Draft User Requirements

Concept Inactivation

User Requirements for additional tooling functionality

Summary of changes:

1. New Inactivation Reasons:
   1. Classification Derived Concept
   2. Meaning of Concept Unknown
2. New Historical Associations:
   1. PARTIALLY_EQUIVALENT_TO
   2. ALTERNATIVE
   3. POSSIBLY_REPLACED_BY
3. Additional Requirements for all Inactivation Reasons:
   1. The ability to annotate each inactivation with a free text statement
   2. The ability to link to an appropriate section of the Editorial Guide or reference source
4. For further discussion:
   1. The ability to create a new concept from within the workflow for inactivation of a concept because it is ambiguous.
   2. The created concept may be for active use or for immediate inactivation (Inactivation reason: ? Withdrawn) to support full enumeration of all POSSIBLY_EQUIVALENT_TO historical associations.

Changes proposed for each inactivation reason:

1. Ambiguous Concept:
   1. Interim changes:
      1. Where an author provides only one POSSIBLY_EQUIVALENT_TO target raise a prompt asking if a further POSSIBLY_EQUIVALENT_TO target is required. Allow the author to progress if only one target chosen.
      2. Provide the option to add a text annotation
      3. Support a link to Editorial Guide and/or reference source
   2. For further discussion:
      1. Provide the option to create a new concept from within the inactivation workflow
      2. Indicate whether the new concept is to remain active or inactive
      3. Where the new concept is to be inactivated provide an inactivation reason (range of inactivation’s to be agreed)
2. Concept Moved Elsewhere:
   1. The EAG agreed that we would no longer provide the ConceptID of the receiving organization
   2. Support the optional use of an “ALTERNATIVE” historical association
   3. Support the absence of any historical association
   4. Where no historical association is provided add an annotation of No suitable replacement concept identified
   5. Provide the option to add a text annotation
   6. Support a link to Editorial Guide and/or reference source
3. Duplicate Concept:
   1. Provide the option to add a text annotation
   2. Support a link to Editorial Guide and/or reference source
4. Erroneous Concept:
   1. Provide the option to add a text annotation
   2. Support a link to Editorial Guide and/or reference source
5. Meaning of Concept Unknown (New):
   1. This is a new inactivation reason
   2. There are no historical associations provided
   3. Add an annotation “No replacement concept required”
   4. Provide the option to add a text annotation
   5. Support a link to Editorial Guide and/or reference source
6. Non-conformance to Editorial Policy:
   1. Support the use of “REPLACED_BY” historical association
   2. Support the use of “ALTERNATIVE” historical association
   3. Where it is judged that there is no suitable replacement or alternative target concept provide an annotation of “No suitable replacement concept identified”
   4. Provide the option to add a text annotation
   5. Support a link to Editorial Guide and/or reference source
7. Classification Derived Concept (New):
   1. Support the use of “REPLACED_BY” historical association
   2. Support the use of two or more “PARTIALLY_EQUIVALENT_TO” historical association
   3. Provide a drop-down list that can be populated by the various classes of classification concept. Needs to be easily updated and expanded as required without changes to software.
   4. Provide the option to add a text annotation
   5. Support a link to Editorial Guide and/or reference source
8. Outdated Concept:
   1. Support the use of “REPLACED_BY” historical association
   2. Support the use of “POSSIBLY_REPLACED_BY” historical association
   3. Where it is judged that there is no suitable replacement provide an annotation of “No suitable replacement concept identified”
   4. Provide the option to add a text annotation
   5. Support a link to Editorial Guide and/or reference source