable). In total 35+8 observables. https://csfe.aceworkspace.net/sf/docman/do/listDocuments/projects.observable_and_investigation_mod/docman.root.projects.alpha_release.alpha_release_1?_message=1382109258839 /Daniel	dkarlsson	Fri Oct 18 15:18:11 Z 2013	post9108	topc6198

IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2013-11-11 20.00 UTC (collabnet topic id: topc6247)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2013-11-11 20.00 UTC	Dear All, There is a meeting on Monday Nov 11 at 20.00 UTC. The agenda will include: Any current CollabNet discussions Alpha release Clinical observables test Any other business Regards, Daniel Practical details: Meeting ID: 753-566-160 https://www1.gotomeeting.com/join/753566160 Use your microphone and speakers (VoIP) - a headset is recommended. Or, call in using your telephone (new phone numbers) Australia: +61 2 8355 1024 Austria: +43 (0) 7 2088 1403 Canada: +1 (647) 497-9351 Sweden: +46 (0) 852 503 499 United Kingdom: +44 (0) 207 151 1857 United States: +1 (619) 550-0006 Access Code: 753-566-160 Audio PIN: Shown after joining the meeting	dkarlsson	Thu Nov 07 17:52:50 Z 2013	post9197	topc6247
Re: IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2013-11-11 20.00 UTC	An update about the GotoMeeting details: Due to a corporate account upgrade, the GTM details for all meetings have had to be changed. Here is the new number (and dial-in numbers) for the Observables project group meetings. 1. Please join my meeting. https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/457038453 2. Use your microphone and speakers (VoIP) - a headset is recommended. Or, call in using your telephone. Denmark: +45 (0) 89 88 05 39 Australia: +61 2 8355 1039 Austria: +43 (0) 7 2088 2172 Belgium: +32 (0) 42 68 0180 Canada: +1 (647) 497-9379 Finland: +358 (0) 931 58 4588 France: +33 (0) 182 880 934 Germany: +49 (0) 811 8899 6929 Ireland: +353 (0) 19 036 187 Italy: +39 0 294 75 15 37 Netherlands: +31 (0) 108 080 116 New Zealand: +64 (0) 9 801 0294 Norway: +47 21 51 81 86 Spain: +34 911 23 4248 Sweden: +46 (0) 852 500 516 Switzerland: +41 (0) 435 0824 41 United Kingdom: +44 20 3657 6779 United States: +1 (213) 493-0015 Denmark (toll-free): 8090 1927 Israel (toll-free): 1 809 494 273 Singapore (toll-free): 800 101 2999 Access Code: 457-038-453 Audio PIN: Shown after joining the meeting Meeting ID: 457-038-453 GoToMeetingR Online Meetings Made EasyR	dkarlsson	Sun Nov 10 15:47:48 Z 2013	post9200	topc6247

IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting at the IHTSDO Business Meeting this fall? (collabnet topic id: topc7515)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting at the IHTSDO Business Meeting this fall?	Dear Observablers, I've been asked whether the Observables PG would like to have a face-to-face meeting during the IHTSDO Business Meeting in Montevideo, Uruguay from the 25th to the 28th of October 2015. If you could please make an indication if you are planning to go to Uruguay and then if you would likely attend an Observables PG meeting. I need to have replies before 15th of June. Regards, Daniel	dkarlsson	Mon Jun 01 09:40:00 Z 2015	post11260	topc7515

IHTSDO Observable PG: Observables PG meeting Monday 2012-02-27 UTC 20.00 (collabnet topic id: topc4323)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
IHTSDO Observable PG: Observables PG meeting Monday 2012-02-27 UTC 20.00	Dear Everyone, there is an upcoming Observables meeting this Monday. We're going to discuss the 2012 Observables test. I've posted a proposal for a modelers guide: https://csfe.aceworkspace.net/sf/go/doc5359?nav=1 I've listed a few cases/patterns with samples from LOINC and C-NPU. Also, a new version of the test plan will be posted on Friday after I have received comments from the Quality Assurance Committee. Details: Phone: Line 2 GotoMeeting: 753-566-160 Instructions and phone numbers: https://csfe.aceworkspace.net/sf/go/doc4996?nav=1 Regards, Daniel	dkarlsson	Thu Feb 23 15:32:09 Z 2012	post6276	topc4323
Re: IHTSDO Observable PG: Observables PG meeting Monday 2012-02-27 UTC 20.00	Daniel, Is it possible that you could post a .doc or .docx version of the modeler's guide please? I don't have open office on my computer. Thanks Michael	mosborne	Thu Feb 23 22:15:09 Z 2012	post6279	topc4323
Re: IHTSDO Observable PG: Observables PG meeting Monday 2012-02-27 UTC 20.00	Looks like my MSWord 2010 can open odt files...Iwould like to offer my 2 cents worth... 1. Could you please number the case examples for ease of reference? 2. Minor correction to your C-reactive protein example. The pattern example units are "mikrogram/liter" (sic) and the actual model example is mg/L 3. Blood glucose I don't know if it is just my misunderstanding of the model but I would deem Venous Blood as a specimen type, hence would fit in the Inheres-In attribute. Using plasma in this example just muddies the waters. Thanks, Michael	mosborne	Thu Feb 23 23:06:55 Z 2012	post6280	topc4323
Re: IHTSDO Observable PG: Observables PG meeting Monday 2012-02-27 UTC 20.00	Thanks, I've now saved the document as Word 97-2003 and the cases are now numbered, mikrogram --> milligram. The last one is a bit harder. I did want to use the INHERENT LOCATION attribute, thus the Plasma thing. However, I did not find a LOINC code for this.	dkarlsson	Mon Feb 27 19:54:27 Z 2012	post6295	topc4323
Re: IHTSDO Observable PG: Observables PG meeting Monday 2012-02-27 UTC 20.00	A somewhat late note: There are good reasons to clinically differentiate between concentrations of glucose in e.g. 'plasma from venous blood' and 'plasma from capillary blood'. For instance in glucose tolerance tests the large amount of glucose initially given takes a marked time to spread through the whole blood volume. Concentrations may differ wildly in arterial, venous and capillary blood, so the type of blood sampled, containing the plasma in which the concentration is estimated, may be clinically important. http://www.clinchem.org/content/48/6/936.full Regards, Ulla	upetersen	Mon Mar 12 12:37:36 Z 2012	post6353	topc4323

IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2013-04-22 20.00 UTC (collabnet topic id: topc5844)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2013-04-22 20.00 UTC	Dear All, there is a meeting in the Observables project this Monday 2013-04-22 20.00 UTC. Two main things on the agenda: * review of items in the discussion forum * preparation of the laboratory test - review of what's done, and next steps Details: Meeting ID: 753-566-160 https://www1.gotomeeting.com/join/753566160 Use your microphone and speakers (VoIP) - a headset is recommended. Or, call in using your telephone (new phone numbers). Australia: +61 2 8355 1024 Austria: +43 (0) 7 2088 1403 Canada: +1 (647) 497-9351 Sweden: +46 (0) 852 503 499 United Kingdom: +44 (0) 207 151 1857 United States: +1 (619) 550-0006 Access Code: 753-566-160 Audio PIN: Shown after joining the meeting /Daniel	dkarlsson	Thu Apr 18 20:10:01 Z 2013	post8460	topc5844

IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2012-11-26 UTC 20.00 (collabnet topic id: topc5240)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2012-11-26 UTC 20.00	Dear All, it's time for Observables again and I would like to start this post-face-to-face meeting with some planning. There are currently quite some issues on the Content Tracker that relates to the Observables project. I have extracted those (or some of those?) and pasted them in an Excel sheet: https://csfe.aceworkspace.net/sf/go/doc6873?nav=1 Potentially, some of those issues could be discussed within the project and possibly with the support of Consultant terminologists. Details: Phone: Line 2 GotoMeeting: 753-566-160 https://csfe.aceworkspace.net/sf/go/doc6192?nav=1 Regards, Daniel	dkarlsson	Fri Nov 23 08:03:24 Z 2012	post7628	topc5240

IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2012-06-11 UTC 20.00 (collabnet topic id: topc4676)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2012-06-11 UTC 20.00	Dear All, there is yet another upcoming Observables this meeting, the 11th of June at UTC20.00. On the agenda is: * Observables in the procedure hierarchy * Respiration observables examples * "Clinical" observables compared to Lab observables Details: Phone: Line 2 GotoMeeting: 753-566-160 Instructions and phone numbers: https://csfe.aceworkspace.net/sf/go/doc4996?nav=1 Regards, Daniel	dkarlsson	Fri Jun 08 13:18:03 Z 2012	post6806	topc4676

IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2014-02-24 20.00 UTC (collabnet topic id: topc6511)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2014-02-24 20.00 UTC	Dear All, Observables meeting again Monday 214-02-24 20.00 UTC! On the agenda is: Any current CollabNet discussions * Alpha release * Blood pressure, continued still... * Planning for 2014 * Any other business GotoMeeting details for this (and coming) meeting(s): 1. Please join my meeting. https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/457038453 2. Use your microphone and speakers (VoIP) - a headset is recommended. Or, call in using your telephone. Denmark: +45 (0) 89 88 05 39 Australia: +61 2 8355 1039 Austria: +43 (0) 7 2088 2172 Belgium: +32 (0) 42 68 0180 Canada: +1 (647) 497-9379 Finland: +358 (0) 931 58 4588 France: +33 (0) 182 880 934 Germany: +49 (0) 811 8899 6929 Ireland: +353 (0) 19 036 187 Italy: +39 0 294 75 15 37 Netherlands: +31 (0) 108 080 116 New Zealand: +64 (0) 9 801 0294 Norway: +47 21 51 81 86 Spain: +34 911 23 4248 Sweden: +46 (0) 852 500 516 Switzerland: +41 (0) 435 0824 41 United Kingdom: +44 20 3657 6779 United States: +1 (213) 493-0015 Denmark (toll-free): 8090 1927 Israel (toll-free): 1 809 494 273 Singapore (toll-free): 800 101 2999 Access Code: 457-038-453 Audio PIN: Shown after joining the meeting Meeting ID: 457-038-453	dkarlsson	Fri Feb 21 15:52:51 Z 2014	post9640	topc6511

IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2015-05-11 (collabnet topic id: topc7494)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2015-05-11	Dear Everyone, welcome to join the Observables call opn Monday May 11 at 20.00 UTC. The agenda has the following items: * Minutes from last meeting * Review of action items * Any CollabNet discussions * Units modeling SIRS request * Malignancy with gene mutation - Observables/Observation results/Findings * IS ABOUT - what remains to do * Planning ahead The agenda is available with clickable links here: https://csfe.aceworkspace.net/sf/wiki/do/viewPage/projects.observable_and_investigation_mod/wiki/FrontPage?_message=1431254766238#section-FrontPage-NextMeeting Cheers, Daniel The GotoMeeting detalis are: Meeting ID: 201-313-901 https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/201313901 Use your microphone and speakers (VoIP) - a headset is recommended. Or, call in using your telephone. Access Code: 201-313-901. Phone numbers: https://global.gotomeeting.com/201313901/numbersdisplay.html	dkarlsson	Sun May 10 10:50:22 Z 2015	post11200	topc7494

IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2012-09-24 UTC 20.00 (collabnet topic id: topc5013)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2012-09-24 UTC 20.00	Dear All, on the agenda for this meeting is the face-to-face meeting planning. Given the discussion from last meeting I think we have to discuss how to describe the work and the model to the recipients. Details: Phone: Line 2 GotoMeeting: 753-566-160 Instructions and phone numbers: https://csfe.aceworkspace.net/sf/go/doc4996?nav=1 Regards, Daniel	dkarlsson	Fri Sep 21 12:27:56 Z 2012	post7324	topc5013
Re: IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2012-09-24 UTC 20.00	Daniel This link for the TCON instructions and pass-code doesn't work for me. PassCode 54362# I'll use the IHTSDO lines via Skype.	mosborne	Mon Sep 24 11:01:58 Z 2012	post7339	topc5013
Re: IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2012-09-24 UTC 20.00	The new TCON instructions document is here: https://csfe.aceworkspace.net/sf/go/doc6192?nav=1 /Daniel	dkarlsson	Mon Sep 24 11:17:38 Z 2012	post7340	topc5013

IHTSDO Observable PG: Face-to-face meeting in Stockholm GotoMeeting details (collabnet topic id: topc5162)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
IHTSDO Observable PG: Face-to-face meeting in Stockholm GotoMeeting details	Dear All, the GotoMeeting details for following the Stockholm face-to-face meeting from a distance are: Phone: Line 3 GotoMeeting: 655-589-289 Phone numbers etc.: https://csfe.aceworkspace.net/sf/go/doc6192?nav=1 /Daniel	dkarlsson	Sat Oct 27 07:38:40 Z 2012	post7520	topc5162
Re: IHTSDO Observable PG: Face-to-face meeting in Stockholm GotoMeeting details	...and the meeting starts 8.00UTC (or 10.00 CET). /Daniel	dkarlsson	Sat Oct 27 07:40:00 Z 2012	post7521	topc5162
Re: IHTSDO Observable PG: Face-to-face meeting in Stockholm GotoMeeting details	The GotoMeeting ended mysteriously. New number is: 541-551-040 /Daniel	dkarlsson	Sat Oct 27 08:02:15 Z 2012	post7523	topc5162
Re: IHTSDO Observable PG: Face-to-face meeting in Stockholm GotoMeeting details	Daniel, can you post the slides on the collabnet space please? I'm having trouble with the voice part of the teleconference.	mosborne	Sat Oct 27 10:39:06 Z 2012	post7524	topc5162

IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2012-05-14 UTC 20.00 (collabnet topic id: topc4542)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2012-05-14 UTC 20.00	Dear All, there is, as usual, a meeting with the Observables on Monday 14th May at 20.00 UTC. Details below. On the agenda is: * update on lab test * conclusion (tentative, of course) of the pain(ful) discussion of last meeting * overview of kinds of observable * planning of non-lab work Details: Phone: Line 2 GotoMeeting: 753-566-160 Instructions and phone numbers: https://csfe.aceworkspace.net/sf/go/doc4996?nav=1 Regards, Daniel	dkarlsson	Thu May 10 17:41:10 Z 2012	post6624	topc4542

IHTSDO Observable PG: Observable and Investigation Model Project September 26, 2011 meeting details (collabnet topic id: topc3751)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
IHTSDO Observable PG: Observable and Investigation Model Project September 26, 2011 meeting details	Hello Observable and Investigation Model Project group, Here are the coordinates for the upcoming Observables and Investigation Model Project group meeting: Date: September 26, 2011 Time: 20:00 – 21:00 UTC GoTo meeting link: https://www1.gotomeeting.com/join/753566160 GoTo meeting ID: 753-566-160 Conference call: IHTSDO Line #2, Pass Code 54362# Agenda items will include: * functional/activity observables * face2face in Sydney, proposed agenda https://csfe.aceworkspace.net/sf/docman/do/listDocuments/projects.observable_and_investigation_mod/docman.root.project_group_meetings.project_group_meetings_2011.2011_10_11_12 * 2012 planning Dial in codes AUSTRALIA BRISBANE +61 731234424 CANADA TORONTO +1 4168000350 DENMARK COPENHAGEN +45 43396372 LITHUANIA VILNIUS +370 52058946 NETHERLANDS AMSTERDAM +31 202629995 NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND +64 99250305 SWEDEN STOCKHOLM +46 852507971 UNITED KINGDOM BIRMINGHAM +44 1213142062 UNITED STATES CHICAGO +1 3124966622 UNITED STATES LOS ANGELES +1 2133253224 UNITED STATES WASHINGTON +1 2022924256 Softphone users World ext 1601	mstark	Fri Sep 23 15:04:45 Z 2011	post5346	topc3751

IHTSDO Observable PG: Observables meeting today 20.00 UTC (collabnet topic id: topc6717)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
IHTSDO Observable PG: Observables meeting today 20.00 UTC	Dear All, just a quick reminder of the Observables meeting today at 20.00 UTC. On the agenda is: Any current CollabNet discussions * presence observables of various kinds Alpha release * sample observables Planning for 2014 Any other business /Daniel GotoMeeting details: Meeting ID: 457-038-453 https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/457038453 Use your microphone and speakers (VoIP) - a headset is recommended. Or, call in using your telephone. Denmark: +45 (0) 89 88 05 39 Australia: +61 2 8355 1039 Austria: +43 (0) 7 2088 2172 Belgium: +32 (0) 42 68 0180 Canada: +1 (647) 497-9379 Finland: +358 (0) 931 58 4588 France: +33 (0) 182 880 934 Germany: +49 (0) 811 8899 6929 Ireland: +353 (0) 19 036 187 Italy: +39 0 294 75 15 37 Netherlands: +31 (0) 108 080 116 New Zealand: +64 (0) 9 801 0294 Norway: +47 21 51 81 86 Spain: +34 911 23 4248 Sweden: +46 (0) 852 500 516 Switzerland: +41 (0) 435 0824 41 United Kingdom: +44 20 3657 6779 United States: +1 (213) 493-0015 Denmark (toll-free): 8090 1927 Israel (toll-free): 1 809 494 273 Singapore (toll-free): 800 101 2999 Access Code: 457-038-453 Audio PIN: Shown after joining the meeting	dkarlsson	Mon May 12 17:26:07 Z 2014	post9943	topc6717

IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2015-07-27 20.00 UTC (collabnet topic id: topc7574)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2015-07-27 20.00 UTC	Dear All, there is this Observables call on Monday July 27 at 20.00 UTC. The agenda has the following items: * Minutes from last meeting * Review of action items * Any CollabNet discussions * Observables inception/elaboration document * Malignancy with gene mutation - Observables/Observation results/Findings if Jim Campbell is on the call Cheers, Daniel The GotoMeeting detalis are: Meeting ID: 201-313-901 https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/201313901 Use your microphone and speakers (VoIP) - a headset is recommended. Or, call in using your telephone. Access Code: 201-313-901. Phone numbers: https://global.gotomeeting.com/201313901/numbersdisplay.html	dkarlsson	Fri Jul 24 14:53:18 Z 2015	post11365	topc7574

IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2014-01-27 20.00 UTC (collabnet topic id: topc6394)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2014-01-27 20.00 UTC	Dear Everyone, Observables time again, this time on Monday(Tuesday for some) Jan 27 at 20.00 UTC. On the agenda is: Any current CollabNet discussions Alpha release * Blood pressure continued Planning for 2014 Any other business Regards, Daniel GotoMeeting details for this (and coming) meeting(s): 1. Please join my meeting. https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/457038453 2. Use your microphone and speakers (VoIP) - a headset is recommended. Or, call in using your telephone. Denmark: +45 (0) 89 88 05 39 Australia: +61 2 8355 1039 Austria: +43 (0) 7 2088 2172 Belgium: +32 (0) 42 68 0180 Canada: +1 (647) 497-9379 Finland: +358 (0) 931 58 4588 France: +33 (0) 182 880 934 Germany: +49 (0) 811 8899 6929 Ireland: +353 (0) 19 036 187 Italy: +39 0 294 75 15 37 Netherlands: +31 (0) 108 080 116 New Zealand: +64 (0) 9 801 0294 Norway: +47 21 51 81 86 Spain: +34 911 23 4248 Sweden: +46 (0) 852 500 516 Switzerland: +41 (0) 435 0824 41 United Kingdom: +44 20 3657 6779 United States: +1 (213) 493-0015 Denmark (toll-free): 8090 1927 Israel (toll-free): 1 809 494 273 Singapore (toll-free): 800 101 2999 Access Code: 457-038-453 Audio PIN: Shown after joining the meeting Meeting ID: 457-038-453 GoToMeetingR Online Meetings Made EasyR	dkarlsson	Thu Jan 23 22:17:00 Z 2014	post9458	topc6394

IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2015-03-09 20.00 UTC (collabnet topic id: topc7416)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2015-03-09 20.00 UTC	Dear All, there is again an Observables meeting on Monday March 9 at 20.00 UTC. Note that DST status might have changed, see this link to be absolutely sure: http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?iso=20150309T2000 We as a group have been asked to review the Observables inception/elaboration document written by Kent. I made a folder with the documents a short slide set with some issues for discussion. https://csfe.aceworkspace.net/sf/docman/do/listDocuments/projects.observable_and_investigation_mod/docman.root.projects.observables_document_review On the agenda is: Minutes from last meeting Review of action items Any CollabNet discussions Review of observables documents IS ABOUT Impression observables discussion Cheers, Daniel New GotoMeeting/telephone details as of 2015-01-13. The detalis are: Meeting ID: 201-313-901 https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/201313901 Use your microphone and speakers (VoIP) - a headset is recommended. Or, call in using your telephone. Access Code: 201-313-901 More phone numbers: https://global.gotomeeting.com/201313901/numbersdisplay.html	dkarlsson	Fri Mar 06 12:31:01 Z 2015	post11038	topc7416

IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2012-08-13 UTC 20.00 (collabnet topic id: topc4905)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2012-08-13 UTC 20.00	Dear All, the upcoming Observables meeting will be chaired by Michael Osborne as Daniel is away on vacation. The agenda will include: * reports * discussion on calculations vs. current model with examples Details: Phone: Line 2 GotoMeeting: 753-566-160 Instructions and phone numbers: https://csfe.aceworkspace.net/sf/go/doc4996?nav=1 Regards, Daniel	dkarlsson	Tue Aug 07 10:08:26 Z 2012	post7140	topc4905
Re: IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2012-08-13 UTC 20.00	As the link to phone lines/gotomeeting info does not work here are more details on connecting in to today's observables meeting. GoTo meeting link: https://www1.gotomeeting.com/join/753566160 GoTo meeting ID: 753-566-160 Conference call: IHTSDO Line #2, Pass Code 54362#	mosborne	Mon Aug 13 12:03:39 Z 2012	post7161	topc4905

IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2014-03-24 (collabnet topic id: topc6575)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2014-03-24	Dear All, there is an Observables meeting planned for Monday 20.00 UTC (DST may be in effect!). On the agenda is: * any collabnet discussions * vital signs overview * 2014 planning * aob /Daniel GotoMeeting details for this (and coming) meeting(s): 1. Please join my meeting. https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/457038453 2. Use your microphone and speakers (VoIP) - a headset is recommended. Or, call in using your telephone. Denmark: +45 (0) 89 88 05 39 Australia: +61 2 8355 1039 Austria: +43 (0) 7 2088 2172 Belgium: +32 (0) 42 68 0180 Canada: +1 (647) 497-9379 Finland: +358 (0) 931 58 4588 France: +33 (0) 182 880 934 Germany: +49 (0) 811 8899 6929 Ireland: +353 (0) 19 036 187 Italy: +39 0 294 75 15 37 Netherlands: +31 (0) 108 080 116 New Zealand: +64 (0) 9 801 0294 Norway: +47 21 51 81 86 Spain: +34 911 23 4248 Sweden: +46 (0) 852 500 516 Switzerland: +41 (0) 435 0824 41 United Kingdom: +44 20 3657 6779 United States: +1 (213) 493-0015 Denmark (toll-free): 8090 1927 Israel (toll-free): 1 809 494 273 Singapore (toll-free): 800 101 2999 Access Code: 457-038-453 Audio PIN: Shown after joining the meeting Meeting ID: 457-038-453	dkarlsson	Sun Mar 23 20:14:05 Z 2014	post9738	topc6575

IHTSDO Observable PG: April meetings (collabnet topic id: topc4373)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
IHTSDO Observable PG: April meetings	Dear all, the April 2012 meetings will be on the 16th and 30th to avoid collisions with Easter Monday and the IHTSDO Copenhagen meetings. Thus the ordinary schedule with meetings on the 2nd and 4th Monday of the month is broken in April. Next meeting is 26th of March 2012. Regards, Daniel	dkarlsson	Thu Mar 15 15:16:39 Z 2012	post6367	topc4373

IHTSDO Observable PG: Minutes 2015-05-25 (collabnet topic id: topc7509)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
IHTSDO Observable PG: Minutes 2015-05-25	Dear Everyone, welcome to join the Observables call opn Monday May 25 at 20.00 UTC. The agenda has the following items: * Minutes from last meeting * Review of action items * Any CollabNet discussions * Observables inception/elaboration document review * Malignancy with gene mutation - Observables/Observation results/Findings * IS ABOUT - lab "presence" observables * Planning ahead The agenda is available with clickable links here: https://csfe.aceworkspace.net/sf/wiki/do/viewPage/projects.observable_and_investigation_mod/wiki/FrontPage?_message=1431254766238#section-FrontPage-NextMeeting Cheers, Daniel The GotoMeeting detalis are: Meeting ID: 201-313-901 https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/201313901 Use your microphone and speakers (VoIP) - a headset is recommended. Or, call in using your telephone. Access Code: 201-313-901. Phone numbers: https://global.gotomeeting.com/201313901/numbersdisplay.html	dkarlsson	Sat May 23 10:01:51 Z 2015	post11244	topc7509
Re: IHTSDO Observable PG: Minutes 2015-05-25	Dear All, I'm having some trouble connecting. Will hopefully be up in a minute. /Daniel	dkarlsson	Mon May 25 20:00:32 Z 2015	post11246	topc7509
Re: IHTSDO Observable PG: Minutes 2015-05-25	Seems like GotoMeeting is having problems. Please, wait for a few minutes while we're working on a solution!	dkarlsson	Mon May 25 20:13:15 Z 2015	post11247	topc7509
Re: IHTSDO Observable PG: Minutes 2015-05-25	Please try this GotoMeeting instead: 966018973	dkarlsson	Mon May 25 20:16:22 Z 2015	post11248	topc7509

Meeting details for Monday 12 Dec 2011 20.00-21.00 UTC (collabnet topic id: topc4095)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
Meeting details for Monday 12 Dec 2011 20.00-21.00 UTC	Dear Observables, an early reminder of the upcoming Observables PG meeting. I'll send a reminder later on as well. On the agenda is: * Further conclusion on the draft observables model, including: - observables, OBI style - any attribute issues, naming etc. * Planning of 2012. The "signifcant" test and non-lab - Proposals for groups of test cases (e.g. 100 most common in X member countries, all property types represented, really really complex cases) - non-lab focus for coming months (choice of ICF, clinical/medical/nursing, etc., trying to identify differences compared to exisiting draft model) This upcoming meeting will most probably be the last of 2011 unless there is a huge demand for a boxing day meeting. Regards, Daniel Phone: Line 2 GotoMeeting: 753-566-160	dkarlsson	Tue Nov 29 10:58:49 Z 2011	post5904	topc4095
Re: IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting details for Monday 12 Dec 2011 20.00-21.00 UTC	Dear Everyone, a friendly reminder of today(night/morning)s meeting. Regards, Daniel	dkarlsson	Mon Dec 12 16:03:40 Z 2011	post6008	topc4095

LabLOINCand__Observables

[LabLOINC--Observables] Impression type LOINC codes and results (collabnet topic id: topc7292)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
[LabLOINC/Observables] Impression type LOINC codes and results	At the last Observables meeting, a question was asked about LOINC codes with the property type IMP (Impression). The attached powerpoint has some examples that may be discussed at the next meeting.	mosborne	Sun Nov 16 23:41:38 Z 2014	post10784	topc7292

[LabLOINC--Observables] LOINC codes with Impression property (collabnet topic id: topc7321)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
[LabLOINC/Observables] LOINC codes with Impression property	Hi, Here is the slide deck presented on December 8 call. I have also attached the list of LOINC codes with impression property and the answer list. Best regards, Farzaneh	fashrafi	Tue Dec 09 14:25:34 Z 2014	post10847	topc7321

Observablesinception--elaborationdocuments__review

Scope limitation (collabnet topic id: topc7435)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
Scope limitation	The following comment is proposed: The richness of the scope gives that one single document/project cannot cover the complete scope, but only aim to give generic guidance. Additional projects will have to provide guidance in specific domains, e.g. for Susceptibility, Vital signs, Functioning, etc.	dkarlsson	Mon Mar 30 07:16:37 Z 2015	post11086	topc7435

Alternative proposal for an Observables framework (collabnet topic id: topc7455)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
Alternative proposal for an Observables framework	I am attaching a document representing an alternative (dub it "Observables scenario B") to the currently floated Observables framework ("Observables scenario A"). I claim that the attached framework has the advantage of avoiding reference to philosophically obscure entities such as "Information(al) entity" and the like and, as a result, nor will it require anything akin to "isAbout." Comments welcome, especially those that compare this framework to the currently accepted/floated one. One particular question is "What it is that scenario A can do that scenario B cannot?" Many thanks, Christian	ccocos	Fri Apr 10 16:04:48 Z 2015	post11114	topc7455
Re: Alternative proposal for an Observables framework	Hi Christian, Thanks for this interesting proposal. I've attached a document with some comments and questions (more questions than comments, actually). Regards, David	dsperzel	Sun Apr 12 02:40:52 Z 2015	post11119	topc7455
Re: Alternative proposal for an Observables framework	Hi Christian A few observations (if I can use that word) about your proposal. These are from the lab perspective. I have not attempted to address observations about functions or processes or the nursing observables which appear to be dispositions. Consider this example from LOINC: Fasting glucose [Moles/volume] in Serum or Plasma talks about a precondition of "12 hr fast" and is the 332nd most commonly used LOINC code according to search.loinc.org. This could be represented in your model as "post 12 hour fasting blood glucose level" measured by "chemical method" in sample "Serum or Plasma" Note, there are also codes for "post 8 hour fasting glucose" and "post 10 hour fasting glucose" If I want to look for all of the concepts with preconditions "fasting" pertaining to serum glucose how do I do that in your model? To stay with the glucose examples...How in your model do I talk about an ordinal scale result e.g. Dipstick Urine Test? If I have a concept "Glucose presence" in sample "Urine" by Method "Dipstick" how do I know which scale to use for the results? it might be "Present/Absent" or it might be "Trace/+/++/+++" All you can say is the result is most likely not a numeric quantity. Similarly for property, and to use a different example: "CD34 cells #/volume" in sample "Blood" it might be useful to aggregate on the property type, in this case "number concentration" I can't see how you would do this in the model you are proposing. Hiding the complexity is warranted in cases where it is too complex to model understandably (e.g. the Estimated Glomerular Filtration Rate calculation), however I think your suggestions are an over-simplification.	mosborne	Sun Apr 12 04:12:00 Z 2015	post11121	topc7455
Re: Alternative proposal for an Observables framework	Thanks Christian, I also have concerns about the reference to information entities, maybe not as much because they are unclear but as they entail the need for second-order logics. The "pure" observables (i.e. without a value given) interpreted as information entities are not about any particular instance but about the type. The different aspects of observation process that we have been discussing are aspects of either the quality or the observation process per se, so in Kent's diagrams we could just as well skip the information entity level and make an observable entity either be defined as 1. an observation procedure M observing quality X, or 2. a quality X observed using procedure M, without losing expressiveness. /Daniel	dkarlsson	Mon Apr 13 12:32:08 Z 2015	post11130	topc7455

Situations (collabnet topic id: topc7458)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
Situations	Slide 4 suggests that “Situation with explicit context” be considered an “information artifact.” This appears to be a change in thinking from an earlier version of the same presentation (dated March 11, 2013), where the attached slide suggests that “Situation” should be a top level category that includes both “situation with explicit context” and “situation with implicit context,” i.e., finding (or “patient life phase”). The idea of having only one hierarchy to represent any kind of situation has a certain appeal, so we might want to investigate the reasons for this apparent change in thinking.	dsperzel	Mon Apr 13 02:41:29 Z 2015	post11126	topc7458
Re: Situations	I believe (for what it's worth!) that Kent's intention was that the word "situation" was to be replaced by "patient life phase" which would be less ambiguous and less associated with existing legacy interpretations. But that's just my interpretation. /Daniel	dkarlsson	Mon Apr 13 11:55:40 Z 2015	post11128	topc7458

Presence--absence (collabnet topic id: topc7441)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
Presence/absence	Proposed comment: There is an ongoing inception document development for presence/absence observables https://csfe.aceworkspace.net/sf/docman/do/listDocuments/projects.observable_and_investigation_mod/docman.root.projects.presence_is_about	dkarlsson	Mon Mar 30 08:38:06 Z 2015	post11093	topc7441
Re: Presence/absence	In response to a request from our VA colleagues, I gave a presentation on April 1 about how the Observables Model that we have been using to model LEGOs relates to the current SNOMED CT concept model. It is an attempt to explain how and why we have used the IS ABOUT attribute to model presence observables, so I thought it might be worth posting in case anyone in the Observables Project Group is interested in taking a look at it.	dsperzel	Sun Apr 12 04:12:08 Z 2015	post11122	topc7441

TOWARDS (collabnet topic id: topc7442)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
TOWARDS	The attribute TOWARDS have been one of the more difficult attributes in the draft Observables model. A possible reason might be that the TOWARDS attribute has been used with multiple meanings attached, at least: * the numerator for relational qualities, e.g. concentration, ratio, proportion (“third element of a relational quality”) * plays a specific role in a disposition * is the realization of a function Propose to have separate attributes for the three meanings.	dkarlsson	Mon Mar 30 09:32:16 Z 2015	post11094	topc7442
Re: TOWARDS	We have said that TOWARDS may be reasonably understandable if used for dispositions (such as a "disposition TOWARDS bleeding"). We have also said "is realized in" or "has realizable" is clearer for functions or abilities (such as "the ability to walk is realized in the process of walking"). The use of TOWARDS for "third element of a relational quality" (as in "Concentration INHERES IN plasma TOWARDS sodium") is the one that seems baffling to many people. There really should be a better attribute name for this usage.	dsperzel	Mon Apr 13 02:18:04 Z 2015	post11125	topc7442

Risk mitigation (collabnet topic id: topc7436)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
Risk mitigation	The following comment is proposed: The risk profile indicates a project with very high risks. However, if the project is broken down into smaller pieces, as described in previous comment, risks might be mitigated. Cf. elefant eating behaviour.	dkarlsson	Mon Mar 30 07:23:40 Z 2015	post11087	topc7436

Definitions missing (collabnet topic id: topc7434)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
Definitions missing	The following comment is proposed: More domain terms need definition, including terms used to define Observables model attributes. Perhaps we need examples of additional terms	dkarlsson	Mon Mar 30 07:12:22 Z 2015	post11085	topc7434
Re: Definitions missing	E.g. Property, Quality, Process, Function	dkarlsson	Mon Mar 30 08:33:56 Z 2015	post11092	topc7434

Review form (collabnet topic id: topc7433)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
Review form	Dear All, the form used for submitting comments is here: https://csfe.aceworkspace.net/sf/go/doc12113?nav=1 I still propose that we use this forum to discuss comments and then update the form afterwards. /Daniel	dkarlsson	Tue Mar 24 07:52:22 Z 2015	post11080	topc7433

Examples of nesting from the LEGO Project (collabnet topic id: topc7445)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
Examples of nesting from the LEGO Project	The LEGO Editor supports nesting, and we have frequently encountered a need to refine a concept that is the value of an IS ABOUT attribute. If this concept is a Clinical finding concept, it can be refined by applying the existing Clinical findings model in a nested manner. Similarly, a Procedure concept that is the value of the IS ABOUT attribute can be refined by applying the existing Procedure model in a nested manner. The attached document shows some examples, as well as some additional comments.	dsperzel	Mon Mar 30 18:47:48 Z 2015	post11098	topc7445

Ontologization (collabnet topic id: topc7438)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
Ontologization	Proposed comment: The “ontologization” of SNOMED CT, i.e. the application of principles and methods from formal ontology in SNOMED CT content development, is ongoing with Observables, Substances, Drugs, Anatomy etc. as examples. However, the development of these projects needs coordination, e.g. when concepts from one project is used for definition in another project. For Observables this holds specifically for the work on Clinical Findings and the proposed replacement of INTERPRETS/HAS INTERPRETATION with Observation results as well as the relationship between the Observables model and Patient Life Phases.	dkarlsson	Mon Mar 30 08:01:46 Z 2015	post11089	topc7438
Re: Ontologization	As noted, coordination among the different “ontologization” efforts is extremely important. For example, an observation may be “about” a “clinical life phase” that includes a condition. Thus, it is impractical to consider observable entities, observation results, observation procedures, “clinical life phases,” and conditions (including their proposed subtypes) in isolation. Identifying the minimum requirements for making the entire SNOMED CT terminology consistent with formal ontologies might be a good approach to coordinating the different “ontologization” efforts. It seems that independent continuants, dependent continuants, and occurrents are the most fundamental distinctions in formal ontologies. If this is the case, we should probably go through the exercise of explicitly stating how the existing and proposed SNOMED CT hierarchies relate to these three basic categories. It may also be worth considering whether “ontologization” would be facilitated by explicitly introducing these “formal ontological entities” into the SNOMED CT terminology itself. Specifically, it might be useful to look at each concept mentioned in the domain or range columns of the SNOMED CT Editorial Guide and the Observables Style Guide, so that we can ask whether any given domain or range concept should be considered an independent continuant, a dependent continuant, or an occurrent. We should probably do this for the proposed hierarchies mentioned in artf231800 as well: conditions (with structure, process, and disposition subtypes), clinical life phases (or clinical situations), and information entities (which include observation results). This simple approach might reveal a number of issues needing further analysis and discussion across different “ontologization” efforts. A couple of examples are: 1. The proposed condition hierarchy would seem to include all three basic ontological categories, since a structure is an independent continuant, a process is an occurrent, and a disposition is a dependent continuant. Thus, it may be desirable to “mix” basic ontological categories in the same SNOMED CT hierarchy. 2. Dependent continuants are currently “scattered” across different hierarchies, which seems confusing. The Observables Style Guide proposes that a new “Property type” concept in the Qualifier value hierarchy would subsume the existing “Property of measurement” concept. “Function,” “Process,” “Activity,” and “Ability to perform function/activity” are all Observable entity concepts. Slide 31 recommends that these be moved into separate hierarchies. Slide 63 says that “abilities” are ontologically “realizables” and appears to suggest that “sure-fire dispositions” are a subtype of “abilities.” Disposition is a major proposed subtype of condition, but the only uses of the word “disposition” in the ontological sense in the current release of SNOMED CT appear to be in a few disorder concepts, such as “Hypersensitivity disposition.” Should all dependent continuants be placed in the same hierarchy? Why or why not?	dsperzel	Sun Apr 12 02:29:33 Z 2015	post11118	topc7438

Nesting (collabnet topic id: topc7437)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
Nesting	Proposed comment: Nesting is an important issue. There are currently two versions of the Observables model, one nested and one flattened. While introducing nesting in SNOMED CT has widespread implications, there is some consensus that nesting will eventually be needed. The difficult question is then what to do in the time until the SNOMED CT infrastructure allows nesting. E.g. an interim solution including a combination of a release of primitive concepts and and expression library could be considered.	dkarlsson	Mon Mar 30 07:46:57 Z 2015	post11088	topc7437

Process observables (collabnet topic id: topc7440)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
Process observables	Proposed comment: There are two alternative representations of process observables, one proposed in Slide 15 and another representing process observables as qualities of the output of a process: \|observable\|:\|is about\|=(quality: … \|inheres in\|=(\|independent continuant\|:\|is output of\|=\|process\|) … The two alternatives should be compared and evaluated.	dkarlsson	Mon Mar 30 08:12:21 Z 2015	post11091	topc7440
Re: Process observables	There are a number of additional questions about process observables that may need clarification: From an ontological standpoint, what is the difference (if any) between an occurrent and a process? “Clinical life phases” and Procedures are both occurrents. If the current “Process (observable entity)” concept becomes the root of a new hierarchy (as Slide 31 apparently suggests), should it subsume “Clinical life phases” and Procedures? Why or why not? It seems that the word “process” can be used in at least three different ways: 1. Something that is observed. There seems to some question among formal ontologists about whether observed processes have qualities or properties that “inhere in” or “characterize” them (as suggested in Slide 15). 2.The means by which an observation is made, i.e., an observation procedure (as depicted in Slides 8, 9, 11, 12, and 13). 3. Something that is done to a patient in the course of providing clinical care. Many items on LEGO data collection forms ask whether a patient has undergone a particular procedure, such as cataract surgery. Dr. Spackman recommended that we use “IS ABOUT Procedure” to model such cases. Is a disease a process (i.e., an occurrent) or is it an independent continuant? Clinicians commonly speak of “the disease process.” The CLINICAL COURSE attribute for the Clinical finding hierarchy suggests that a disease “unfolds in phases over time.” Should we say that a disease “is a” or “has a” pathological process (like inflammation)? How does the idea of a "disease process" fit in with the proposal that "pathological process" is a subtype of "condition?"	dsperzel	Sun Apr 12 04:01:04 Z 2015	post11120	topc7440

Observation results (collabnet topic id: topc7439)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
Observation results	Proposed comment: Observation results brings it's own complexities. Propose to separate out Observation results to a distinct, but related, project.	dkarlsson	Mon Mar 30 08:06:30 Z 2015	post11090	topc7439
Re: Observation results	New proposed commment: Observation results brings it's own complexities. There are currently 20 313 clinical findings which use the INTERPRETS attribute and maybe not all of them fit the Observation results pattern, e.g. 386661006 \| fever (finding) \| seems to refer to a (kind of) condition rather than a result. Propose to separate out Observation results to a distinct, but related, project.	dkarlsson	Mon Mar 30 09:35:10 Z 2015	post11095	topc7439
Re: Observation results	The question of whether “Fever” should be considered an observation result is an interesting one, because it involves relationships among an observable entity (body temperature), the numeric value of an observation result (X degrees Celsius), and a named symptom (fever). We should find a consistent way of addressing cases where a name is applied if the numeric value of an observation result is above or below a certain threshold. Bradycardia and tachycardia are other examples. This issue also seems relevant to named laboratory findings, such as hyperkalemia, hyponatremia, leukopenia, etc. We have said that observation results are information entities and that information entities inhere in the media on which they are recorded (such as paper, a hard disk drive, a flash drive, etc.). Does this mean that observation results are dependent continuants and that have an “inheres in” relationship to concepts in the record artifact hierarchy?	dsperzel	Mon Apr 13 02:06:15 Z 2015	post11124	topc7439

Clinicalobservablestest

Test plan (collabnet topic id: topc5942)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
Test plan	Dear All, I have posted a draft test plan document, borrowing much from the lab test plan. There are some items which needs to be discussed: * Is 261 concepts to much or maybe unnecessarily many as there are many near duplicates? Is it better to have a random sample of these concepts? * Technical details about using the workbench has to be provided. https://csfe.aceworkspace.net/sf/go/doc8444?nav=1 Regards, Daniel	dkarlsson	Fri Jun 14 09:27:11 Z 2013	post8655	topc5942

Test cases (collabnet topic id: topc5932)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
Test cases	Dear All, sorry, but after checking the use cases selected, it seems I wasn't thorough enough. There are 131 descendants of 46680005\|Vital sign (observable entity)\| and 130 descendants of 364708003\|Sample observable (observable entity)\|. Do we need to change our decision in any way? /Daniel	dkarlsson	Tue Jun 11 12:50:05 Z 2013	post8640	topc5932
Re: Test cases	... and the other file! /Daniel	dkarlsson	Tue Jun 11 12:50:29 Z 2013	post8641	topc5932

