2016-03-08 - CMAG meeting

Hi Linda,

Go to tonights meeting page, its under meeting files,

Talk later,

Ian

Apologies for missing this meeting, and it's taken me a while to get around to finding this discussion. And thanks Ian for presenting the item.

There's two reasons for the proposal.

1. While it would be ideal for all quality issues to be managed centrally, realistically I don't think it's feasible. The number of tracker items is large, and the IHTSDO has limited resources. Everyone's seen items that are years old. As an NRC, when a customer raises an issue - unless the NRC fixes it, they're at the mercy of the international releases scheduling. And have to continue taking enquiries about the issue until it's resolved. This has local reputational consequences for SNOMED CT extensions, but these could spread globally. Extensions are obligated to pass these changes up to the core, so they should eventually propagate to all members.
   There's obviously a scale of complexity in the potential changes from spelling mistakes to missing relationships, to large scale modelling.
   Ultimately it'd be great if NRCs could resolve these issues as they saw appropriate, coordinate with other members and IHTSDO as required. And the IHTSDO still has final say on if the changes are internationally valid/quality.
2. Simply creating valid DNF extensions. With the "Aspirin tablet" example in the paper. If extensions created Defined content as per the "prohibited" example (which is the goal) - unless redundant IS A relationships are able to be retired, the extensions isn't really DNF compliant. We're using Snorocket as our classifier at the moment, and our classification process won't touch core relationships.

At least some members are already making such changes, and the paper was really intended to provided a clarification so everyone is on the same page.