Template instantiation and scope

First, I think that most authoring use cases will be pretty simple compared to the FHIR transformation use case we've been discussing earlier. In the observables work, since observables are not relationship grouped, the scope is always the attribute-value pair. For "relationship grouped" hierarchies like Findings and Procedures there will also be relationship group scope, meaning that multiple values might imply multiple relationship groups, not only multiple attribute-value pairs.

There are 3 400 active concepts with more than one occurrence of multiple stated relationships of the same type in the same relationship group (or 25 000 when counting inferred relationships). 187081003 | Subcutaneous pheohyphomycotic abscess and cyst (disorder) | holds the record with 8 stated 246075003 | Causative agent (attribute) | relationships. The vast majority of concepts have one occurrence stated per type per relationship group.

Taking two simple examples of fractures and vaccines:

and the template (in two version, with scope types and with scope markers:

64572001 | Disease (disorder) | :
{
363698007 | Finding site (attribute) | = [[ scope:RG [1..*] @Finding_site <<272673000 | Bone structure (body structure) | ]],
116676008 | Associated morphology (attribute) | = [[ scope:RG [1..*] @Assoc_morphology <<72704001 | Fracture (morphologic abnormality) | ]]
}

64572001 | Disease (disorder) | :
#< #<{
363698007 | Finding site (attribute) | = [[ [1..*] @Finding_site <<272673000 | Bone structure (body structure) | ]],
116676008 | Associated morphology (attribute) | = [[ [1..*] @Assoc_morphology <<72704001 | Fracture (morphologic abnormality) | ]]
} #> #>

scope:RG here means that the extent of instantiation is the immediately surrounding role group.

The result is:

Note that the cartesian product of the values are used to instatiate the relationship groups. Had there been two kinds of fracture in row 2 the result would have been 4 relationship groups. If there is a need to pair values, a template containing two relationship groups would have to be created.

And for vaccines:

and the templates:

71181003 | Vaccine (product) | :
{
127489000 | Has active ingredient (attribute) | = [[ scope:AVP [1..*] @active_ingredient <<398827000 | Vaccine (substance) | ]],
411116001 | Has dose form (attribute) | = [[ scope:AVP [0..1] @dose_form <<105904009 | Type of drug preparation (qualifier value) | ]]
}

71181003 | Vaccine (product) | :
{
#< 127489000 | Has active ingredient (attribute) | = [[ [1..*] @active_ingredient <<398827000 | Vaccine (substance) | ]] #>,
#< 411116001 | Has dose form (attribute) | = [[ [0..1] @dose_form <<105904009 | Type of drug preparation (qualifier value) | ]] #>
}

scope:AVP means that the extent of instantiation is the attribute-value pair containing the slot.

Relationship group scope and attribute-value pair scope may also be combined, and then all AVP scoped slots are instatiated in each relationship group.

Some additional comments:

I assume that not meeting the cardinality constraints would throw an error, e.g. not having an active ingredient in the vaccines template would be an error.

I have not seen, and cannot think of, a case where cardinality constraints are made cross relationship groups.

Slots with non-grouped attributes cannot have a relationship group scope.

When authoring, a template should be able to have slot for equivalentClass/subClassOf. Also, how is the definiendum specified?

( [[ scope:CONCEPT [1..1] @definiendum ]] )
=== /* should this be "templatable" */
( 71181003 | Vaccine (product) | :
{
127489000 | Has active ingredient (attribute) | = [[ scope:AVP [1..*] @active_ingredient <<398827000 | Vaccine (substance) | ]],
411116001 | Has dose form (attribute) | = [[ scope:AVP [0..1] @dose_form <<105904009 | Type of drug preparation (qualifier value) | ]]
} )