Testing the observables (collabnet topic id: topc6093)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
Testing the observables	I am having a lot of difficulty doing this because we are working from something that has no definition - in most cases not even a LOINC definition. There is no meta data. If I was doing this for real, I would be asking the requester "How are you measuring X...are you using a ventilator?", "What units of measure e.g. KPa,mmHg etc... lIf there are twelve people doing the test, are we not likely to get 12 different answers because the requirements are too opaque?	mosborne	Thu Aug 29 21:03:36 Z 2013	post8898	topc6093
Re: Testing the observables	Michael, I think that there is a parallel to the discussion going on in Impl SIG right now. The use cases at hand are all from the current release of SNOMED CT, so someone at some time had a requirement which was met by these concepts. However, some of them are very general or unspecific in that much is not given (technique, unit, etc.) and yet some are probably imprecise or vague. With the unspecific ones, I think that they could still be defined and the new model might facilitate further specification at a later stage. With the imprecise ones, make comments in the Excel sheet, provide one (or more) alternative interpretations and we'll discuss together on the next call. Whether we will end up with totally diverging definitions or not is to be one of the more interesting outcomes of this exercise. Thanks for your hard work, Daniel On tor, 2013-08-29 at 14:03 -0700, Michael Osborne (ihtsdo AU) wrote: > I am having a lot of difficulty doing this because we are working from something that has no definition - in most cases not even a LOINC definition. There is no meta data. If I was doing this for real, I would be asking the requester "How are you measuring X...are you using a ventilator?", "What units of measure e.g. KPa,mmHg etc... > lIf there are twelve people doing the test, are we not likely to get 12 different answers because the requirements are too opaque? > _______________________________________________ > Clinical observables test > https://csfe.aceworkspace.net/sf/go/post8898 >	dkarlsson	Fri Aug 30 06:15:55 Z 2013	post8901	topc6093

Generaldiscussions-__observables

Presence and absence and the use of the observation results model - related to but not same as observables model (collabnet topic id: topc5283)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
Presence and absence and the use of the observation results model - related to but not same as observables model	Recent discussions with the VA participants in the observables group have raised the question of how to handle "presence" and "absence" observations. The slides posted at doc6910 provide several examples of how to integrate situations, observation results, and presence-absence kinds of observations. The models are close to usable. The last slide in the set proposes some criteria for selecting among the different models. Those who need to "fish or cut bait" might want to take account of these models as they go out fishing, while some of us sit on the shore and cut bait.	kspackman	Tue Dec 04 01:47:25 Z 2012	post7697	topc5283
Re: Presence and absence and the use of the observation results model - related to but not same as observables model	1. Are these the latest drafts from the observables group or a proposal by the VA group? 2. The presence-absence observables are not self-describing in the expected range of the observation value. I'm not sure why there is a difference between saying that the expected value of a presence-absence observable is restricted to presence-absence and the expected value of measurement such as head circumference restricted to a a dimension like centimeters. 3. How would you model the presence or absence of loss of consciousness by historical report? Is LOC a situation; the slides seem to imply that there is no observable of a situation. Howard	hgoldberg	Tue Dec 04 02:39:22 Z 2012	post7698	topc5283
Re: Presence and absence and the use of the observation results model - related to but not same as observables model	1. This is an updated presentation from the observables group discussions of about 3 years ago. The update was prompted by the questions from the VA, and is at least a partial attempt to answer the questions, but the models are still multiple / draft, and need to be tightened up with some design decisions accompanied by real-world implementation examples. The updates are my own proposed corrections and revisions, based on recent discussions I'm aware of in various forums, including the WHO-IHTSDO Common Ontology Working Group, the SemanticHealthNet project, the update BFO2, etc. They aren't final in any way. 2. I can't say I understand question 2. Maybe the answer is that we're trying to avoid too many different ways of saying "present" or "absent", and constraints are intended to move towards a few inter-transformable representations. (Maybe even one simple way.) 3. I think we need to differentiate all possible information artifacts from (a) observables, and (b) observation results. It is certainly possible to have information artifacts that are about situations; that is one of the main proposals from the SemanticHealthNet work. But I guess it is open to definition whether those are 'observables' or just information artifacts about situations. There are some information artifacts that are about qualities of continuants; some about properties of processes; some about detection of the presence of independent continuants; and some about situations (phases of a patient's life in which a condition is present). I guess we can try to jointly adopt some conventions about which of these should get the label "observable", but if we are too indiscriminate with the word, it won't have a meaning separate from "information artifact".	kspackman	Tue Dec 04 05:48:56 Z 2012	post7700	topc5283

Observables, qualities and conditions (collabnet topic id: topc6815)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
Observables, qualities and conditions	Dear All. with the changes to the concept model for observables and the introduction of observation results, some concepts may become harder (or at least different) to fully define. In the current model, there was no distinction between a condition and information about that condition while this demarcation is enforced in the proposed approach as observables can only be used to define observation results, not conditions. As an example, with the current model, having a main spoken language could be represented as: \|main spoken language (finding)\|: \|interprets\|=\|main spoken language (observable)\|, \|has interpretation\|=\|Swedish language\| With the new approach, conditions cannot be defined in terms of observables, only observation results. But the concept: \|main spoken language (observation result)= (\|main spoken language (observable)\|: \|has value\|=\|Swedish language\|) isn't quite the same. Being a speaker of a language is having a function which is realized when speaking that language. In this sense, having this function isn't in any fundamental way different from having a condition, but there is currently no way of representing a situation where the individual is the bearer of a function. This could of course be added, e.g. \|main spoken language (situation)\|= (\|situation\|: \|has condition\|= (\|function\|: \|has realization\|=\|Swedish speaking (process)\|)) but what advice would be given to users of SNOMED CT to separate the two latter representations out? Regards, Daniel	dkarlsson	Tue Jun 03 09:14:32 Z 2014	post10151	topc6815
Re: Observables, qualities and conditions	And the errata: the first example should be: \|Swedish as main spoken language (clinical finding)= \|main spoken language (finding)\|: \|interprets\|=\|main spoken language (observable)\|, \|has interpretation\|=\|Swedish language\| and the two latter examples should be: \|Swedish as main spoken language (observation result)= (\|main spoken language (observable)\|: \|has value\|=\|Swedish language\|) \|Swedish as main spoken language (situation)\|= (\|situation\|: \|has condition\|= (\|function\|: \|has realization\|=\|Swedish speaking (process)\|))	dkarlsson	Tue Jun 03 09:20:22 Z 2014	post10152	topc6815
Re: Observables, qualities and conditions	Generally speaking, a phrase (I mean a rubric or string) that does not necessarily have to be interpreted as an observation result, should be interpreted as a so-called situation, i.e. a phase of a patient's life during which they are the bearer of some so-called condition (function, disposition, quality, structure) or the agent of some process (to attempt to be closely aligned with BFO). So, in short, choose an entity that is _not_ necessarily an information entity, unless the phrase forces an information entity interpretation. We can work on specifying what kinds of phrases force an information entity interpretation of the phrase.	kspackman	Mon Jun 09 21:15:09 Z 2014	post10164	topc6815

Questions on the observables model 2012-12-03.ppt presentation to be repeated on March 11 (collabnet topic id: topc5741)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
Questions on the "observables model 2012-12-03.ppt" presentation to be repeated on March 11	This is a list of a few questions that came to mind after reviewing the slides.	dsperzel	Sat Mar 09 00:49:44 Z 2013	post8294	topc5741

Another question about enzyme activity...sorry (collabnet topic id: topc5967)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
Another question about enzyme activity...sorry	Dear all A year-or-so ago I posted a question about the possibility of accommodating 'level' as an abstract property type [post6063]. The project group discussed this [doc5262] and produced some slides [doc5216] - thanks. A variation of the same question has now come up in The UK in the form of requests for 'X enzyme activity (procedure)' as specialisations of existing 'X enzyme measurement (procedure) concepts. In previous releases we have, for example, added Renin activity measurement (procedure) as a specialisation of 48908006 \| Renin measurement (procedure) and Measurement of lipase activity (procedure) as a specialisation of 72680000 \| Lipase measurement (procedure). In a small number of international 'enzyme measurement' procedures the word activity is used synonymously (e.g. 10820006 \| Beta lactamase measurement (procedure) and 30481007 \| Pyruvate kinase measurement (procedure). Now it could be argued that either approach (for representing the requestable 'enzyme activity' test) is unsatisfactory, but is there a feeling amongst the group as to the preferred way - explicitly-named subtypes (perhaps modelled with property=catalytic activity) or as synonyms? I'm inclined to think the former, but thought it wise to raise the issue in this group. Kind regards and thanks as ever. Ed	edcheetham	Tue Jul 09 17:24:14 Z 2013	post8698	topc5967
Re: Another question about enzyme activity...sorry	Dear All, I agree with Ed's assessment, creating catalytic activity concepts specializations. However, is "catalytic activity" to be interpreted according to its gold book definition or is it a vague term used for "catalytic activity content", "catalytic activity concentration", "catalytic activity fraction" etc? How would catalytic activity be represented? Catalysis is a process so I guess the "PROCESS AGENT" would be used to specify the enzyme. Comments? http://goldbook.iupac.org/C00881.html /Daniel	dkarlsson	Mon Jul 15 10:34:48 Z 2013	post8712	topc5967
Re: Another question about enzyme activity...sorry	I'm in favor of specifically-named subtypes, and using the Gold book definition of 'catalytic activity'. Classic example from coagulation testing: factor VIII measurement, factor VIII activity measurement, factor VIII antigen measurement. There was a time when most hospital labs did VIII activity measurement only, so they may have used 'factor VIII measurement' for this purpose. When antigen measurement capability came along, they had to decide how to name the different options. Classic example of general-specific and change over time.	kspackman	Mon Jul 15 15:15:57 Z 2013	post8715	topc5967
Re: Another question about enzyme activity...sorry	Thanks both. Very helpful. Kind regards Ed	edcheetham	Fri Jul 19 11:43:40 Z 2013	post8728	topc5967

LEGOs and presence observables (collabnet topic id: topc7402)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
LEGOs and presence observables	I have added some text describing the LEGO project and how presence observables have been modeled to a copy of the draft inception document.	dsperzel	Mon Feb 23 08:53:47 Z 2015	post11003	topc7402
Re: LEGOs and presence observables	Thanks, talk to you tomorrow/tonight. /Daniel On mån, 2015-02-23 at 00:53 -0800, David Sperzel (ihtsdo US) wrote: > I have added some text describing the LEGO project and how presence observables have been modeled to a copy of the draft inception document. > _______________________________________________ > General discussions - observables > https://csfe.aceworkspace.net/sf/go/post11003	dkarlsson	Mon Feb 23 08:55:21 Z 2015	post11004	topc7402

Representation of angles (collabnet topic id: topc5894)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
Representation of angles	In e.g. dentistry, angle observables are needed. However, angles differ from other observables of related entities in that the order of the related entities is insignificant, the angle is the same counted clockwise (from A to B) or counter-clockwise (from B to A). In the case of some other observables of related entities such as ratios, fractions and concentrations, the order is significant and the current Observables model can represent this. Question is then how to represent “unordered” observables. Example: Gonial angle, the angle between the posterior and lower borders of the human lower jaw. Represented in LOINC with the help of a picture! http://s.details.loinc.org/LOINC/60635-0.html?sections=Simple Due to the large number of potential angles, primitive representation might not be a good solution. One proposal could be to use multiple INHERES IN relationships.	dkarlsson	Mon May 20 15:10:14 Z 2013	post8556	topc5894
Re: Representation of angles	It may be worth noting that distances (including lengths) are similar to angles. The distance from point A to point B is equal to the distance from point B to point A. Typically, for distances (and lengths in particular) we would use the INHERES IN relationship type and assume which distance is meant, e.g. the length of the a human is the distance from the top of the head to the lower border of the foot, the patient fully stretched, typically while standing or lying down.	dkarlsson	Tue May 21 08:19:43 Z 2013	post8565	topc5894

observations for CDS (collabnet topic id: topc3021)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
observations for CDS	I'm a site PI in a study on pediatric traumatic brain injury--my group is providing back end CDS service to several sites to recommend when a child is at very low risk for traumatic brain injury, and can forego a CT scan. I've attached the data set we are exchanging, currently a small set of presence-absence findings, but some like duration of LOC, or location and size of a scalp hematoma. In order to represent the observation within the transmission, we are binding a relevant finding in the observation structure. Given the work on the extension of the observable model to clinical observations, I thought it would be useful to share this, and generate some discussion as to how these observables ought to be represented, based on the new model. Regards, Howard	hgoldberg	Mon May 09 15:29:07 Z 2011	post4250	topc3021
Re: observations for CDS	Howard, Looking at the values inthe sample document you posted it appears that incorrect codes are being used in the CDA document Observation.code attribute. As I understand it, SNOMED findings are not approved for use in that attribute, only obeservables (or LOINC codes) as findigns do not have a value associated with them. You could post-coordinate the finding concepts with the value in the Observation.value attribute, but then you would need some obervable concpet in the Observation.code.	jcase	Mon Jul 18 18:12:10 Z 2011	post4792	topc3021

Reporting Genetic observables (collabnet topic id: topc7630)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
Reporting Genetic observables	There has been a lot of discussion in Observables group emails over the last few weeks about how to model DNA mutations/functional variants. I recommend we standardise on one of the LOINC models. This model takes into account questions and answers. In the examples from Jim Campbell and Scott Campbell, the model is to look for a specific mutation and report "Present", e.g. Question:BRAF Gene V600E mutation in melanoma tissue sample Answer:Present This is one way to model it but it makes the left hand side, the question or observation carry the maintenance burden. One disorder alone - cardiofaciocutaneous syndrome has been associated with 48 different variants of the BRAF gene (Source: http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/gene/BRAF) I would think that having these 48 mutations as questions would be a massive job to maintain. The other way to model it is this: Question: BRAF Gene Mutation Analysis (Nominal) Answer: 'V600E' or '1799T-A transversion in exon 15' or 'Val-600-Glu' (depending on the current HGVS nomenclature) And dare I say it - SNOMED doesn't need to control the answers to these, they are already curated in .HGVS and OMIM. There are certainly examples of this style in the 2006 LOINC / SNOMED CT mapping trial: 38918-9 ABCC8 gene Mut Anal Bld/Tissue 48977-3 SGCG gene Mut Anal Bld/Tissue I think it is time to standardise both the way the questions and the answers look in genomic testing, it doesn't make sense to make SNOMED CT or LOINC for that matter the bearer of the burden for keeping up to date with every significant genetic variant.	mosborne	Sun Sep 13 06:19:32 Z 2015	post11474	topc7630
RE: Reporting Genetic observables	I don't disagree with you, Michael. I think that the observable should be precisely as you demonstrated. The burden of gene sequence representation and nomenclature is outside of SNOMED CT scope. The observable should simply ask the question of what type of mutation observed. The answer is the sequence or commonly used nomenclature for the mutation. W. Scott Campbell, MBA, PhD University of Nebraska Medical Center -------- Original message -------- From: "Michael Osborne (ihtsdo AU)" <michael.osborne@mater.org.au> Date: 9/13/2015 1:19 AM (GMT-06:00) To: discuss-observable_and_investigation_mod <discuss-observable_and_investigation_mod@csfe.aceworkspace.net> Cc: "Campbell, James R" <campbell@unmc.edu>, "Campbell, Walter S" <wcampbel@unmc.edu>, dvreeman@regenstrief.org Subject: Reporting Genetic observables There has been a lot of discussion in Observables group emails over the last few weeks about how to model DNA mutations/functional variants. I recommend we standardise on one of the LOINC models. This model takes into account questions and answers. In the examples from Jim Campbell and Scott Campbell, the model is to look for a specific mutation and report "Present", e.g. Question:BRAF Gene V600E mutation in melanoma tissue sample Answer:Present This is one way to model it but it makes the left hand side, the question or observation carry the maintenance burden. One disorder alone - cardiofaciocutaneous syndrome has been associated with 48 different variants of the BRAF gene (Source: http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/gene/BRAF) I would think that having these 48 mutations as questions would be a massive job to maintain. The other way to model it is this: Question: BRAF Gene Mutation Analysis (Nominal) Answer: 'V600E' or '1799T-A transversion in exon 15' or 'Val-600-Glu' (depending on the current HGVS nomenclature) And dare I say it - SNOMED doesn't need to control the answers to these, they are already curated in .HGVS and OMIM. There are certainly examples of this style in the 2006 LOINC / SNOMED CT mapping trial: 38918-9 ABCC8 gene Mut Anal Bld/Tissue 48977-3 SGCG gene Mut Anal Bld/Tissue I think it is time to standardise both the way the questions and the answers look in genomic testing, it doesn't make sense to make SNOMED CT or LOINC for that matter the bearer of the burden for keeping up to date with every significant genetic variant. _______________________________________________ General discussions - observables https://csfe.aceworkspace.net/sf/go/post11474 The information in this e-mail may be privileged and confidential, intended only for the use of the addressee(s) above. Any unauthorized use or disclosure of this information is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail by mistake, please delete it and immediately contact the sender.	wscampbell	Sun Sep 13 12:02:40 Z 2015	post11475	topc7630

Observables for dentistry (collabnet topic id: topc3269)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
Observables for dentistry	I am owrking with the American Dental Association on harmonizing SNODENT with SNOMED CT. In their terminology they have a number of what I consider to be observables about features of the mandible and maxilla. An example is: Edentulous mandibular bone height (observable entity), which is used to determine the type of dental prosthetics that may be used for a patient. There does not seem to be anything of immediate use as a parent in the observables hierarchy, but I think it fits under feature of anatomical entity. Hiowever, there appears the need for anumber of intermediate parents to make this work. I am proposing the following: Endentulous mandibular bone height IS-A Feature of mandible IS-A Feature of bone of Head IS-A Feature of Head (I need this for other head and facial measurements) IS-A Feature of anatomical entity (414236006). Do others have suggestions on the pros and cons of this approach?	jcase	Wed Jul 13 21:56:08 Z 2011	post4705	topc3269
Re: Observables for dentistry	I don't see any cons--concepts seem similar to those already in this hierarchy. Is there a style guide?	hgoldberg	Thu Jul 14 02:20:49 Z 2011	post4714	topc3269
RE: Observables for dentistry	Just the observables document... James T. Case MS, DVM, PhD Health Program Specialist, SNOMED CT National Library of Medicine/NIH Office: 301-594-9152 Cell: 301-412-9287 james.case@mail.nih.gov The National Library of Medicine is part of the National Institutes of Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services -----Original Message----- From: Howard Goldberg (ihtsdo US) [mailto:HGOLDBERG@PARTNERS.ORG] Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2011 7:21 PM To: discuss-observable_and_investigation_mod Subject: Re: Observables for dentistry I don't see any cons--concepts seem similar to those already in this hierarchy. Is there a style guide? _______________________________________________ Observable and investigation model project - general discussion forum General discussions - observables https://csfe.aceworkspace.net/sf/go/post4714	jcase	Thu Jul 14 14:13:16 Z 2011	post4727	topc3269
Re: Observables for dentistry	My main concern is the need to make any 'observable' approach compatible with corresponding findings. The 'feature' (property) in your example is height, which - if numerically represented - is probably distinct from any finding representation, but for other features this distinction may become blurred. Looking through the 'features' organised beneath Feature of anatomical entity (414236006), we have, for example: Appearance Color Consistency Form General appearance Movement Patency Position Sensation I've selected these because they are more likely to take nominal values, and so doing, are more likely to result it observable+value combinations which could also be represented in SNOMED CT as findings/disorders. Using the example of content beneath 300241000 \| Finding of appearance of oral mucosa (finding)), what would be the standard way of documenting "hyperkeratosis of oral mucosa"? The observable approach (364117009 \| Appearance of oral mucosa (observable entity) plus 26996000\|Hyperkeratosis (morphologic abnormality) as a value) is tempting - not least because it would follow the same pattern as many 'numeric' value taking observables, but such an approach (a) is not currently sanctioned by the SNOMED CT concept model and (b) would result in an expression non-comparable with 249409004 \| Hyperkeratosis of oral mucosa (finding). So, before we move to satisfy all new observable requests in the way you outline, we should consider (for those observables intended to take nominal values) whether some requests are better represented as findings (using enumerated primitives or existing concept model patterns), or whether observable value ranges must be extended to accomodate the required values. The former is a nuisance to suppliers - they request data in one form (question + set of answers) and we supply another form (q+a combined) - however this should produce more easily comparable data. The latter is a headache for us and data analysts - even if supplementary value sets are specified for observables of this type, there is no current transformation rule to produce a single analysable representation. Kind regards Ed	edcheetham	Mon Jul 18 14:42:48 Z 2011	post4788	topc3269
Re: Observables for dentistry	Ed, If we take the approach to create findings given a request for an observable intended to take a nominal value, I would be concerned that we're never going to build an adequate catalog of observables for real world use cases. See my previous post in the observable forum (https://csfe.aceworkspace.net/sf/discussion/do/listPosts/projects.observable_and_investigation_mod/discussion.general_discussions_observables.topc3021), where I'm lacking adequate observables to populate a green-CDA-like document to capture observations and results about traumatic brain injury. I'm more concerned at this point to have adequate observables to bind to an info model, and less concerned about making the inference from a obvervable/result pair to an existing finding.I would have thought that extending observable value ranges would have been part and parcel of creating a new observations model. Regards, Howard	hgoldberg	Mon Jul 18 17:48:26 Z 2011	post4790	topc3269
Re: Observables for dentistry	Ed, Concern noted and appreciated. I see your point and currently I am trying to limit the creation of observables where: 1) the answer list is a numeric value 2) the findings (values) are related to a number of characterisitics about the particular feature. This has been one of the issues around the split between observables andf findigns for as long as I can remember. I do not want to go down the road of creating observables for every feature about a particular body location, if possible, but I also do not to create a large set of location specific findings, so the balance is going to be very important to maintain. A general model of how to do this, at least in the dental domain would probably be a good start, so your input is appreciated.	jcase	Mon Jul 18 18:05:05 Z 2011	post4791	topc3269
Re: Observables for dentistry	Thanks Howard. The reason I still entertain an observable-based solution is the stated requirement for SNOMED CT to support the documentation process (often framed as questions and answers - "...to capture observations and results...") as well as the representation of noun-phrase 'states of affairs' (SNOMED's findings & procedures). Whilst not the full extent of the difference, snippets from the PECARN document you posted are a fine example of the 'interface' v. 'reference' terminology distinction: In the 'Loss of consciousness present for 10 seconds' fragment, by associating it with the value 52101004 \| Present (qualifier value), you are using 419045004 \| Loss of consciousness (finding) as an observable [reframing the finding as a question]. In a checklist 'data capture' paradigm this is common practice, but we really do have to be careful to ensure that this can realistically be compared with the same statement asserted using SNOMED's finding+context machinery. It concerns me that we may be "...less concerned about making the inference from a observable/result pair to an existing finding..." - I think this should be one of our major anxieties. I am therefore not in principle opposed to the provision of standard display names for questions and answers, however: (1) if these are also used as the storage/analysis form, they must be comparable with the same statements captured as 'nominalised phrases'. Extending value ranges alone will only make the problem worse - we will also need very tight mechanisms for recovering equivalence - additional knowledge assertions in the data and transformation rules. (2) boundaries should be set regarding what is a valid observable. I think that the 'loss of consciousness' example would not be valid, since (a) (if I recall correctly) presence/absence is not regarded as a property in its own right and (b) it would appear to require a replication of all findings as observables. Kind regards Ed	edcheetham	Tue Jul 19 12:39:57 Z 2011	post4796	topc3269
Re: Observables for dentistry	Don't get me wrong, I would certainly favor creating subsumption relationships between observation/values and findings;I was noting that being complete and exhaustive would likely add significant time to the curation of new observables. By creating new observables without the corresponding subsumption relationships would leave us incomplete but not inconsistent. It's more a matter of prioritizing use cases and resource availability. Just to clarify, what I was looking for with the PECARN snippets were to understand how to use the new observable model to create the observables where we [incorrectly] have inserted finding concepts. Modeling the simple observables we are using like 'Duration of loss of consciousness' or 'Location of scalp hematoma' would seem to be a nice test of the new model for clinical observations. It quickly brings up the question of pre-coordination patterns, e.g., if we have numerous 'Duration X' observables, should these all be precoordinated? I'm curious about the presence / absence property. One of the motivations for the new model is to provide LOINC equivalences, of which there is a class of presence / absence observables, how are we proposing to represent these? Questions like 'Presence of LOC' are fairly common as part of a review of systems. Regards, Howard	hgoldberg	Wed Jul 20 01:23:31 Z 2011	post4800	topc3269

