Date & Time
20:00 UTC Wednesday 28th March 2018
Teleconference Details
To join the meeting please go to https://snomed.zoom.us/j/471420169.
Further information can be found at SLPG meeting information
Goals
- Clarify execution semantics of reverse cardinality in ECL
- Progress SNOMED Query language
Attendees
- Chair: Linda Bird
- Project Group: Michael Lawley, Ed Cheetham, Rob Hausam
Apologies
Agenda and Meeting Notes
Description | Owner | Notes |
---|---|---|
Welcome and apologies | ||
ECL reverse cardinality | Question I have a doubt in expression constraints with reverse cardinalities: only non-redundant attributes have to be included in the cardinality count? For example, the following EC: << 105590001 |substance|: [3..3] R 246075003 |causative agent| = << 404684003 |clinical finding| returns this concept (among others): 72551001 |Metal fumes (substance)|. This substance is the causative agent of three clinical findings: 74800004 |Brass-founders' fever|, 72163003 |Metal fever| and 308905009 |Welders ague|. Both concepts, 74800004 |Brass-founders' fever| and 308905009 |Welders ague| are a type of 72163003 |Metal fever|. So the question is: does the EC above has to return 72551001 |Metal fumes (substance)|? Or this substance should be matched with [2..x] cardinality? (Please note that x corresponds to 2, 3...*). Proposed Answer (for discussion) At the moment, existing implementations (that I know of) seem to return 72551001 |Meta fumes (substance)|; and the SNOMED International Browser shows the 3 concepts that you mention in the list of causative agent "References" for the concept 72163003 |Meta fever|. However, whether or not this is the correct semantics for ECL comes down to how we interpret "redundant relationships". I think this may require a further discussion with the implementation community (which I can start through the SNOMED Languages Project Group). However, these are my current thoughts on how redundancy should be treated.... Given concepts X and Y, and attribute R:
An example of the first inference is:
An example of the second inference is:
If this logic above is correct, then the only non-redundant relationship involving a |Causative agent| of |Metal fumes| is the relationship (|Metal fever|, |Causative agent|, |Metal fumes|) ... in which case the concept |Metal fumes| should only be returned when the cardinality include [1]. For example: << 105590001 |substance|: [1..1] R 246075003 |causative agent| = << 404684003 |clinical finding| However, I would like to discuss this further with the implementation community, given this is not the way current implementation are working. | |
Query Language - Recap from last week | Examples: version and language
Notes
| |
Examples: where
Notes
| ||
Query Language - Combining language reference sets | How do we support language preferences, which are defined over multiple language reference sets? For example:
| |
Filters for Lexical Searching | What filter keywords will we introduce for Term-based searching, and what are their exact meanings?
| |
Confirm next meeting date/time | Due to the April SNOMED business meeting in London, the next SLPG meeting will be held in 4 weeks at 20:00 UTC on Wednesday 25th April 2018. |