LEGO modeling examples for presence observables (collabnet topic id: topc7417)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
LEGO modeling examples for presence observables	As discussed at the last meeting, I have added some LEGO modeling examples to the data collection form examples in the attached copy of the Inception document. These modeling examples are currently in the form of partial screen shots from the LEGO Editor, but they could be transformed into diagrams if that would be more appropriate for the document.	dsperzel	Mon Mar 09 02:54:05 Z 2015	post11040	topc7417

Presence Observables Revisited (collabnet topic id: topc7008)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
Presence Observables Revisited	We have been asked to provide the US Veterans Administration (VA) with some training on constructing LEGOs using the Observables Model. I thought that developing the training materials might be a good opportunity to solicit comments from the group on how the Observables Model has been used on this project to date. For the benefit of those who may not have seen earlier postings about this project, each LEGO models a "question-answer pair” on a VA clinical data collection form. Each item on a form is assumed to be an observable. The most important element of a LEGO is the discernible, which is intended to be a SNOMED CT expression based on the Observables Model. The value element of a LEGO represents an observation result. The vast majority of LEGOs were modeled as presence observables using the IS ABOUT attribute, as shown on the first tab of the attached spreadsheet. Consequently, this is the modeling pattern that we plan to emphasize in the VA training. The most common attribute values for IS ABOUT were SNOMED CT disorder and procedure concepts. Because the LEGO Editor supports nested relationships, such disorder or procedure concepts were occasionally modified further by applying defining attributes specified in the SNOMED CT User Guide. In previous discussions about presence observables, it was suggested that SNOMED CT concepts used in the LEGO value element be restricted to either 52101004\|Present (qualifier value)\| or 2667000\|Absent (qualifier value)\|. However, we found quite a few cases where more descriptive qualifier value concepts seemed better suited to representing the questions and corresponding allowable answers on VA data collection forms. Examples are shown on the second tab on the attached spreadsheet. Although we used the concepts “Present (qualifier value)” and “Absent (qualifier value)”, it is worth noting that SNOMED CT also contains the concepts 260373001\|Detected (qualifier value)\| and 260415000\|Not detected (qualifier value)\|. These might be preferable to "Present" and "Absent" because they arguably accommodate the possibilities for false positives and false negatives in observations. In particular, using "Not detected" may avoid the issue of construing “Absent" to mean "there exists something that is absent." The third tab of the attached spreadsheet shows the clinical content areas that have been modeled in the LEGO project to date. We have endeavored to follow the principle that "consistency is more important than correctness" in LEGO modeling, because this makes it possible to apply systematic changes in an automated manner as the Observables Model evolves.	dsperzel	Mon Aug 11 00:34:33 Z 2014	post10404	topc7008

Susceptibility observables (collabnet topic id: topc6927)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
Susceptibility observables	Dear All, as part of the Consultant Terminologist Program, I've prepared a draft susceptibility observables inception document. Part of the idea of the content development process is to get input from stakeholders, including the Observables project. Thus, any comments are more than welcome. https://csfe.aceworkspace.net/sf/go/doc10709?nav=1 /Daniel	dkarlsson	Mon Jul 14 21:10:48 Z 2014	post10292	topc6927
Re: Susceptibility observables	Dear All, * re-sending * as part of the Consultant Terminologist Program, I've prepared a draft susceptibility observables inception document. Part of the idea of the content development process is to get input from stakeholders, including the Observables project. Thus, any comments are more than welcome. https://csfe.aceworkspace.net/sf/go/doc10709?nav=1 /Daniel	dkarlsson	Mon Jul 28 21:04:00 Z 2014	post10352	topc6927

Histopathology observables (collabnet topic id: topc7257)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
Histopathology observables	Scott and All, I have uploaded a commented slide deck: https://csfe.aceworkspace.net/sf/go/doc11237?nav=1 I make references to this slide deck on how to represent observables and observation results. https://csfe.aceworkspace.net/sf/go/doc9931?nav=1 /Daniel	dkarlsson	Mon Oct 20 08:46:26 Z 2014	post10726	topc7257

Consistent use of attributes for representing anatomic location (collabnet topic id: topc5826)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
Consistent use of attributes for representing anatomic location	The draft observables materials contain some variation in the names of attributes used to represent anatomic location. The SNOMED CT Style Guide: Observable Entities and Evaluation Procedures (Laboratory) document describes the INHERENT LOCATION and DIRECT SITE attributes. Slide 28 in the March 11 observables presentation suggests that INHERES IN, DIRECT SITE, and INDIRECT SITE should be sub-roles of a more general SITE attribute. In addition, Slide 59 in the presentation uses a HAS LOCATION attribute. If we want to represent the anatomic location of a pressure ulcer or similar lesion (as opposed to the "proxy location" for an observable, which would require presumably using DIRECT SITE), which of the attributes mentioned above would be the best to use consistently? Would the SITE attribute be preferable because it is the most general? Should INHERENT LOCATION be used only when corresponding PROPERTY TYPE and INHERES IN attributes are present?	dsperzel	Thu Apr 11 23:13:15 Z 2013	post8431	topc5826
Re: Consistent use of attributes for representing anatomic location	We need to do some further refining and coordination on this topic, and the whole picture is a bit too complex for this forum. But for reference, the "Scalable representation" paper by Schulz et al is a good reference, and there is a powerpoint at http://user.medunigraz.at/stefan.schulz/presentations/2010_Bioonto_Diseases.pptx that explains more detail. If there is an observable that IS ABOUT a property that INHERES IN a lesion, and the lesion is part of an anatomical structure, then I think PART-OF is actually a better name for the relationship between the lesion and its location than INHERENT LOCATION. But if the quality inheres in an organism or other non-part, then LOCATED-IN is better. And the idea of INHERENT LOCATION is that it could serve either purpose (i.e. the location of the thing that bears the property, regardless of whether the thing is a strict part of, or merely is located in, the anatomical structure).	kspackman	Mon Apr 15 19:44:41 Z 2013	post8442	topc5826
RE: Consistent use of attributes for representing anatomic location	Since INHERENT LOCATION can serve either of the two purposes described below, I think we should continue to use it when modeling and observable that IS ABOUT a quality (PROPERTY TYPE). This leaves the question of how best to represent anatomical location when the value of IS ABOUT is an independent continuant rather than a quality. We have many such examples, particularly when trying to model the location of a pressure ulcer. For "Pressure ulcer on the left heel," we currently have: Wound observable (observable entity) INHERES IN = Pressure ulcer (morphologic abnormality) INHERENT LOCATION = Skin and subcutaneous tissue structure of heel (body structure) Laterality (attribute) = Left (qualifier value) VALUE = Present (qualifier value) Since there is no quality (because we just want to represent the presence or absence of the lesion), the use of INHERES IN and INHERENT LOCATION seems at least somewhat problematic. An alternative representation could be: Wound observable (observable entity) IS ABOUT = Pressure ulcer (morphologic abnormality) SITE / HAS LOCATION / LOCATED IN = Skin and subcutaneous tissue structure of heel (body structure) Laterality (attribute) = Left (qualifier value) VALUE = Present (qualifier value) (It may be worth pointing out that "value" is actually represented in a separate LEGO element rather than in the observables model expression.) If the second representation is preferable to the first, we would like to choose a single attribute name (i.e., SITE, HAS LOCATION, LOCATED IN, or something else) to represent anatomic location so that we can be consistent in modeling this use case. Thanks, --David S. -----Original Message----- From: Kent Spackman (Chief Terminologist) [mailto:ksp@ihtsdo.org] Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 12:45 PM To: discuss-observable_and_investigation_mod Subject: Re: Consistent use of attributes for representing anatomic location We need to do some further refining and coordination on this topic, and the whole picture is a bit too complex for this forum. But for reference, the "Scalable representation" paper by Schulz et al is a good reference, and there is a powerpoint at http://user.medunigraz.at/stefan.schulz/presentations/2010_Bioonto_Diseases.pptx that explains more detail. If there is an observable that IS ABOUT a property that INHERES IN a lesion, and the lesion is part of an anatomical structure, then I think PART-OF is actually a better name for the relationship between the lesion and its location than INHERENT LOCATION. But if the quality inheres in an organism or other non-part, then LOCATED-IN is better. And the idea of INHERENT LOCATION is that it could serve either purpose (i.e. the location of the thing that bears the property, regardless of whether the thing is a strict part of, or merely is located in, the anatomical structure). _______________________________________________ General discussions - observables https://csfe.aceworkspace.net/sf/go/post8442	dsperzel	Wed Apr 17 19:07:48 Z 2013	post8456	topc5826
Re: Consistent use of attributes for representing anatomic location	I believe that the name "INHERENT LOCATION" is due to (and maybe necessary because of) the lack of nesting in definitions. It means "the thing that the other thing that the quality inheres in, is a part of" /Daniel	dkarlsson	Mon Apr 22 12:28:58 Z 2013	post8470	topc5826
Re: RE: Consistent use of attributes for representing anatomic location	David, I believe that the range of the IS ABOUT object property cannot be anything else than a quality (or maybe a specifically dependent continuant to deal with e.g. dispositions but that's another story). So in your case with the presence or absence of ulcers, that would require a "presence" quality, which in turn is an ontological nightmare! In laboratory medicine terminologies concentration property types are used together with value on an ordinal scale with a concentration of zero meaning absent, any other concentration meaning present. And here comes the problem: to fully represent your foot ulcer example we would need second order logic. The observable does not refer to any specific existing ulcer, but to a type, the universal of foot ulcers. It makes sense to say that there is presence or absence in relation to a type, e.g. there is or isn't something that is an instance of the foot ulcer type. A variant of this problem has been discussed earlier in the project and the conclusion was that, in accordance with the Ontology of Biomedical Investigation, an observable should be considered a plan for an observation procedure. From the SNOMED CT perspective, the main issue with presence/absence is the very tricky demarcation and/or dubplication between conditions on the one hand and presence/absence observation results on the other. /Daniel	dkarlsson	Mon Apr 22 12:47:57 Z 2013	post8471	topc5826
RE: RE: Consistent use of attributes for representing anatomic location	Daniel, My understanding from Kent's March 11 presentation (Slide 11, again) is that the presence/absence issue can be "solved" by allowing the range of the IS ABOUT attribute to include independent continuants. When this is the case, the VALUE attribute of the observation result model can be "present," "absent," or "detected." Did I understand that correctly? The problem with most of the LEGO content items is that they do not seem to have an obvious quality, PROPERTY TYPE, or "aspect." This seems to be an important difference between clinical observations and laboratory observations. Most laboratory test results have units, and it's pretty clear that those units must be "measuring" some quality. By the way, we discussed using "Appearance" as a PROPERTY TYPE in an earlier call, but that was rejected as being too vague. It's also my understanding that SNOMED CT represents classes, not individuals. Individuals belonging to these classes typically occur in specific patients at specific times, and must therefore be represented in EMR information models outside of SNOMED CT. One of the goals of the LEGO project is to provide a single code (the LEGO identifier) for "question-answer pairs" on data collection forms. The LEGO XML schema is essentially a simple information model where the discernible element represents a SNOMED CT expression (a class) and the other main elements (value, qualifier, and timing) represent information model data outside of SNOMED CT. So I believe that the LEGO for "Pressure ulcer of the left heel" can be thought of as a class having individuals such as "the pressure ulcer on John Doe's left heel in June 2011" and "the pressure ulcer on Mary Smith's left heel in March 2013." My (possibly erroneous) impression is that the tricky demarcation between conditions and presence/absence observation results can be usefully addressed by saying that an observation result can be "about" a condition. As discussed in our earlier call, multiple LEGOs can be used to represent the observation result that "congestive heart failure" is present (in a particular patient at a particular time), based on "supporting evidence" that includes "peripheral edema." Thanks, --David S. -----Original Message----- From: Daniel Karlsson (ihtsdo SE) [mailto:daniel.karlsson@liu.se] Sent: Monday, April 22, 2013 5:48 AM To: discuss-observable_and_investigation_mod Subject: Re: RE: Consistent use of attributes for representing anatomic location David, I believe that the range of the IS ABOUT object property cannot be anything else than a quality (or maybe a specifically dependent continuant to deal with e.g. dispositions but that's another story). So in your case with the presence or absence of ulcers, that would require a "presence" quality, which in turn is an ontological nightmare! In laboratory medicine terminologies concentration property types are used together with value on an ordinal scale with a concentration of zero meaning absent, any other concentration meaning present. And here comes the problem: to fully represent your foot ulcer example we would need second order logic. The observable does not refer to any specific existing ulcer, but to a type, the universal of foot ulcers. It makes sense to say that there is presence or absence in relation to a type, e.g. there is or isn't something that is an instance of the foot ulcer type. A variant of this problem has been discussed earlier in the project and the conclusion was that, in accordance with the Ontology of Biomedical Investigation, an observable should be considered a plan for an observation procedure. From the SNOMED CT perspective, the main issue with presence/absence is the very tricky demarcation and/or dubplication between conditions on the one hand and presence/absence observation results on the other. /Daniel _______________________________________________ General discussions - observables https://csfe.aceworkspace.net/sf/go/post8471	dsperzel	Mon Apr 22 19:45:35 Z 2013	post8475	topc5826
Re: RE: RE: Consistent use of attributes for representing anatomic location	At least for me an "appearance" property type is fine and not that much different from e.g. temperature, an aggregate property based on the movement of individual molecules. I don't think it is possible nor desirable to avoid "soft", subjective property types like "appearance".	dkarlsson	Tue Apr 23 11:23:44 Z 2013	post8480	topc5826
Re: Consistent use of attributes for representing anatomic location	The desirability of "soft" or subjective property types may be a good topic for further discussion within the group (either at an upcoming meeting or in the forum postings). My recollection is that Kent thought that "appearance" was too vague to be a useful property type. A seemingly related question is whether there is any useful distinction between a "Measurement property" and a more general ³property type² concept. The current draft of the Observables Style Guide says: "In a coming release of SNOMED CT, \|Measurement property\| will become a subtype of a new general concept \|Property type (qualifier value)\|.² On some of our VA calls, Jim case has recommended that we treat every property type as a ³measurement property² because it is difficult to make the distinction consistently and because many ³ordinary² property types can be regarded as measurements. For example, "color" is arguably a "Measurement property² because the perception of different colors is dependent on different (measurable) wavelengths of visible light. Accordingly, we have been adding new property types (such as ³Level of risk²) as children of the SNOMED CT ³Measurement property² concept. Thanks, David S. On 4/23/13 4:23 AM, "Daniel Karlsson (ihtsdo SE)" <daniel.karlsson@liu.se> wrote: > >At least for me an "appearance" property type is fine and not that much >different from e.g. temperature, an aggregate property based on the >movement of individual molecules. I don't think it is possible nor >desirable to avoid "soft", subjective property types like "appearance". >_______________________________________________ >General discussions - observables >https://csfe.aceworkspace.net/sf/go/post8480 >	dsperzel	Mon Apr 29 16:29:03 Z 2013	post8496	topc5826
RE: Consistent use of attributes for representing anatomic location	We should be careful to define the property types, even those that are (purposely) vague. The trouble with "appearance" that I recall is that it was suggested for use as a grab-bag for making all kinds of statements, including those about presence or absence. (After all, if something isn't there, then its "appearance" is absent, is it not?) But you can see that it can get so vague that it is indistinguishable from a blank line, into which you place any adjective, or adjectival phrase, that was preceded by some kind of visual perception on the part of the person doing the recording, as in "I looked and decided <something> was hot/cold/disfigured/ugly/beautiful/scarred/inflamed/infected/purulent/injured/happy/sad/complicated/simple/....". If we want some degree of reusability of the data, I think we need to require just a slight bit more structure to the property type and its values. The word "appearance" might work for some property that is based on visual inspection, but there would need to be some definition to avoid overlap with a separate way of recording the presence/absence of various conditions that necessarily have visually-observed characteristics that could be called "appearance". I'm thinking of rashes, fractures, wounds, etc.	kspackman	Mon Apr 29 19:33:12 Z 2013	post8498	topc5826

Clinical conditions as values of IS ABOUT (collabnet topic id: topc5825)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
Clinical conditions as values of IS ABOUT	Can a clinical condition (like congestive heart failure) be used as the value of the IS ABOUT attribute? Since a clinical condition is defined as "A patient-related body process, disposition, or (patho-)anatomical structure, which is reportable in the context of health records," I imagine the answer to this question is "yes" – but I thought it would be worth checking to be sure.	dsperzel	Thu Apr 11 23:03:38 Z 2013	post8430	topc5825
Re: Clinical conditions as values of IS ABOUT	David, as said in the Process-thread the IS ABOUT object property is not currently used due to the inability to represent nested definitions in RF1&2 (I believe???). Clinical conditions could well be in the range of attributes in the observables model (or not), but that's something we haven't discussed specifically. Do you have examples of "aspects" (I use this word as it seems to be a much less misused word than e.g. property) of conditions? I would suspect that e.g. a risk would not inhere in the condition but in the potential bearer of that condition.	dkarlsson	Mon Apr 22 12:24:50 Z 2013	post8469	topc5825

Findings as values for IS ABOUT (collabnet topic id: topc7340)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
Findings as values for IS ABOUT	Although we have made extensive use of SNOMED CT concepts with trailing (disorder) or (disease) tags as values of the IS ABOUT attribute, we have heretofore attempted to avoid this usage for concepts with trailing (finding) tags. These are clinical findings, such as “Fever,” which are not considered to be specific diseases or disorders. We had been operating under the assumption that such “(finding)”concepts would eventually become Observable entity concepts when the Observables Model is fully implemented in SNOMED CT. Based on comments during the last project group call this assumption appears to be incorrect. If existing “(finding”) concepts are unlikely to be converted to Observable entity concepts in the future, it seems reasonable to use these “(finding)” concepts as values for the IS ABOUT attribute. This question presents an opportunity to clarify the difference between a finding and an observable. A key distinction may be that a finding typically has an interpretation, whereas an observable entity does not. In the current SNOMED CT concept model, the \| INTERPRETS \| attribute applies to Clinical findings and has a range that includes Observable entities. Thus, “body temperature” is an observable but “fever” is a finding. Similarly, “heart rate” is arguably an observable whereas “tachycardia” is a finding. Comments and clarifications from the group would be appreciated.	dsperzel	Fri Jan 02 21:32:32 Z 2015	post10875	topc7340
Re: Findings as values for IS ABOUT	Your understanding of Observables vs. current Clinical findings is, I believe, fully correct for the examples you provide. However, in addition Observables (at least so we believe) need to represent things like "body temperature as measured using oral probe" or debatably "body temperature represented using degrees Celcius". Thus Observables are something more than plain qualities, i.e. the "body temperature" per se. Observables ARE ABOUT something, and this something could be a quality, a feature of a process, function etc. In order to represent the presence/absence use case, i.e. the question "does diabetes exist?" we (kind-of tentatively) decided to allow Observables to be also about Conditions/Clinical findings. Now we probably need to formalize how IS ABOUT is used with Clinical findings (and/or Disorders etc.) /Daniel	dkarlsson	Mon Jan 12 08:39:15 Z 2015	post10894	topc7340
Re: Findings as values for IS ABOUT	Hi Daniel, Thanks for this reply. I’m having trouble connecting to GoToMeeting, both on the computer and on the phone. Did something change or expire in the new year? —David On 1/12/15, 8:39 AM, "Daniel Karlsson (ihtsdo SE)" <daniel.karlsson@liu.se> wrote: > >Your understanding of Observables vs. current Clinical findings is, I >believe, fully correct for the examples you provide. However, in addition >Observables (at least so we believe) need to represent things like "body >temperature as measured using oral probe" or debatably "body temperature >represented using degrees Celcius". Thus Observables are something more >than plain qualities, i.e. the "body temperature" per se. Observables ARE >ABOUT something, and this something could be a quality, a feature of a >process, function etc. In order to represent the presence/absence use >case, i.e. the question "does diabetes exist?" we (kind-of tentatively) >decided to allow Observables to be also about Conditions/Clinical >findings. Now we probably need to formalize how IS ABOUT is used with >Clinical findings (and/or Disorders etc.) >/Daniel >_______________________________________________ >General discussions - observables >https://csfe.aceworkspace.net/sf/go/post10894	dsperzel	Mon Jan 12 20:02:43 Z 2015	post10897	topc7340
Re: Findings as values for IS ABOUT	Hi David, please try https://global.gotomeeting.com/meeting/join/966018973 instead! /Daniel On mån, 2015-01-12 at 20:02 +0000, David Sperzel wrote: > Hi Daniel, > > Thanks for this reply. I’m having trouble connecting to GoToMeeting, both > on the computer and on the phone. > > Did something change or expire in the new year? > > —David > > > > > On 1/12/15, 8:39 AM, "Daniel Karlsson (ihtsdo SE)" > <daniel.karlsson@liu.se> wrote: > > > > >Your understanding of Observables vs. current Clinical findings is, I > >believe, fully correct for the examples you provide. However, in addition > >Observables (at least so we believe) need to represent things like "body > >temperature as measured using oral probe" or debatably "body temperature > >represented using degrees Celcius". Thus Observables are something more > >than plain qualities, i.e. the "body temperature" per se. Observables ARE > >ABOUT something, and this something could be a quality, a feature of a > >process, function etc. In order to represent the presence/absence use > >case, i.e. the question "does diabetes exist?" we (kind-of tentatively) > >decided to allow Observables to be also about Conditions/Clinical > >findings. Now we probably need to formalize how IS ABOUT is used with > >Clinical findings (and/or Disorders etc.) > >/Daniel > >_______________________________________________ > >General discussions - observables > >https://csfe.aceworkspace.net/sf/go/post10894 > > _______________________________________________ > General discussions - observables > https://csfe.aceworkspace.net/sf/go/post10897	dkarlsson	Mon Jan 12 20:17:38 Z 2015	post10900	topc7340

Input required regarding unit of measure (collabnet topic id: topc7490)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
Input required regarding unit of measure	The IHTSDO authoring team has received a couple of SIRS requests that are asking for the creation of separate concepts for mathematically equivalent units of measure. Here are some examples: - SIRS request 400103: "The concept 'Mole/liter (qualifier value)' has several synonyms. Some of these are not correct e.g. 'Millimoles/milliliter'. 'Millimoles/milliliter' should be a separate concept and the Danish NRC has created this in our extension". - SIRS request 400101: "The concept 'Gram/liter (qualifier value)' has several synonyms. Some of these are not correct e.g. 'Micrograms per microlitre'. 'Micrograms per microlitre' should be a seperate concept". We originally rejected these requests on the basis that the pairs are mathematically equivalent. But, here is the answer from the requester: "Conceptually 'Mole/liter' and 'Millimoles/milliliter' are not the same. It is true that a conversion can be made from one to the other, but we cannot pick a single synonym when using the terminology so these concepts must be individual concepts. If your answer from April 14 is the editorial policy, concepts like 'Kilogram', 'Gram', 'Milligram' should all be synonyms - perhaps to 'tonne' :-) If we at the Danish NRC have created some of these concepts in our extension and this is modelled correctly I think this should be lifted into the international edition. If not we need to be informed that our concept is not correct and should be replaced by the concept that you create. Need advice on final correct answer please." While we agree with the requester that "Kilogram" and "Gram" are not equivalent, we consider "Mole/liter" and "Millimoles/milliliter" to be equivalent (at least mathematically, since no conversion is required for the values reported under this pair). Therefore, we forwarded the issue to the IHTSDO editorial panel. The panel's recommendation is as follows: "While there appears to be consensus that there is mathematical equivalence, there appears to be differences in opinion (from input provided to date) on conceptual equivalence. To progress this review forward input will be sort from a Pharmacy perspective (Toni), Laboratory perspective (Farzaneh) and the customer (supporting information for request) to clarify the conceptual equivalence or non equivalence." Any decision regarding the above may affect the aggregation of the results and graphing for the quantitative measurements in lab. Also, unit of measure is one of the attributes in the Observable model. We think that creating separate concepts for mathematically equivalent U of M may result in the creation of duplicate concepts. I would like to discuss this in the next call on a high priority basis: the drug project is looking at the outcome of this discussion for their purposes. Best regards, Farzaneh	fashrafi	Wed May 06 17:57:19 Z 2015	post11190	topc7490
Re: Input required regarding unit of measure	Further clarification regarding use case: - The request is originated by lab. The argument is that for example milligram/milliliter is equal to gram/liter (and is mathematically correct) so it’s the same concept, but people are used to using specific units and there is no doubt as to what to use in all situations. Using synonym won’t work since it won’t show its description when specifying a concept. They think that they might need a method to tag specific synonyms for display in certain situations. In the mean time they will need separate concepts.	fashrafi	Mon May 11 12:43:06 Z 2015	post11206	topc7490
Re: Input required regarding unit of measure	Input from the Observables PG call 2015-05-11 There was general agreement that adding new SNOMED CT concepts with same meaning as existing ones should not be done. From the understanding at the meeting, the issue seems to be an implementation problem and not a semantic issue. Ontologically, units are instances of quantities, e.g. the Paris kg, and thus, there should only be one SNOMED CT concept per such instance. If there are differences in e.g. precision identified by units in some contexts, that could preferably be represented by distinct techniques according to the Observables model. The group does not rule out that other solutions may be needed in other areas of SNOMED CT, such as for drugs.	dkarlsson	Fri May 15 19:40:53 Z 2015	post11218	topc7490

Transitioning to the Observables Model from the current SNOMED CT concept model (collabnet topic id: topc7319)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
Transitioning to the Observables Model from the current SNOMED CT concept model	Some of our colleagues on the US Veterans Administration (VA) LEGO project have asked how the IHTSDO plans to transition into using the Observables Model. They are particularly interested in this question as it relates to submitting requests for new concepts in SNOMED CT. For example, suppose someone at the VA has 10 to 20 new concepts that she wants to submit for requested inclusion in the US Extension of SNOMED CT. In the current concept model, most of these would be “Clinical finding” concepts (with a trailing tag of “finding” rather than “disorder”) and some would be “Situation with explicit context” concepts. In the Observables Model, they would all presumably be “Observable entity” concepts. Any insights on how and when this transition to “Observable entity” concepts might occur would be appreciated. Has the IHTSDO gone through similar transitions in the past?	dsperzel	Mon Dec 08 00:38:51 Z 2014	post10843	topc7319

Modeling assessments and evaluations (collabnet topic id: topc6204)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
Modeling assessments and evaluations	Apelon is starting a new LEGO project for the VA, which has identified seven clinical content areas of interest for the project: • VA health factors related to smoking • ?Suicide prevention intake assessment • ?Patient falls risk assessment • ?Burn pits (open burns of material during the Vietnam war) exposure assessment • ?Separation from military service patient assessments • ?Skin and wound assessment • General clinical evaluation Since five of the items on this list contain the word “assessment” and another contains the word “evaluation,” we would like to start establishing some consistent “modeling patterns” for representing assessments and evaluations in the clinical content areas enumerated above. Interestingly, “Fall risk assessment,” “Suicide risk assessment,” “Skin assessment, ” and “Wound assessment” currently exist in SNOMED CT as procedure concepts. Since these assessment concepts are presently subsumed by the “Evaluation procedure” concept, our starting assumption is that assessments and evaluations should probably be represented as procedures in LEGO models. As you may recall, the core of the LEGO model is a <discernible> element, which is essentially a SNOMED CT expression. The discernible consists of a “head” concept that is typically modified by one or more named relationships (which can be nested to arbitrary levels). In the previous LEGO project, we operated under the assumption that the “head” concept in the discernible should always be an observable entity concept and that the named relationships should be the attributes in the observables model (as specified by the Observables Style Guide and supplemented by your presentation to the group last March). It is worth noting that each LEGO discernible will eventually be processed by the enhanced SNOMED CT classifier being developed by CSIRO. The modeling pattern that we used for procedures was: Observable entity IS ABOUT Procedure. In these cases, the procedure was often a surgical procedure mentioned on the VA data collection form and it was sometimes necessary to create a new observable entity concept for use in the LEGO. A possible alternative modeling pattern might be to make the “head” concept in the LEGO discernible an observation procedure rather than an observable entity. This alternative approach would seem to raise several issues and discussion points about how best to represent observation procedures in the LEGO model: • The March presentation explains that an observation procedure can be distinguished from an observable entity the presence of a METHOD attribute (Slide 7) and it states that the domain of the IS ABOUT attribute includes observation procedures (Slide 11). • The Observables Style Guide notes that “evaluation procedures can be defined by METHOD = evaluation-action in the general case.” I was unable to find an existing “Observation procedure” concept (in the January 2013 release of SNOMED CT), so the intended relationship between an “observation procedure” concept and the existing “Evaluation procedure” concept is a bit unclear. Does the requirement for a METHOD attribute on both observation procedures and evaluation procedure suggest that one of these types subsumes the other? Table 1 in the David Markwell paper that you posted on the discussion forum suggests that observation procedures include both evaluation procedures and laboratory procedures, since it adds the number of concepts in each of these sub-hierarchies to estimate the total number of observation procedures. • The July 2013 SNOMED CT User Guide has a section on “Attributes used to define Evaluation Procedure concepts,” which appear to be based on LOINC “parts.” The March presentation shows how these attributes correspond to (or are replaced by) attributes in the Observables Model (Slide 8). The User Guide also has a section on “Attributes used to define Procedure concepts.” Is it correct to assume that these attributes are available for use in modeling observation procedures? If so, it would seem that making the “head” concept in the LEGO discernible an observation procedure rather than an observable entity offers increased modeling flexibility because more attributes are available for use.	dsperzel	Fri Oct 18 18:20:26 Z 2013	post9109	topc6204
Re: Modeling assessments and evaluations	Thanks David for sharing, I believe you raise an important issue on the use of observables vs. observation procedures. As of now, I don't think there has been any decision from the IHTSDO on this issue. Potentially, this could lead to inconsistent modeling if sometimes an observable is used and sometimes an evaluation procedure without very clear guidelines on when to use which (e.g. procedures only for ordering and observables only for results). It's true that the procedure models often more attributes, but which attributes of the procedure model would you like to use and in what way? /Daniel On fre, 2013-10-18 at 11:20 -0700, David Sperzel (ihtsdo US) wrote: > Apelon is starting a new LEGO project for the VA, which has identified seven clinical content areas of interest for the project: > • VA health factors related to smoking > • ?Suicide prevention intake assessment > • ?Patient falls risk assessment > • ?Burn pits (open burns of material during the Vietnam war) exposure assessment > • ?Separation from military service patient assessments > • ?Skin and wound assessment > • General clinical evaluation > > Since five of the items on this list contain the word “assessment” and another contains the word “evaluation,” we would like to start establishing some consistent “modeling patterns” for representing assessments and evaluations in the clinical content areas enumerated above. Interestingly, “Fall risk assessment,” “Suicide risk assessment,” “Skin assessment, ” and “Wound assessment” currently exist in SNOMED CT as procedure concepts. Since these assessment concepts are presently subsumed by the “Evaluation procedure” concept, our starting assumption is that assessments and evaluations should probably be represented as procedures in LEGO models. > > As you may recall, the core of the LEGO model is a <discernible> element, which is essentially a SNOMED CT expression. The discernible consists of a “head” concept that is typically modified by one or more named relationships (which can be nested to arbitrary levels). In the previous LEGO project, we operated under the assumption that the “head” concept in the discernible should always be an observable entity concept and that the named relationships should be the attributes in the observables model (as specified by the Observables Style Guide and supplemented by your presentation to the group last March). It is worth noting that each LEGO discernible will eventually be processed by the enhanced SNOMED CT classifier being developed by CSIRO. > > The modeling pattern that we used for procedures was: Observable entity IS ABOUT Procedure. In these cases, the procedure was often a surgical procedure mentioned on the VA data collection form and it was sometimes necessary to create a new observable entity concept for use in the LEGO. > > A possible alternative modeling pattern might be to make the “head” concept in the LEGO discernible an observation procedure rather than an observable entity. This alternative approach would seem to raise several issues and discussion points about how best to represent observation procedures in the LEGO model: > • The March presentation explains that an observation procedure can be distinguished from an observable entity the presence of a METHOD attribute (Slide 7) and it states that the domain of the IS ABOUT attribute includes observation procedures (Slide 11). > • The Observables Style Guide notes that “evaluation procedures can be defined by METHOD = evaluation-action in the general case.” I was unable to find an existing “Observation procedure” concept (in the January 2013 release of SNOMED CT), so the intended relationship between an “observation procedure” concept and the existing “Evaluation procedure” concept is a bit unclear. Does the requirement for a METHOD attribute on both observation procedures and evaluation procedure suggest that one of these types subsumes the other? Table 1 in the David Markwell paper that you posted on the discussion forum suggests that observation procedures include both evaluation procedures and laboratory procedures, since it adds the number of concepts in each of these sub-hierarchies to estimate the total number of observation procedures. > • The July 2013 SNOMED CT User Guide has a section on “Attributes used to define Evaluation Procedure concepts,” which appear to be based on LOINC “parts.” The March presentation shows how these attributes correspond to (or are replaced by) attributes in the Observables Model (Slide 8). The User Guide also has a section on “Attributes used to define Procedure concepts.” Is it correct to assume that these attributes are available for use in modeling observation procedures? If so, it would seem that making the “head” concept in the LEGO discernible an observation procedure rather than an observable entity offers increased modeling flexibility because more attributes are available for use. > _______________________________________________ > General discussions - observables > https://csfe.aceworkspace.net/sf/go/post9109	dkarlsson	Fri Oct 18 21:21:49 Z 2013	post9110	topc6204
RE: Modeling assessments and evaluations	Hi Daniel, We have not yet received the new data collection forms from the VA, so it's a little difficult to say which attributes from the procedure model we might want to use. In previous efforts to construct complex SNOMED CT expressions, I've often found the HAS FOCUS attribute in the procedure model to be quite useful because it makes it possible to connect a procedure concept to a clinical finding concept or to another procedure concept. In any event, I think a group discussion could be helpful in clarifying some questions about the expected evolution of SNOMED CT: · My understanding is that use of the METHOD attribute is the only way in which an observation procedure concept differs from an observable entity concept. Nevertheless, observation procedures will presumably reside in the Procedure hierarchy. Is that correct? · If so, wouldn’t that mean that any attributes available for use in defining procedure concepts could also be used in defining observation procedure concepts? · What is the difference between evaluation procedures and observation procedures? Do observation procedures include both laboratory procedures and clinical (i.e., non-laboratory) procedures? · Is it likely that SNOMED CT will continue to treat assessments as procedures? Thanks, David -----Original Message----- From: Daniel Karlsson [mailto:daniel.karlsson@liu.se] Sent: Friday, October 18, 2013 2:22 PM To: discuss-observable_and_investigation_mod@csfe.aceworkspace.net Subject: Re: Modeling assessments and evaluations Thanks David for sharing, I believe you raise an important issue on the use of observables vs. observation procedures. As of now, I don't think there has been any decision from the IHTSDO on this issue. Potentially, this could lead to inconsistent modeling if sometimes an observable is used and sometimes an evaluation procedure without very clear guidelines on when to use which (e.g. procedures only for ordering and observables only for results). It's true that the procedure models often more attributes, but which attributes of the procedure model would you like to use and in what way? /Daniel On fre, 2013-10-18 at 11:20 -0700, David Sperzel (ihtsdo US) wrote: > Apelon is starting a new LEGO project for the VA, which has identified seven clinical content areas of interest for the project: > • VA health factors related to smoking > • ?Suicide prevention intake assessment > • ?Patient falls risk assessment > • ?Burn pits (open burns of material during the Vietnam war) exposure assessment > • ?Separation from military service patient assessments > • ?Skin and wound assessment > • General clinical evaluation > > Since five of the items on this list contain the word “assessment” and another contains the word “evaluation,” we would like to start establishing some consistent “modeling patterns” for representing assessments and evaluations in the clinical content areas enumerated above. Interestingly, “Fall risk assessment,” “Suicide risk assessment,” “Skin assessment, ” and “Wound assessment” currently exist in SNOMED CT as procedure concepts. Since these assessment concepts are presently subsumed by the “Evaluation procedure” concept, our starting assumption is that assessments and evaluations should probably be represented as procedures in LEGO models. > > As you may recall, the core of the LEGO model is a <discernible> element, which is essentially a SNOMED CT expression. The discernible consists of a “head” concept that is typically modified by one or more named relationships (which can be nested to arbitrary levels). In the previous LEGO project, we operated under the assumption that the “head” concept in the discernible should always be an observable entity concept and that the named relationships should be the attributes in the observables model (as specified by the Observables Style Guide and supplemented by your presentation to the group last March). It is worth noting that each LEGO discernible will eventually be processed by the enhanced SNOMED CT classifier being developed by CSIRO. > > The modeling pattern that we used for procedures was: Observable entity IS ABOUT Procedure. In these cases, the procedure was often a surgical procedure mentioned on the VA data collection form and it was sometimes necessary to create a new observable entity concept for use in the LEGO. > > A possible alternative modeling pattern might be to make the “head” concept in the LEGO discernible an observation procedure rather than an observable entity. This alternative approach would seem to raise several issues and discussion points about how best to represent observation procedures in the LEGO model: > • The March presentation explains that an observation procedure can be distinguished from an observable entity the presence of a METHOD attribute (Slide 7) and it states that the domain of the IS ABOUT attribute includes observation procedures (Slide 11). > • The Observables Style Guide notes that “evaluation procedures can be defined by METHOD = evaluation-action in the general case.” I was unable to find an existing “Observation procedure” concept (in the January 2013 release of SNOMED CT), so the intended relationship between an “observation procedure” concept and the existing “Evaluation procedure” concept is a bit unclear. Does the requirement for a METHOD attribute on both observation procedures and evaluation procedure suggest that one of these types subsumes the other? Table 1 in the David Markwell paper that you posted on the discussion forum suggests that observation procedures include both evaluation procedures and laboratory procedures, since it adds the number of concepts in each of these sub-hierarchies to estimate the total number of observation procedures. > • The July 2013 SNOMED CT User Guide has a section on “Attributes used to define Evaluation Procedure concepts,” which appear to be based on LOINC “parts.” The March presentation shows how these attributes correspond to (or are replaced by) attributes in the Observables Model (Slide 8). The User Guide also has a section on “Attributes used to define Procedure concepts.” Is it correct to assume that these attributes are available for use in modeling observation procedures? If so, it would seem that making the “head” concept in the LEGO discernible an observation procedure rather than an observable entity offers increased modeling flexibility because more attributes are available for use. > _______________________________________________ > General discussions - observables > https://csfe.aceworkspace.net/sf/go/post9109 _______________________________________________ General discussions - observables https://csfe.aceworkspace.net/sf/go/post9110	dsperzel	Mon Oct 21 15:28:39 Z 2013	post9120	topc6204

Process and Procedure (collabnet topic id: topc5804)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
Process and Procedure	As discussed at the 3/25 meeting, we need to connect a "level-of-risk" observable to its "supporting evidence." For example, we need to represent a "clinical statement" such as "The patient is at high risk of venous thromboembolism because of major orthopedic surgery." The LEGO information model has a feature that allows us to connect two different LEGOs by means of named relationships. Thus, we plan to represent the "level of risk for venous thromboembolism" in one LEGO and the "supporting evidence" for this observable in a separate LEGO. Other examples of "supporting evidence" include "lower extremity arthroplasty" and "spinal cord injury." Since we want each LEGO to describe an observable (or an observation result), this raises the question of how to represent a procedure such as "major orthopedic surgery" using the observables model. Is a procedure a kind of a process? If so, is it expected that the current procedure hierarchy will be moved into a top-level "Process" hierarchy? Given the expectation that "Activity" will be a subconcept of "Process," will the distinction be that an activity differs from a process in that an activity has a "human actor?" In that case, would surgical procedures become subconcepts of "Activity?" At this point, the most straightforward approach would seem to involve creating a new "Major orthopedic surgery (process)" concept and modeling the LEGO as a "Clinical history/examination observable" that IS ABOUT "Major orthopedic surgery (process)." Comments and suggestions will be appreciated.	dsperzel	Wed Apr 03 18:49:15 Z 2013	post8398	topc5804
Re: Process and Procedure	Procedures are definitely kinds of 'processual entity'. The label 'process' is sometimes used as a synonym for the broad ontological category that includes activities and procedures, but sometimes it is used in a more narrow sense. So care is required here, and I would warn against using the word 'process' because of ambiguity. If we use 'processual entity' we can agree that it is about the broad group of occurrents generally. It is possible to have an observable that is about a processual entity. The observables model description should be modified to make that clear. I strongly recommend against adding a new concept like 'major orthopedic surgery (process)' which appears to require a duplication of the procedure hierarchy. There's no need for that. Much better to use the concepts in the procedure hierarchy.	kspackman	Wed Apr 03 18:59:01 Z 2013	post8399	topc5804
RE: Process and Procedure	So "Processual entity" will be a top-level concept that covers the broad group of occurrents generally, and the current Procedure hierarchy will be subsumed by "Processual entity." Since the value of the IS ABOUT attribute in the observables model can be a "Processual entity," we can legitimately use an existing SNOMED CT procedure concept as the value of the IS ABOUT attribute in modeling an observable. Is that right? Thanks, --David S. -----Original Message----- From: Kent Spackman (Chief Terminologist) [mailto:ksp@ihtsdo.org] Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2013 11:59 AM To: discuss-observable_and_investigation_mod Subject: Re: Process and Procedure Procedures are definitely kinds of 'processual entity'. The label 'process' is sometimes used as a synonym for the broad ontological category that includes activities and procedures, but sometimes it is used in a more narrow sense. So care is required here, and I would warn against using the word 'process' because of ambiguity. If we use 'processual entity' we can agree that it is about the broad group of occurrents generally. It is possible to have an observable that is about a processual entity. The observables model description should be modified to make that clear. I strongly recommend against adding a new concept like 'major orthopedic surgery (process)' which appears to require a duplication of the procedure hierarchy. There's no need for that. Much better to use the concepts in the procedure hierarchy. _______________________________________________ General discussions - observables https://csfe.aceworkspace.net/sf/go/post8399	dsperzel	Wed Apr 03 19:54:42 Z 2013	post8400	topc5804
Re: RE: Process and Procedure	Not so fast. We won't necessarily add 'processual entity' as a top level code in SNOMED CT. It is true that according to upper-level ontologies, this is the ontological category of procedures and events and processes; but adding a code at the top level is not something we would do without considering its usefulness. I'm not sure it is that useful. The current draft observables materials suggest that IS ABOUT should allow observation procedures as values. The requirement you appear to have identified is to allow a broader group of procedures, such as operations, also as values of IS ABOUT. That change can be made in the range of IS ABOUT without necessarily adding a top level concept called 'processual entity'.	kspackman	Wed Apr 03 21:52:38 Z 2013	post8402	topc5804
RE: RE: Process and Procedure	Thanks very much for the clarification. We can do our LEGO modeling with the understanding that concepts in the current Procedure hierarchy can be used as values of the IS ABOUT attribute and that this change in the range of the IS ABOUT attribute will eventually be reflected in the draft observables materials. I think I'm beginning to see the evolving relationship between SNOMED CT and formal ontologies a bit more clearly. It seems to me that the intent is to make the upper structure of SNOMED CT consistent with upper-level formal ontologies without necessarily introducing formal ontological language that would be confusing to typical clinical users of SNOMED CT. In other words, if one had a system that relied on formal ontological categories, mapping SNOMED CT hierarchies to those formal ontological categories should make it possible for the system to use SNOMED CT. On the other hand, you do not want to use ontological language (like "Processual entity," "Continuant," "Occurrent," and "Dependent quality") in SNOMED CT because that would probably be incomprehensible to typical clinical users who are not familiar with formal ontologies. Is that more or less the idea? --David S. -----Original Message----- From: Kent Spackman (Chief Terminologist) [mailto:ksp@ihtsdo.org] Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2013 2:53 PM To: discuss-observable_and_investigation_mod Subject: Re: RE: Process and Procedure Not so fast. We won't necessarily add 'processual entity' as a top level code in SNOMED CT. It is true that according to upper-level ontologies, this is the ontological category of procedures and events and processes; but adding a code at the top level is not something we would do without considering its usefulness. I'm not sure it is that useful. The current draft observables materials suggest that IS ABOUT should allow observation procedures as values. The requirement you appear to have identified is to allow a broader group of procedures, such as operations, also as values of IS ABOUT. That change can be made in the range of IS ABOUT without necessarily adding a top level concept called 'processual entity'. _______________________________________________ General discussions - observables https://csfe.aceworkspace.net/sf/go/post8402	dsperzel	Fri Apr 05 02:40:54 Z 2013	post8407	topc5804
Re: RE: RE: Process and Procedure	It's not so much that we don't want to add formal ontological categories. Just that adding them requires passing our three-fold test of URU - (1) U = understandable, (2) R = reproducible, (3) U = useful. You've pointed out a barrier to (1), which could be addressed by clear text definitions and perhaps some examples, plus references to the ontological literature. Achievable but not a slam dunk. I think we would have to test (2), but that is also achievable. The third barrier is usefulness. What could we do with SNOMED CT by adding these top-level codes, that we couldn't do without them? I think it might be possible to suggest uses in the area of interoperation with bio-ontologies such as the gene ontology etc. So that's also do-able. But it hasn't yet been done, and we have some other big tasks in the meantime, just getting SNOMED CT to interoperate with lab and drug terminologies, and so forth.	kspackman	Sat Apr 06 00:25:40 Z 2013	post8410	topc5804
RE: RE: RE: Process and Procedure	Many thanks for the insights. --David S. -----Original Message----- From: Kent Spackman (Chief Terminologist) [mailto:ksp@ihtsdo.org] Sent: Friday, April 05, 2013 5:26 PM To: discuss-observable_and_investigation_mod Subject: Re: RE: RE: Process and Procedure It's not so much that we don't want to add formal ontological categories. Just that adding them requires passing our three-fold test of URU - (1) U = understandable, (2) R = reproducible, (3) U = useful. You've pointed out a barrier to (1), which could be addressed by clear text definitions and perhaps some examples, plus references to the ontological literature. Achievable but not a slam dunk. I think we would have to test (2), but that is also achievable. The third barrier is usefulness. What could we do with SNOMED CT by adding these top-level codes, that we couldn't do without them? I think it might be possible to suggest uses in the area of interoperation with bio-ontologies such as the gene ontology etc. So that's also do-able. But it hasn't yet been done, and we have some other big tasks in the meantime, just getting SNOMED CT to interoperate with lab and drug terminologies, and so forth. _______________________________________________ General discussions - observables https://csfe.aceworkspace.net/sf/go/post8410	dsperzel	Sat Apr 06 21:41:00 Z 2013	post8412	topc5804
Re: RE: Process and Procedure	Dear All, the current draft document does not specify the IS ABOUT object property at all, as the draft describes the flattened version of the observables model. However, the CHARACTERIZES object property is used to define an observable in terms of the process observed (or really the "aspect" as given in the PROPERTY TYPE of the process observed). BFO2 now actually uses the word "process" for a process ;) Then, my question to LEGO is: what aspect of the "major orthopedic surgery" do you want the observable to be about? On easy example could be duration: Observable: propertyType=Duration, characterizes=MajorOrhtopedicSurgery	dkarlsson	Mon Apr 22 12:19:14 Z 2013	post8468	topc5804
RE: RE: Process and Procedure	The LEGO schema and associated editing tool actually do support nested relationships, so that shouldn't prevent us from using IS ABOUT if it is eventually going to be an important attribute in the observables model. Kent's presentation on March 11 identified IS ABOUT as the "main attribute of the observables part of the model" (Slide 11). We can do something like the following to represent “a platelet count of less than 50,000,” if you think the nesting is correct: Assertion Discernible: Hematology observable (observable entity) ? IS ABOUT (attribute) → Conjunction \| PROPERTY TYPE (attribute) \| Count of entities (property) (qualifier value) \| ? INHERES IN (attribute) → Blood (substance) \| ? TOWARD (attribute) → Platelet (cell structure) Qualifier: Interview, history AND/OR physical examination (procedure) Value: (0, 50000) Assertion Component: Is supporting evidence for (link assertion) → 164a43b3-1dd9-4b60-acee-9ef9180a5901 This is one of the few laboratory tests that we have encountered in the LEGO content. Most cases involve “presence” or “absence.” With regard to “Major Orthopedic Surgery,” the form is asking whether the presence of “major orthopedic surgery” supports the observation (result) that the patient is at high risk for VTE. It’s not about the length of time (i.e., the duration) that it took to perform the operation. Presumably, the level of risk for VTE is affected by how recently the orthopedic surgery was performed, but the form does not say anything about that (in contrast to the case of “intracranial hemorrhage within the last 6 months”). Thanks, --David S. -----Original Message----- From: Daniel Karlsson (ihtsdo SE) [mailto:daniel.karlsson@liu.se] Sent: Monday, April 22, 2013 5:19 AM To: discuss-observable_and_investigation_mod Subject: Re: RE: Process and Procedure Dear All, the current draft document does not specify the IS ABOUT object property at all, as the draft describes the flattened version of the observables model. However, the CHARACTERIZES object property is used to define an observable in terms of the process observed (or really the "aspect" as given in the PROPERTY TYPE of the process observed). BFO2 now actually uses the word "process" for a process ;) Then, my question to LEGO is: what aspect of the "major orthopedic surgery" do you want the observable to be about? On easy example could be duration: Observable: propertyType=Duration, characterizes=MajorOrhtopedicSurgery _______________________________________________ General discussions - observables https://csfe.aceworkspace.net/sf/go/post8468	dsperzel	Mon Apr 22 19:43:34 Z 2013	post8474	topc5804

Extract from discussion from SemanticHealthNet (collabnet topic id: topc5893)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
Extract from discussion from SemanticHealthNet	Dear Observables, following is an extract from SemanticHealthNet (.org) in the topic of using universal restrictions for the IS ABOUT relationship type. --------------------------------------------------------- Dear all, in our ontological approach we have proposed the pattern "isAbout only" for linking information entities with clinical concepts. For instance: SuspectedHeartFailure equivalentTo SuspectedDiagnosis and isAbout only HeartFailure (1) The reason for this is that, doing it this way, we can create a link to a clinical concept, e.g. a SNOMED CT concept without the strong implication on the existence of a target entity, which would arise from existential quantification like SuspectedHeartFailure equivalentTo SuspectedDiagnosis and isAbout some HeartFailure (2) (which would be wrong in case the patient has no heart failure). The formula (1) could be rendered in plain English: - suspected heart failure is a suspected diagnosis. In case it is about a disorder that this disorder can only be heart failure. - suspected heart failure is a suspected diagnosis. This diagnosis cannot be about anything that is not a heart failure. - there can be diagnoses of suspected heart failure which do not refer to any individual entity at the side of the patient. If there is a major flaw in this approach, please help us to fix it! Cheers, Stefan --------------------------------------------------------------------------- How do you intend to express ConfirmedDiagnosis and isAbout ?? HeartFailure. If you use some - you now believe there really is heart failure - you make it hard to relate the confirmed and tentative diagnoses. SomeAndOnly? or some and have isAbout functional? You need to spell this out and be careful. If you leave out the "some" you have at least as odd a situation in which there is heart failure but you don't refer to it. Finally, to bolster my contention that universal restrictions can lead to unexpected inferences, consider the attached ontology adapted and simplified from the "movie" example found by Horridge, ( I think in: M. Horridge, B. Parsia, U. Sattler: Computing Explanations for Entailments in Description Logic Based Ontologies. 16th Automated Reasoning Workshop (ARW 2009) Proc. (2009) ) Explain why, when you run any of the OWL-DL classifiers - FaCT, Hermit, or Pellet - "Person" is classified as a kind of "InformationItemAboutCancer". (The original example is real from one of the real ontologies downloaded for the web for analysis during Matthew's research. We've watched logicians including Ian Horrocks and Uli Sattler struggle on the original for several hours before spotting the problem, even with the help of Matthew's justifications. I've reproduced the justification rather than the original ontology. The error in is subtle, although easier to spot in Protege than in raw OWL, even in Manchester syntax) Regards Alan --------------------------------------------------------------------	dkarlsson	Mon May 20 15:03:42 Z 2013	post8555	topc5893

Officially documenting the IS ABOUT attribute (collabnet topic id: topc7318)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
Officially documenting the IS ABOUT attribute	Since we have used the IS ABOUT attribute to represent presence observables in thousands of LEGO models, it would be nice to see this attribute described in the official “Observables Style Guide” documentation. As far as I know, it is currently documented only in some slide presentations that have been given to the Observables Project Group. Are there any plans to revise the “Observables Style Guide” in the near future? If so, could a description of the IS ABOUT attribute be included?	dsperzel	Mon Dec 08 00:35:43 Z 2014	post10842	topc7318

Periwound example (collabnet topic id: topc5569)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
Periwound example	Forwarded from David Sperzel I have attached a brief example that we would like to discuss (in addition to behavior observables) during Monday’s meeting of the Observables Project Group, if time permits. The attached XML file illustrates an attempt to model an item from the VA Pressure Ulcer form: “Induration: Extends into Periwound > 1 cm.” In the part of the file set off by white space (lines 40-59), we have used a nested expression to represent the idea of “Periwound,” since there is no “Periwound (morphologic abnormality)” concept in SNOMED CT. The destination (or value) of the INHERENT LOCATION attribute is an expression intended to convey the idea of “a skin structure surrounding a pressure ulcer.” Although this is arguably a sensible “clinical statement,” it is not strictly compliant with the observables model. We would appreciate the group’s thoughts on the advisability of using such expressions in modeling. The alternative would seem to be creating one or more new concepts for use in the LEGO project and then proposing them as additions to SNOMED CT. Thanks, --David David Sperzel, MD, MS \| Senior Informaticist Apelon, Inc. \| www.apelon.com	dkarlsson	Mon Feb 11 21:14:49 Z 2013	post8076	topc5569

Expression associations and LOINC maps (collabnet topic id: topc6088)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
Expression associations and LOINC maps	Hi All, Just to make you aware there is now a forum for discussing the new "expression associations" over on the I&I discussions page on collabnet. The artefact is topc6087. https://csfe.aceworkspace.net/sf/discussion/do/listPosts/projects.implementation_and_innovation_co/discussion.general_discussions.topc6087 The Expression Associations word document is https://csfe.aceworkspace.net/sf/go/doc8821 Note, you may not have access unless you are a past or present member of the I&I committee, but there is a "Request a role in this project" button on the I&I main page you can click to get access. Cheers, Michael Osborne	mosborne	Wed Aug 28 07:54:58 Z 2013	post8878	topc6088

Goal observables (collabnet topic id: topc7045)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
Goal observables	From Judy W and the Nursing SIG: I received a question from the chair of the Nursing SIG about the possible use of an Observable entity to represent a Goal. I have attached the question.	dkarlsson	Mon Aug 25 16:52:12 Z 2014	post10456	topc7045

Presence - IS ABOUT inception document (collabnet topic id: topc7385)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
Presence - IS ABOUT inception document	Dear All, I've tried to upload the inception document to Google Drive and so far it looks good. I've enable sharing. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1P82pObZ-RTPSJKZ2f3wdZxNFb89s_5sBw4lO2gQSi-g/edit?usp=sharing /Daniel	dkarlsson	Mon Feb 09 21:05:44 Z 2015	post10967	topc7385
Re: Presence - IS ABOUT inception document	Dear All, I saw this inception-elaboration document by Kent (written on Boxing day!) which elaborates on situations, findings, and observation results, all relevant to our "IS ABOUT" discussion. https://csfe.aceworkspace.net/sf/go/doc11649?nav=1 /Daniel	dkarlsson	Thu Feb 12 11:44:52 Z 2015	post10982	topc7385

Modeling pain on motion (collabnet topic id: topc6079)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
Modeling pain on motion	We need to model "pain on motion" for a VA spine data collection form (e.g., "pain occurs at 30 degrees of cervical flexion). Would this be an appropriate use of the PRECONDITION attribute? In other words, should we treat "motion" similarly to how we would treat a challenge in a laboratory test? Alternatively, would it be better to use multiple LEGOs that reference each other? (As you may recall, this is what we did in order to represent "supporting evidence.")	dsperzel	Mon Aug 26 17:56:52 Z 2013	post8864	topc6079
Re: Modeling pain on motion	Hi David, could you clarify please: is it the angle of flexion at which pain occurs you want to represent? Or is the presence of pain at a particular angle? In the first case the PRECONDITION may not work, comparing to the glucose challenge the angle would be the amount of glucose administered, or what do you think? /Daniel	dkarlsson	Mon Aug 26 19:46:00 Z 2013	post8865	topc6079

Pressure (collabnet topic id: topc6145)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
Pressure	Howdy y'all, I have been looking into modeling observables derived from "pressure" (they seem to be quite a few of them). I have had to dig up some of my ol' Physics college books. The main question is, then, what is pressure a quality/observable of? Technically, the Physics answer is that pressure is a scalar macroscopic physical magnitude defined in all points of space. As such, pressure is not a quality of a body, nor is it a quality of a process. Mathematically, it is a scalar function of point and time: p=p(x, t), where x is a point in space, and t is the time parameter. The next question is, then, how do we, nevertheless, represent this in our present SNOMED framework, given that SNOMED does not recognize spatial points as entities (it just is not that fine-grained). One way to go about it is to work with surfaces, such as "the pressure on the inside wall of the superior vena cava," though I am afraid, SNOMED does not reconize such entities either. Tricky. The only "acceptable" answer that I find right now is to take pressure as a characteristic of the process of blood flow through someone's body. I know, it is not very rigorous, but I can't imagine a less offensive answer within the confines of SNOMED at this point in time. Just my $.02 C	ccocos	Mon Sep 23 19:21:22 Z 2013	post9017	topc6145
Re: Pressure	Okay, after our discussion earlier today lemme say for the record that I think that going with "pressure inhers in (a volume of) blood" sounds like an acceptable solution for me, so feel free to disregard the "characterizes the blood flow process" thingie in my previous post. Cheers.	ccocos	Mon Sep 23 21:25:59 Z 2013	post9019	topc6145
Re: Pressure	Here are a few more thoughts about one of the issues we discussed the last time, namely the fact that, for observables such as pressure, the attribute "inheres_in" just does not apply. The term "blood pressure" is quite sneaky in that it might lead one to believe that there is some continuant (namely "blood") in which it might inhere. The fact that BFO recognizes only properties/qualities that attach to continuants also carries part of the blame, in that it leaves out an important class of qualities that attach to spatial points (which are emphatically not continuants). As such, "blood pressure" (the pressure of "blood") is nothing but a covert way to specify the location where pressure has been measured--namely intravenous/arterial (as opposed to, say, intraocular pressure): "blood pressure" is just pressure measured somewhere inside the vascular system. Period. It is not the pressure of some continuant (least of all "blood," or "blood volume," or whatever), however much the BFO Procrustean bed might push us to conclude. In short, I think we should resist the temptation to fill in the "inheres_in" column/cell for properties such as "pressure" and the like, which column/cell should be left empty. Mass, or volume, on the other hand, are indeed global properties/qualities, and they do make sense to be predicated of (inhere_in) continuants.	ccocos	Mon Jan 27 01:36:08 Z 2014	post9464	topc6145

Definition of TOWARDS (collabnet topic id: topc3956)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
Definition of TOWARDS	Hi all Is there a fuller definition for the attribute TOWARDS than the one in the style guide? The current rather enigmatic "...third element..." definition in the style guide works fine for workded examples, but is harder to recast as a stand-alone definition, or as an instrument to test/dissect new candidate observables. The mentions of towards in the Mungall paper "Representing Phenotypes in OWL" to which I am referred from earlier documentation approaches the problem from a firmly DL perspective. Reworking EN 1614's "component" definition ("part of a system") is presumably too narrow, but is a little more understandable (to me, at least). Thanks Ed	edcheetham	Mon Nov 07 16:12:24 Z 2011	post5705	topc3956
Re: Definition of TOWARDS	I've made a wiki page on TOWARD with some available descriptions. https://csfe.aceworkspace.net/sf/wiki/do/viewPage/projects.observable_and_investigation_mod/wiki/Toward	dkarlsson	Mon Nov 14 19:52:55 Z 2011	post5745	topc3956

Naming and modelling of genetic tests (collabnet topic id: topc6701)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
Naming and modelling of genetic tests	Dear Daniel/all We are in the process of adding some UK Extension content to meet an initial phase of requests for genetic tests names (as 'requests'). Many of these are of the ‘test for named gene mutation’ form, and could therefore be accommodated by the pattern used in the project group's worked examples such as: LOINC 38918-9 “ABCC8 gene mutation analysis” decomposing into SNOMED CT as: Property_type = ‘Gene taxon’ Inheres_in = ‘ABCC8 gene’ Technique = ‘Molecular genetic technique’ The only modest variant we anticipate would be a restricted set of test specialisations (locally referred to as 'service levels') which stratify the types of analysis (Single mutation, Targeted mutation, Comprehensive, Linkage & Instability). My impression is that these could be represented by further specialisations of the technique value. Similarly, there are a handful of 'genetics of an infecting organism'-type tests in the initial set. These would appear to correspond to the pattern of the worked examples for NPU16465 & NPU06321, where the organism is named as the value for inheres_in and the technique is 'DNA analysis'. What we also have, but I don't see illustrated in the current set of examples, are a small number of tests which are named in terms of the disease which they are trying to exclude or characterise, such as: Familial hypercholesterolaemia targeted mutation genetic test Glycogen storage diseases comprehensive genetic test Now... It may be said that these are bad names for tests, but I have a feeling that they will be unavoidable for a while (certainly as 'requests') where either the test that is ultimately performed is unknown to the requester, is liable to change, or the tests that are performed are too numerous to name exhaustively. I'm therefore wondering whether this is an aspect of genetic test naming or modelling that has already been debated in the observables group, and/or whether an agreeable solution can be reached. Initially I wondered whether it was possible to extend/torture the value set for 'towards', but this is probably unworkable (dispositions aren't independent continuants). In some ways these sorts of requests are comparable to existing 'screening' tests (beneath 312851005 \| Screening for disorder (procedure)). In which case, might we be able to invoke the procedure role of "has_focus" (in addition to the ‘test for named gene mutation’ pattern above where inheres_in would take a very general value of 'gene')? If so then this would be suitable for 'requests', but may still leave a gap on the 'result/observable' side. Any thoughts you have, or further questions would be welcome. Kind regards Ed	edcheetham	Fri May 02 11:56:40 Z 2014	post9916	topc6701
Re: Naming and modelling of genetic tests	Dear Ed, just an additional question: when you say that dispositions are not independent continuants do you pre-suppose that all "disease tests" will be targeting the existence of dispositions, or should it rather be the existence of conditions (the union of dispositions, pathological structure, and pathological processes)? We have discussed this before related to use cases from VA. Then we decided to use a model where we use an IS ABOUT relation, i.e. that existence/presence is information about a condition. In some LOINC and NPU tests for presence of a substance, the property type Arbitrary concentration is used, e.g. present = concentration above thershold, absent = concentration below threshold. /Daniel On 2014-05-02 04:56, Ed Cheetham (ihtsdo UK) wrote: > Dear Daniel/all > > We are in the process of adding some UK Extension content to meet an initial phase of requests for genetic tests names (as 'requests'). > > Many of these are of the ‘test for named gene mutation’ form, and could therefore be accommodated by the pattern used in the project group's worked examples such as: > LOINC 38918-9 “ABCC8 gene mutation analysis” decomposing into SNOMED CT as: > Property_type = ‘Gene taxon’ > Inheres_in = ‘ABCC8 gene’ > Technique = ‘Molecular genetic technique’ > > The only modest variant we anticipate would be a restricted set of test specialisations (locally referred to as 'service levels') which stratify the types of analysis (Single mutation, Targeted mutation, Comprehensive, Linkage & Instability). My impression is that these could be represented by further specialisations of the technique value. > > Similarly, there are a handful of 'genetics of an infecting organism'-type tests in the initial set. These would appear to correspond to the pattern of the worked examples for NPU16465 & NPU06321, where the organism is named as the value for inheres_in and the technique is 'DNA analysis'. > > What we also have, but I don't see illustrated in the current set of examples, are a small number of tests which are named in terms of the disease which they are trying to exclude or characterise, such as: > > Familial hypercholesterolaemia targeted mutation genetic test > Glycogen storage diseases comprehensive genetic test > > Now... > > It may be said that these are bad names for tests, but I have a feeling that they will be unavoidable for a while (certainly as 'requests') where either the test that is ultimately performed is unknown to the requester, is liable to change, or the tests that are performed are too numerous to name exhaustively. > > I'm therefore wondering whether this is an aspect of genetic test naming or modelling that has already been debated in the observables group, and/or whether an agreeable solution can be reached. > > Initially I wondered whether it was possible to extend/torture the value set for 'towards', but this is probably unworkable (dispositions aren't independent continuants). > > In some ways these sorts of requests are comparable to existing 'screening' tests (beneath 312851005 \| Screening for disorder (procedure)). In which case, might we be able to invoke the procedure role of "has_focus" (in addition to the ‘test for named gene mutation’ pattern above where inheres_in would take a very general value of 'gene')? If so then this would be suitable for 'requests', but may still leave a gap on the 'result/observable' side. > > Any thoughts you have, or further questions would be welcome. > > Kind regards > > Ed > _______________________________________________ > General discussions - observables > https://csfe.aceworkspace.net/sf/go/post9916	dkarlsson	Fri May 02 12:16:49 Z 2014	post9917	topc6701
Re: Naming and modelling of genetic tests	Thanks for this prompt response Daniel - this is helpful. I'm sure I mean the wider 'condition' really - which is much more inclusive ontologically. I've just concentrated on 'dispositions' since these were the kinds of things I had in the examples, and noticed that these wouldn't fit with the range of TOWARDS. I see IS ABOUT used illustratively in the explanatory slides and formally in some earlier owl files, but it's not mentioned in the current draft model. Might this mean that it would need to be introduced (either to complement or over-ride HAS FOCUS) to the published draft - in particular as the latter is a 'flat' model? The work-around for managing presence/absence results is useful background. I don't actually know how some of these 'test for disease' results are reported - but if they do simply restate the test name and take a value of present/absent then maybe the VA example suggests a way of representing them. We may have to deal with the change from a property_type=gene taxon in the request to a property_type=arbitrary concentration in the result. Kind regards Ed	edcheetham	Fri May 02 13:18:20 Z 2014	post9918	topc6701
Re: Naming and modelling of genetic tests	Hi again, to further clarify, we clearly need to distinguish "patient has genetic disposition for X" (is that the same as "patient has gene X-causing-gene"?) from "patient has X". If X is any condition X can also be "genetic disposition for Y". So, if the sought meaning is "patient has gene Z" and a gene is substance (it is according to SNOMED CT) then at least the pattern should be similar to a test for Acebutolol (as an example). /Daniel On 2014-05-02 06:18, Ed Cheetham (ihtsdo UK) wrote: > Thanks for this prompt response Daniel - this is helpful. > > I'm sure I mean the wider 'condition' really - which is much more inclusive ontologically. I've just concentrated on 'dispositions' since these were the kinds of things I had in the examples, and noticed that these wouldn't fit with the range of TOWARDS. > > I see IS ABOUT used illustratively in the explanatory slides and formally in some earlier owl files, but it's not mentioned in the current draft model. Might this mean that it would need to be introduced (either to complement or over-ride HAS FOCUS) to the published draft - in particular as the latter is a 'flat' model? > > The work-around for managing presence/absence results is useful background. I don't actually know how some of these 'test for disease' results are reported - but if they do simply restate the test name and take a value of present/absent then maybe the VA example suggests a way of representing them. We may have to deal with the change from a property_type=gene taxon in the request to a property_type=arbitrary concentration in the result. > > Kind regards > > Ed > _______________________________________________ > General discussions - observables > https://csfe.aceworkspace.net/sf/go/post9918 >	dkarlsson	Fri May 02 13:38:24 Z 2014	post9919	topc6701
Re: Naming and modelling of genetic tests	Thanks Daniel/all [in particular lab test experts] Sorry to drag this one up again. Looking at your last response: (1) what is the acebutolol example you mention? There are a couple of drug patterns (146 - substance concentration of acetazolamide versus 147 - which type of benzodiazepine), but no acebutolol example that I can find. (2) once again this suggests an explicit declaration of the precise gene being tested in the language of both the request and the report. Do project participants believe this will always be the case in the countries/healthcare systems with which they are familiar, or is there any sense that request names such as the two which follow are valid (and therefore need to be supported in an agreed fashion)?: Familial hypercholesterolaemia targeted mutation genetic test Glycogen storage diseases comprehensive genetic test Unless everyone agrees that 'disease naming' test request names of this form will never be used to request genetic tests, it would be helpful to get agreement on how they will be represented. The 'is_about' suggestion from before sounded promising, but I am unclear as to how this would be concretely achieved. Kind regards Ed	edcheetham	Mon May 19 16:13:26 Z 2014	post10096	topc6701
RE: Naming and modelling of genetic tests	Hi Ed, I don't think we can discount the use of disease naming in test names. Certainly this is what we get now...below is a sample of "real world" test names (shortened to fit in the Lab System fields). Genes and disorders are used in equal measure when requesting the tests. But I wonder whether the disorders could be synonyms / interface terms and the Evaluation Procedure concept is the gene name (for single genes). This would be problematic where panels of genes are tested for. Perhaps we could get Molecular Pathologist comment? e.g. Alexis Carter ABCA3 Gene Analysis DNA - ABCC8 / SUR DNA ACAD9 DNA FGFRG Fam HyperAldost Gene Familial Med Fever FORKHEAD BOX G1 DNA - FSHD Phenylal Hydrox Gene DNA - PHOX2B DNA-X-inactivation DNA - ADSL GCK Gene Analysis MNG Gene Sequencing Gestational DNA Test DNA Growth Hormone 1 DNA - GLUD1 DNA - POLG DNA Androgen Rec 1 DNA - APO E Gene Ana Aquaprin-2 Gene Anal PTPN11 Gene Analysis PYGM Gene Analysis RAF1 Gene Analysis DNA Deafness Gene an DNA Deafness Gene DNA-Diabetes insipid Arg Vas Receptor 2 DNA - HFE HFI Gene Analysis DNA HGPRT DNA - Retinoblastoma Dna Rett Syndrome DNA - SCAD SCN1A Gene DNA - SHOX SMN1 Gene SOS1 Gene Analysis Dna Spinocer Ataxia SRD5A2 Gene Testing DNA - BCGA DNA - BCGA DELETIONS HSD17B3 Gene Testing Huntington Gene Anal DNA - KCNJ11 / KIR DNA - LCHAD DNA Hybrid Gene Test Dna Adrenal Hyperplasia INS DNA DNA - BWS CBS DNA Test CFTR Intron 8 Poly T CFTR Sequencing Cystic Fibrosis gene test Charcot Marie Tooth Cholinesterase, gene CLON16 Gene Analysis Lebers Hon DNA Study LHON Gene Analysis DNA - CPHD1 DNA - CPHD2 CPVT Gene Testing MC2R Gene Analysis MC4R Gene Analysis DNA MCAD STUDIES MECP2 GA MECP2 Sequencing MEN1 Genetic Testing DNA - SUCLA2 DNA Cystic Fibrosis DNA DAZ Gene Analys DNA Mitoch Deletions DNA Mitochondrial MB DNA Mitochondrial MLPA MODY 1 Gene Analysis MODY 3 Gene Analysis MODY 5 Gene Analysis Molecular Sequencing MRAP Gene Analysis DNA Mito Array DNA - MTHFR Gene St DNA - SCAD DNA Muscular Dystropy DNA Free Text DNA Hidden Text DNA - MUNC18 DNA Myotonic Dyst GA NAS1 Gene Analysis DNA-Epidermolysis bu NR5A1 Gene Analysis Tuber Sclerosis Gene UBE3A GA UBE3A Sequencing DNA OTC Studies DNA - PCCB Kind regards, Michael Osborne Computer Scientist Pathology Information Systems Team Information & Infrastructure Division Mater Health Services Level 3 Corporate Services Building \|\| Raymond Terrace \|\| South Brisbane \|\| Qld 4101\|\| Australia t: (07) 3163 6364 e: Michael.Osborne@mater.org.au f:(07) 3163 8338 m: 0417 039 334 w: www.mater.org.au Please consider the environment before printing this email -----Original Message----- From: Ed Cheetham (ihtsdo UK) [mailto:ed.cheetham@hscic.gov.uk] Sent: Tuesday, 20 May 2014 2:13 AM To: discuss-observable_and_investigation_mod Subject: Re: Naming and modelling of genetic tests Thanks Daniel/all [in particular lab test experts] Sorry to drag this one up again. Looking at your last response: (1) what is the acebutolol example you mention? There are a couple of drug patterns (146 - substance concentration of acetazolamide versus 147 - which type of benzodiazepine), but no acebutolol example that I can find. (2) once again this suggests an explicit declaration of the precise gene being tested in the language of both the request and the report. Do project participants believe this will always be the case in the countries/healthcare systems with which they are familiar, or is there any sense that request names such as the two which follow are valid (and therefore need to be supported in an agreed fashion)?: Familial hypercholesterolaemia targeted mutation genetic test Glycogen storage diseases comprehensive genetic test Unless everyone agrees that 'disease naming' test request names of this form will never be used to request genetic tests, it would be helpful to get agreement on how they will be represented. The 'is_about' suggestion from before sounded promising, but I am unclear as to how this would be concretely achieved. Kind regards Ed _______________________________________________ General discussions - observables https://csfe.aceworkspace.net/sf/go/post10096 This e-mail, together with any attachments, is confidential and intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you are not the intended recipient or have received this message in error, you are asked to immediately notify the sender and delete this message and any copies of this message from your computer system network and destroy any printed copies of this email. Any form of unauthorised disclosure, modification, distribution, publication or use of this e-mail message is prohibited.	mosborne	Tue May 20 06:22:25 Z 2014	post10099	topc6701
Re: RE: Naming and modelling of genetic tests	Thanks Michael. This is helpful. Digging around yesterday I note that the stance taken by the RCPA (http://genetictesting.rcpa.edu.au/what-are-gene-names), and the names agreed by the HGNC (http://www.genenames.org/) suggest that where there is a tight coupling between a gene and a disorder, then disorder names can be used as synonyms for genes - but "...The HGNC-approved name should be used in all test requests and reports to avoid confusion...". I imagine the various services will decide how strictly to apply this to a functional terminology. Your mention of batteries is closest to my concern. I note in your list (thanks) that there are a number of tests named by disorders/disorder categories which can be associated with multiple genes (Tuberous sclerosis, muscular dystrophy) - I would imagine that the actual tests performed could be against specific named genes ("the clinical picture suggests a new presentation of some kind of muscular dystrophy - we don't know which one..."). Kind regards Ed	edcheetham	Tue May 20 10:53:27 Z 2014	post10101	topc6701
Re: RE: Naming and modelling of genetic tests	Dear Ed, Michael, and All, so my tentative conclusion is that there are (at least) two types of tests: 1. tests with the intent to determine the presence or absence of genetic disposition for a disease, and 2. tests with the intention to determine the presence or absence of specific genes (specific kind of substance). This again raises the issue of dispositions in relation to the genes they supervene on. For there to be a genetic disposition there is necessarily a genetic configuration, i.e. independent continuants with specific qualities. Domain expertise would have to evaluate the implications of statements like: "there is a tight coupling between a gene and a disorder" and "The HGNC-approved name should be used in all test requests and reports to avoid confusion". How tight is tight? What use cases become more problematic as this particular confusion is assumed to be avoided? BTW. The acebutolol example is from NPU: U—Acebutolol; arb.c.(IOC Screen; 0 1) = ? /Daniel	dkarlsson	Thu May 22 12:33:06 Z 2014	post10107	topc6701
Re: Naming and modelling of genetic tests	I have attached a list of outstanding orderable DNA tests that the Australian PITUS Working Group on requesting require, for use in our Observables talk today.	mosborne	Mon Oct 27 07:26:15 Z 2014	post10740	topc6701

Observation result <values> domain (collabnet topic id: topc7545)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
Observation result <values> domain	Dear all I've been looking at the impressive set of materials this project group is generating (thanks for these). One thing that is puzzling me - where the work extends into representing observation results - is what the (coded/nominal) range for the has_value property will be. The slides at https://csfe.aceworkspace.net/sf/go/doc12009?nav=1 illustrate a mixed set of values (++ out of ++++, O157, able, impaired, detected, observed) as well as several examples working through presence/absence. What is not clear is whether there are any proposed limits on the <value> vocabulary. If so, can someone explain the limits, and if not, how will arbitrary distribution of semantics (between the observable 'question' and the has value 'answer' be avoided? Thanks Ed	edcheetham	Thu Jul 02 15:53:21 Z 2015	post11321	topc7545
SV: Observation result <values> domain	Ed, This whole area most probably need more consideration, as you're pointing out. The attribute-value distinction is one of the issues (to which I don't see any imminent solution). The value set, if, when and how we decide to go down that path, would though be similar to the existing clinical finding HAS INTERPRETATION range. /Daniel Skickat från min Sony Xperia™-smartphone ---- Ed Cheetham (ihtsdo UK) skrev ---- Dear all I've been looking at the impressive set of materials this project group is generating (thanks for these). One thing that is puzzling me - where the work extends into representing observation results - is what the (coded/nominal) range for the has_value property will be. The slides at https://csfe.aceworkspace.net/sf/go/doc12009?nav=1 illustrate a mixed set of values (++ out of ++++, O157, able, impaired, detected, observed) as well as several examples working through presence/absence. What is not clear is whether there are any proposed limits on the <value> vocabulary. If so, can someone explain the limits, and if not, how will arbitrary distribution of semantics (between the observable 'question' and the has value 'answer' be avoided? Thanks Ed _______________________________________________ General discussions - observables https://csfe.aceworkspace.net/sf/go/post11321	dkarlsson	Thu Jul 02 22:23:05 Z 2015	post11322	topc7545
Re: SV: Observation result <values> domain	Thanks Daniel The has_interpretation range is an understandable starting point, but doesn't the set of <values> ultimately depend on the set of property_types encountered/employed? I note in the LOINC mapping tech preview data that property_types 'color' and 'type' (organism type and blood group type) have been used, and prior/ongoing work looking at existing SCT observables has identified plenty of qualitative features (site or location, consistency, shape, odour etc.) which would appear to require a much larger set of suitable values. Kind regards Ed	edcheetham	Fri Jul 03 10:45:18 Z 2015	post11323	topc7545

Structure of modelers guide (collabnet topic id: topc5618)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
Structure of modelers guide	Dear All, I've uploaded a proposal for a structure for the modelers guide with two examples (link below). Is this what you would expect from a modelers guide? Anything missing? More examples needed? /Daniel https://csfe.aceworkspace.net/sf/go/doc7372?nav=1	dkarlsson	Sun Feb 17 16:22:35 Z 2013	post8136	topc5618

Data collection form for Venous Thromboembolism from VA project (collabnet topic id: topc5742)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
Data collection form for Venous Thromboembolism from VA project	This is another form for the LEGO project. It raises the issue of how to represent the idea of "risk" with the observables model.	dsperzel	Sat Mar 09 01:25:54 Z 2013	post8295	topc5742
Re: Data collection form for Venous Thromboembolism from VA project	See artf6227 for the project tracker item about "at risk". Work documented there is fairly telegraphic so far, but the ideas behind the existing comments are actually quite mature, and the project is high priority.	kspackman	Sat Mar 09 03:24:40 Z 2013	post8296	topc5742
Re: Data collection form for Venous Thromboembolism from VA project	Thanks Kent, I was just about to look up the status of the 'risk as situation' project, glad to see it has advanced. David, I was unclear of your question. As proposed, risks would not be subsumed by observables. Are you suggesting that there be an object property that would allow a relationship between an observable and a risk? Howard	hgoldberg	Sat Mar 09 04:00:55 Z 2013	post8297	topc5742
Re: Data collection form for Venous Thromboembolism from VA project	Dear All, as I understand the question, VA is looking for a risk assessment outcome observable whereas the artf6227 risk work deals with situations where risks exist. Again, we're facing the QA-style modeling issue which seems to be a requirement for implementers but tricky to give a sustainable solution in SNOMED CT. /Daniel	dkarlsson	Sun Mar 10 09:46:12 Z 2013	post8301	topc5742
RE: Data collection form for Venous Thromboembolism from VA project	Unfortunately, I got a "The page you requested cannot be found" error when I tried to look up artf6227 in the "Jump to ID" field. Do I need to request a change in permissions to have access, or am I doing something wrong? Thanks, --David S. -----Original Message----- From: Kent Spackman (Chief Terminologist) [mailto:ksp@ihtsdo.org] Sent: Friday, March 08, 2013 7:25 PM To: discuss-observable_and_investigation_mod Subject: Re: Data collection form for Venous Thromboembolism from VA project See artf6227 for the project tracker item about "at risk". Work documented there is fairly telegraphic so far, but the ideas behind the existing comments are actually quite mature, and the project is high priority. _______________________________________________ General discussions - observables https://csfe.aceworkspace.net/sf/go/post8296	dsperzel	Mon Mar 11 16:20:44 Z 2013	post8315	topc5742
RE: Data collection form for Venous Thromboembolism from VA project	Howard, My question was in the context of a particular project for the VA. We are trying to use the new observables model to represent the contents of data collection forms as LEGOs ("Lightweight Extensions of Granular Objects"). The VA forms usually have "pick lists," so each LEGO represents a valid "answer" to a "question" on the form. Thus, I wasn't suggesting a change in any proposed subsumption or attribute relationships. We want to use the new observables model consistently for all LEGOs, and I was just raising the question of how to model a form that concerns "risk." Thanks, --David S. -----Original Message----- From: Howard Goldberg (ihtsdo US) [mailto:HGOLDBERG@PARTNERS.ORG] Sent: Friday, March 08, 2013 8:01 PM To: discuss-observable_and_investigation_mod Subject: Re: Data collection form for Venous Thromboembolism from VA project Thanks Kent, I was just about to look up the status of the 'risk as situation' project, glad to see it has advanced. David, I was unclear of your question. As proposed, risks would not be subsumed by observables. Are you suggesting that there be an object property that would allow a relationship between an observable and a risk? Howard _______________________________________________ General discussions - observables https://csfe.aceworkspace.net/sf/go/post8297	dsperzel	Mon Mar 11 16:33:12 Z 2013	post8317	topc5742
Re: RE: Data collection form for Venous Thromboembolism from VA project	David, thanks for the clarification. Looking back at your example form, some of the 'questions' are risk concepts-- 'at {high, intermediate, low} risk of VTE', and some the 'answers' to the overall VTE assesment as well. The risk-as-situation model is supposed to provide a single model for these with appropriate semantics. You can't pre-coordinate all possible risks, we should be able to address both absolute and relative risks, and the semantics around 'at risk for X' are ambiguous. Currently risk concepts are found in a couple of different hierarchies which is problematic for you in modeling these forms. Regards. Howard	hgoldberg	Mon Mar 11 21:29:32 Z 2013	post8319	topc5742
Re: RE: Data collection form for Venous Thromboembolism from VA project	Hi, pasted the contents of this tracker item. There is an OWL file as well, is that needed? Tracker: Content projects Title: At risk, low risk Description: Finding of at risk (finding) hierarchy (162 descendants). “Low risk for fall” is really not an appropriate subtype of “At risk for fall”. It is really a negation of “At significant risk for fall”. There is a need to define what “at risk” and and “at low risk”means. “Low risk” is probably not a subtype of “at risk”. This content is context. Finding of at risk (finding) will ultimately need to be to be renamed with a clearer FSN. There is also a need for an enhanced Finding context value set.	dkarlsson	Mon Mar 25 12:41:03 Z 2013	post8362	topc5742

OWL model for ICF observables (collabnet topic id: topc3707)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
OWL model for ICF observables	Comments on OWL model of Observables in ICF compatible with BioTop functions can be further defined in terms of - location: e.g. memory function inheresIn some body structure (The question is whether the rule inheresIn o hasLocus -> inheresIn is generalizable) - realization, e.g. memory function hasRealization only Memorization Observables and Qualities It seems that Observables correspond to value regions in BioTop. They should therefore be related by the relation quality location of. The standard model would be: 1. An observable is the value of the observed quality 2. This value has a scale 3. The quality inheres in some part of an organism or organism part. (Whether it consequently inheres in all structures that include that part in unclear) 4. The part of the organism in which the quality inheres is the bearer of the function which is realized by a specific kind of process 5. The property type is the related to the value. It would be most straightforward to have it as a parent, but we can add it as an additional relation for the time being MEMORY EXAMPLE New interpretation of IS_ABOUT as equivalent to biotop:qualityLocationOf (Degree_of)_Reduction_of_memory_function equivalentTo observable and (IS_ABOUT some (quality and (inheresIn some (bearerOf some MemoryFunction))) and PROPERTY_TYPE some degreeOfFunction and SCALE some ordinal DRESSING EXAMPLE 'Capacity_to_perform_dressing_activities_without_assistance' equivalentTo observable and (IS_ABOUT some (quality and (INHERES_IN some (BEARER_OF some (dressingOrUndressingFunction and (PRECONDITION some withoutAssistance))))) and PROPERTY_TYPE some capacityToPerform and SCALE some ordinal The problem here is how to interpret the precondition, as this refers to a feature of the process which is the realization of the function: DressingOrUndressingFunctionWithoutAssistance equivalentTo DressingOrUndressingFunctionWithoutAssistance and hasRealization only (DressingOrUndressing and hasProcessQuality some withoutAssistance)	sschulz	Mon Sep 12 19:53:26 Z 2011	post5265	topc3707

Observables: Semantic duality -- situations (collabnet topic id: topc5248)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
Observables: Semantic duality / situations	Some comments on the tracker items artf6235 "Observable and Attribute semantic duality" and artf6257 " Observables as situations" ---------------------------------------- On artf6235 "Observable and Attribute semantic duality" Two examples are given 1. Tumor site (observable entity) given a value of Colon structure is not equivalent to Neoplasm of colon (disorder). 2. Specimen site (observable entity) given a value of Anal structure (body structure) is not equivalent to Specimen from anus (specimen) which IS A Specimen (specimen) with Specimen source topography: Anal structure (body structure). EXAMPLE 1. It is correct that both are not equivalent and they should not be, because an observable is an information entity and a neoplasm is a disorder (or in the future, a clinical situation). So they cannot be equivalent. If we accept this, then an observable should be about sth. Then 'Tumor site (observable entity)' would be an information entity about some body structure where a tumor is located. 'Tumor site (observable entity)' with the value 'Colon structure' would then be an information entity about a colon structure where a tumor is located. Formally: 'Tumor site (observable entity)' equivalentTo InformationEntity and isAbout some (quality and inheresIn some (body structure and locusOf some Tumor)) 'Tumor site (observable entity): value = Colon structure'' equivalentTo InformationEntity and isAbout some (quality and inheresIn some (ColonStructure and locusOf some Tumor)) There should be a way to infer Colon Tumor out of ColonStructure and locusOf some Tumor EXAMPLE 2 'Specimen site (observable entity)' would be an information entity about some body structure from where a specimen was taken. 'Specimen site (observable entity)' with the value 'Anal structure' would then be an information entity about a anal structure from where a specimen was taken. Formally: 'Specimen site (observable entity)' equivalentTo InformationEntity and isAbout some (quality and inhereseIn some (body structure and inv('sct:specimen source topography') some Specimen)) 'Specimen site (observable entity): value = Anal structure'' equivalentTo InformationEntity and isAbout some (Quality and inheresIn some ('Anal structure' and inv('sct:specimen source topography') some Specimen)) ---------------------------------------- artf6257 " Observables as situations " We understand the question as whether these observables should go under the hierarchy of "Situation of specific context". It is acceptable as long as we accept information entities under "Situation of specific context". This is currently being investigated by SemanticHealthNet. Educational level of parent of subject (observable entity) equivalentTo InformationEntity and isAbout some (EducationalLevel and inheresIn some Parent) - Catalina Martínez-Costa Stefan Schulz	sschulz	Tue Nov 27 14:07:58 Z 2012	post7642	topc5248
Re: Observables: Semantic duality / situations	Re: Example 1 I agree that "tumor site (observable)" with a value of "colon structure" is not equivalent to Neoplasm of colon (disorder), because observables are information entities, and disorders are not. But I have some objections to the logical forms given above. I don't think that an observable is the same type of thing as an observation result. I would suggest keeping observables and observation results disjoint. So in this case, 'Tumor site (observable entity): value = colon structure' is an observation result. The observable 'Tumor site (observable entity)' isAbout a site, which is the site of a tumor. But the observation result is an assertion about where that _site_ is, i.e. that it is in the colon, but it is not necessarily about a tumor that is actually located in the colon. The assertion, the observation result, can be wrong in reality, and the tumor about which the assertion is made is actually located somewhere else. We want information entities to be structured so that probabilities can be allocated to different answers (e.g. p=0.9 that the location is colon, and p=0.1 that the location is bladder).	kspackman	Tue Nov 27 22:44:02 Z 2012	post7649	topc5248

To inher and--or characterize (collabnet topic id: topc6146)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
To inher and/or characterize	This is not new, as this has been floating around in our discussions, but I would like to make it official: When establishing the object of an observable (namely what that entity is that an observable inheres in/characterizes), it might be useful to settle on a quick axiom with regards to the extent to which some observable that characterizes (or inheres in) a subsystem, can be taken to characterize/inhere in the encompassing system as well. I remember dealing with such unsettling issues long time ago during my German stint, but not recall ever reaching a definite answer. Here's an example: Your heart has a weight, hence weight (simpliciter) is a property/observable of your heart. Your heart''s weight, however, is not a property of your heart, but a property of you(r organism). Looking now at some of the observables in the test group, here's what I think: "temperature of esophagus" inheres in any system that includes the esophagus, but NOT in the esophagus itself(!). Same for "temperature of vagina," etc. Now, I am guessing that this way of seeing things might not score too many points with many of youse, but this, I claim, only highlights the marginal role that "inheres" has. What seems to me to be more important is the inherent location property.	ccocos	Mon Sep 23 19:52:21 Z 2013	post9018	topc6146

LEGO examples for supporting evidence (collabnet topic id: topc5913)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
LEGO examples for "supporting evidence"	As discussed at the last meeting, here are some examples of the "three-LEGO" approach to representing "supporting evidence." As shown in the attached slides, one LEGO represents supporting evidence for an observation. This LEGO "points to" assertions in two other LEGOs by using an "assertion component" element. One of the "pointed to" LEGOs represents the result of observing the patient's level of risk (e.g., "at high risk for venous thromboembolism"). The other "pointed to" LEGO represents the condition or procedure that constitutes the supporting evidence (e.g., "lower extremity arthroplasty"). The attached XML file contains all of the LEGOs constructed for the VA "venous thromboembolism" form. The attached schema (XSD file) may be helpful in understanding the XML file.	dsperzel	Sat May 25 21:28:07 Z 2013	post8604	topc5913
Re: LEGO examples for "supporting evidence"	Apparently you can only attach one file per posting.	dsperzel	Sat May 25 21:29:24 Z 2013	post8605	topc5913
Re: LEGO examples for "supporting evidence"	Apparently you can only attach one file per posting	dsperzel	Sat May 25 21:30:06 Z 2013	post8606	topc5913
Re: LEGO examples for "supporting evidence"	Hi and thanks, just a question. How do you constrain LEGOs like e.g. an observation LEGO must have a Observable code as discernable and may have a Procedure or Finding code for qualifier? /Daniel	dkarlsson	Sun May 26 10:17:57 Z 2013	post8607	topc5913
Re: LEGO examples for "supporting evidence"	David, I notice (or rather make an interpretation) that the qualifier more or less does what the TECHNIQUE attribute is supposed to be doing, although neither the content nor the model currently supports procedures as TECHNIQUE values. Maybe you have already told us, but how do you separate qualifiers from parts of a discernible expression? Is there anything in your framework that is used to detect equivalence among expressions (with or without qualifiers)? /Daniel	dkarlsson	Mon May 27 07:36:43 Z 2013	post8608	topc5913
Re: LEGO examples for "supporting evidence"	The LEGO Editor supports Drools rules, although there are not very many of them at the moment. There is currently a rule that requires the discernible to be a descendant of "Observable entity (observable entity)." In addition to released SNOMED CT observable codes, the LEGO Editor accepts "pending concepts" (i.e., new concepts created in the editor for the LEGO project) if they have been directly or indirectly linked to "real" SNOMED CT observable concept. There is currently no rule to restrict qualifiers, although I assume one could be written if necessary. Since the qualifier is supposed to represent the "source" of the discernible, I'd probably restrict the values to Procedures only. Thanks, David S. On May 26, 2013, at 3:17 AM, Daniel Karlsson (ihtsdo SE) <daniel.karlsson@liu.se> wrote: > > Hi and thanks, > > just a question. How do you constrain LEGOs like e.g. an observation LEGO must have a Observable code as discernable and may have a Procedure or Finding code for qualifier? > > /Daniel > _______________________________________________ > General discussions - observables > https://csfe.aceworkspace.net/sf/go/post8607 >	dsperzel	Tue May 28 16:37:16 Z 2013	post8617	topc5913
Re: LEGO examples for "supporting evidence"	Daniel, Yes, I do think the LEGO <qualifier> element more or less does what the TECHNIQUE attribute is supposed to do. Similarly, the <value> LEGO element does what the VALUE and UNITS attributes are supposed to do, and the optional <timing> LEGO element does what the TIME ASPECT attribute is supposed to do. LEGOs are really observation results, with the observable being represented in the <discernible> element and the value of the observation being represented the the <value> element. Qualifiers are separated from parts of a discernible expression by being located in different XML elements. The main part of a LEGO is the <assertion> element. Its four major parts are the <discernible>, <qualifier>, <value>, and optional <timing> elements. An assertion also contains an optional <assertion component> element, which can be used to reference an assertion in a different LEGO (as we do for "supporting evidence"). My understanding is that the discernible will be processed by the enhanced SnoRocket classifier that CSIRO is developing, so that should take care of detecting equivalent expressions within a discernible. The qualifier and value are often the same across many LEGOs, so I believe the discernible is the main place where we would need to be concerned about equivalent expressions. Thanks, David S. On May 27, 2013, at 12:36 AM, Daniel Karlsson (ihtsdo SE) <daniel.karlsson@liu.se> wrote: > > David, > > I notice (or rather make an interpretation) that the qualifier more or less does what the TECHNIQUE attribute is supposed to be doing, although neither the content nor the model currently supports procedures as TECHNIQUE values. > > Maybe you have already told us, but how do you separate qualifiers from parts of a discernible expression? > > Is there anything in your framework that is used to detect equivalence among expressions (with or without qualifiers)? > > /Daniel > _______________________________________________ > General discussions - observables > https://csfe.aceworkspace.net/sf/go/post8608 >	dsperzel	Tue May 28 17:03:14 Z 2013	post8618	topc5913

Properties for non-lab observables (collabnet topic id: topc6147)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
Properties for non-lab observables	As requested on the call today, I posted the pdf document which has the 2007 analysis done by David Markwell. It includes a section with some proposed property types (with counts of applicability to existing observables), and is useful for looking at what property types might need to be added for non-lab observables. I'm posting this topic in case people aren't monitoring the documents folder top level - See doc8960	kspackman	Mon Sep 23 22:23:18 Z 2013	post9020	topc6147

Proposed LEGO guidelines for using the observables model (collabnet topic id: topc5862)

Title	Content	Created By	Date Created	ID	Topic ID
Proposed LEGO guidelines for using the observables model	In addition to following the "official" Observables Style Guide in our LEGO modeling, we would like to incorporate some other features described in the March 11 presentation, the bi-weekly Observables Project Group meetings, and the forum discussions. The purpose of this posting is to give the group an opportunity to comment on these proposed guidelines and correct any mistaken impressions about how best to use the draft observables materials in the VA LEGO modeling project. In order to model "presence" or "absence," we plan to use the IS ABOUT attribute (even though it's not currently included in the Observables Style Guide) and to assume that the range of this attribute can include independent continuants. When the value of the IS ABOUT attribute is an independent continuant, the allowed value of the observation result (i.e., the <value> element in a LEGO or the HAS VALUE attribute in the observables results model) will be restricted to "present" or "absent," as discussed at the April 22 meeting of the group. In addition to a copy of the "Structure-Disposition-Process (SDP)" figure that was shown during the March 11 presentation, the attached slides show a second figure from the same article. This second figure illustrates how a proposed "Condition" node can subsume the existing SNOMED CT disease/disorder concepts (some of which may also be eventually subsumed by Morphologic abnormality, Disposition, or Process nodes). In addition, existing SNOMED CT Event concepts can also be treated as conditions, since they will be subsumed by the Process node. Earlier forum postings also recognized that the range of the IS ABOUT attribute could be extended to include existing SNOMED CT Procedure concepts, at least for the purposes of LEGO modeling (e.g., when LEGO content refers to a surgical procedure). Using the IS ABOUT attribute with allowed values of Conditions (primarily existing SNOMED CT disease/disorder concepts) and existing SNOMED CT Procedure concepts will drastically reduce the need to create new concepts in different hierarchies to comply with the allowed attribute values specified in the current draft of the Observables Style Guide. The creation of such new concepts (such as "Orthopedic surgery (process)") was strongly discouraged in earlier postings.	dsperzel	Mon Apr 29 16:55:14 Z 2013	post8497	topc5862
Re: Proposed LEGO guidelines for using the observables model	The use of IS ABOUT with a value like proposed I guess would significantly overlap with the situations hierarchy: Observable:IS ABOUT=X, VALUE=absent vs. Situation:ASSOCIATED FINDING=X, FINDING CONTEXT=known absent One could argue that the difference between those two statements is that one is an occurent (situation) and the other is an information entity about that situation (or condition). Do we generally want to make this distinction? Can this be reproducibly used? This will also have the same drawbacks as the context model due to the lack of expressiveness of EL+. Whether this is acceptable or not is up for discussion.	dkarlsson	Wed May 08 09:44:39 Z 2013	post8522	topc5862
RE: Proposed LEGO guidelines for using the observables model	Daniel, Thanks for the feedback. Perhaps this is something you could bring up to the group at next week's meeting (on May 13). I can certainly see the overlap between the proposed use of the IS ABOUT attribute and the current "Situation with explicit context" model. On the LEGO project, we are "shooting at a moving target" in the sense that we are trying to make the LEGO models consistent with the expected structure of SNOMED CT in the future, as opposed to being consistent with its current structure. Since it appears that more work has been done on revising the observables model than on revising the situations model (at least as far as I know), it may be a good modeling discipline to restrict ourselves to using only anticipated features of the observables model (i.e., always making the LEGO discernible an observable entity). Keith may have some further comments on the desirability of not "mixing" observables and situations in the current LEGO modeling effort. If we follow the proposed use of IS ABOUT consistently, then automated transformations into a "situation-based" format should be reasonably straightforward if the IHTSDO ultimately decides that using the situations hierarchy is the preferred way of representing "presence" or "absence." In other words, it should be possible to write code that transforms the "observable" representation in your example into the "situation" representation. In addition to the occurrent vs. information entity distinction you mentioned, there may be other useful differences between observation results and situations. If we assume that a situation concept (or expression) should represent something that is "really true about a patient," then it may or may not be possible to infer a situation from an observation result. I recall an earlier discussions in which it was said that looking for something and not finding it does not necessarily mean that it's not really there -- because the observer may have missed something and the observation result may be a "false negative." I believe this came up in the context of an example about counting retinal hemorrhages. If the number or retinal hemorrhages observed in one or more, a situation of "known present" can presumably be inferred. On the other hand, if the number of retinal hemorrhages observed is zero, a situation of "known absent" cannot necessarily be inferred because the observer may not have seen a retinal hemorrhage that was really present. -----Original Message----- From: Daniel Karlsson (ihtsdo SE) [mailto:daniel.karlsson@liu.se] Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2013 2:45 AM To: discuss-observable_and_investigation_mod Subject: Re: Proposed LEGO guidelines for using the observables model The use of IS ABOUT with a value like proposed I guess would significantly overlap with the situations hierarchy: Observable:IS ABOUT=X, VALUE=absent vs. Situation:ASSOCIATED FINDING=X, FINDING CONTEXT=known absent One could argue that the difference between those two statements is that one is an occurent (situation) and the other is an information entity about that situation (or condition). Do we generally want to make this distinction? Can this be reproducibly used? This will also have the same drawbacks as the context model due to the lack of expressiveness of EL+. Whether this is acceptable or not is up for discussion. _______________________________________________ General discussions - observables https://csfe.aceworkspace.net/sf/go/post8522	dsperzel	Thu May 09 00:46:26 Z 2013	post8525	topc5862

Page tree

Archived Discussions

General Observable and Investigation Model Project Group Notifications

IHTSDO Observable PG: Face-to-face meeting in Crystal City, VA, USA (collabnet topic id: topc6153)

IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2014-07-28 20.00 UTC (collabnet topic id: topc6966)

IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2012-07-09 UTC 20.00 (collabnet topic id: topc4792)

IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting details for Wednesday 12 Oct (collabnet topic id: topc3874)

IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2013-06-10 UTC 20.00 (collabnet topic id: topc5930)

IHTSDO Observable PG: IHTSDO Observable PG: Sydney meeting 11-12 October 2011 (collabnet topic id: topc3753)

IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2013-09-23 (collabnet topic id: topc6139)

IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2014-08-11 20.00 UTC (collabnet topic id: topc7007)

IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2012-09-10 UTC 20.00 (collabnet topic id: topc4976)

IHTSDO Observable PG: Recording of Observables Group teleconference 11 March 2013 (collabnet topic id: topc5759)

IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2013-05-13 UTC 20.00 (collabnet topic id: topc5871)

IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2015-02-23 20.00 UTC (collabnet topic id: topc7400)

IHTSDO Observable PG: Observables document and next meeting (collabnet topic id: topc7582)

IHTSDO Observable PG: Observables PG meeting 2012-01-23 UTC 20.00 (collabnet topic id: topc4221)

IHTSDO Observable PG: Possible Episodes... - Observables... coordination and collaboration (collabnet topic id: topc2828)

IHTSDO Observable PG: Observable and Investigation Model Project August 22, 2011 meeting details (collabnet topic id: topc3632)

IHTSDO Observable PG: Discussion on representing biosurveillance specimens (collabnet topic id: topc2857)

IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting details for Monday 28 Nov 2011 20.00-21.00 UTC (collabnet topic id: topc4093)

IHTSDO Observable PG: Next observables meeting on the 13th of February (collabnet topic id: topc4226)

Meeting 2013-03-25 UTC 20.00 (collabnet topic id: topc5772)

IHTSDO Observable PG: BP OWL file (collabnet topic id: topc6585)

IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2013-01-28 UTC 20.00 (collabnet topic id: topc5431)

IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2012-10-08 UTC 20.00 (collabnet topic id: topc5105)

IHTSDO Observable PG: Nursing observables (collabnet topic id: topc6813)

IHTSDO Observable PG: Observables PG meeting 2011-05-09 UTC 20.00 (collabnet topic id: topc3016)

IHTSDO Observable PG: GotoMeeting ID (collabnet topic id: topc3875)

IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2015-09-14 20.00 UTC (collabnet topic id: topc7623)

IHTSDO Observable PG: Observable and Investigation Model Project March 28, 2011 meeting details (collabnet topic id: topc2929)

IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2013-08-12 UTC 20.00 (collabnet topic id: topc6031)

IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting Monday 2014-06-23 20.00 UTC (collabnet topic id: topc6844)

IHTSDO Observable PG: Observable and Investigation Model Project March 14, 2011 meeting details (collabnet topic id: topc2898)

IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2015-06-08 20.00 UTC (collabnet topic id: topc7521)

IHTSDO Observable PG: IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting details for Monday 14 Nov 2011 20.00-21.00 UTC (collabnet topic id: topc3976)

IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2015-08-17 20.00 UTC (collabnet topic id: topc7595)

IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2013-03-11 UTC 20.00 (collabnet topic id: topc5737)

IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2014-02-10 20.00 UTC (collabnet topic id: topc6454)

IHTSDO Observable PG: Observables PG meeting 2012-04-16 UTC 20.00 (collabnet topic id: topc4463)

IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2015-01-12 20.00 UTC (collabnet topic id: topc7346)

IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2015-03-23 20.00 UTC (collabnet topic id: topc7430)

IHTSDO Observable PG: Switching to VOIP (collabnet topic id: topc5391)

IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2015-08-24 20.00 UTC (collabnet topic id: topc7603)

IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2015-04-13 20.00 UTC (in 20 minutes) (collabnet topic id: topc7460)

IHTSDO Observable PG: Observables PG meeting 2012-02-13 UTC 20.00 (collabnet topic id: topc4263)

IHTSDO Observable PG: Face-to-face meeting in Stockholm (collabnet topic id: topc4880)

IHTSDO Observable PG: Observables PG meeting 2012-03-26 UTC 20.00 (collabnet topic id: topc4405)

IHTSDO Observable PG: Observables PG meeting 2012-04-30 UTC 20.00 (collabnet topic id: topc4493)

IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2014-09-08 20.00 UTC (collabnet topic id: topc7116)

IHTSDO Observable PG: Observables meeting Monday May 26 20.00 UTC (collabnet topic id: topc6797)

IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2013-08-26 UTC 20.00 (collabnet topic id: topc6064)

IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2014-08-25 20.00 UTC (collabnet topic id: topc7028)

IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2012-05-28 UTC 20.00 (collabnet topic id: topc4593)

IHTSDO Observable PG: Cancelled Observables meeting Sep 22 (collabnet topic id: topc7168)

IHTSDO Observable PG: Next Observables meeting (collabnet topic id: topc6593)

IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2013-07-22 UTC 20.00 (collabnet topic id: topc5977)

IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2013-09-09 UTC 20.00 (collabnet topic id: topc6108)

IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2013-05-28 20.00 UTC (collabnet topic id: topc5908)

IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2015-01-26 20.00 UTC (collabnet topic id: topc7360)

IHTSDO Observable PG: Observables document review (collabnet topic id: topc7443)

IHTSDO Observable PG: Observable and Investigation Model Project September 12, 2011 meeting details (collabnet topic id: topc3697)

IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2014-10-13 20.00 UTC (collabnet topic id: topc7232)

IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting on Monday cancelled (collabnet topic id: topc6188)

IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2014-07-14 20.00 UTC (collabnet topic id: topc6925)

IHTSDO Observable PG: Observables teleconference April 25, 2011 20:00 UTC (collabnet topic id: topc2979)

IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting malfunction (collabnet topic id: topc6522)

IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2014-12-08 20.00 UTC (collabnet topic id: topc7316)

IHTSDO Observable PG: IHTSDO Observable PG: Observable and Investigation Model Project July 11th 20-21 UTC (collabnet topic id: topc3254)

IHTSDO Observable PG: Observable and Investigation Model Project June 13, 2011 meeting details (collabnet topic id: topc3092)

IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2012-12-10 UTC 20.00 (collabnet topic id: topc5299)

IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2014-11-10 20.00 UTC (collabnet topic id: topc7282)

IHTSDO Observable PG: Observables: GotoMeeting details for Sydney meeting (collabnet topic id: topc3871)

IHTSDO Observable PG: October 24 Observables meeting is cancelled (collabnet topic id: topc3899)

IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2015-04-27 20.00 UTC (collabnet topic id: topc7474)

IHTSDO Observable PG: July 25 Meeting Cancellation: Observables (collabnet topic id: topc3393)

IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2014-11-24 20.00 UTC (collabnet topic id: topc7300)

IHTSDO Observable PG: Next Observables meeting (collabnet topic id: topc5883)

IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2013-01-14 UTC 20.00 (collabnet topic id: topc5390)

IHTSDO Observable PG: Meeting 2013-12-23 20.00 UTC (collabnet topic id: topc6337)

LabLOINCand__Observables

Observablesinception--elaborationdocuments__review

Clinicalobservablestest