Page tree

Versions Compared

Key

  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.

...

CountryDateResponse
 Norway

04.12.2019

 It is to early to say how vendor might use these concepts. It is not unthinkable that they could be used sensibly, but my guess is that it will vary very much from implementation to implementation.
 Australia16.12.2019

 I've always struggled with the navigational concepts, and how they should be used...

There's a lot of probably"useful" concepts in there, but implementing them in a meaningful way seems to be to complex and difficult such that it becomes difficult. I'm not aware of anyone using them in AU, and I expect there is nobody.

I get the impression they are clinically relevant concepts, but too difficult to model/outside model, so they've been relegated to the navigational hierarchy. Very similar concepts in the proper hierarchy now...

For example, Arbovirus infection (disorder). This could be a supertype of "Mosquito-borne infectious disease". There's not much difference between these two concepts.
Of course concepts like 'Vibrio species a-m (navigational concept)' are clearly navigational. However, I'm aware of it being used as such.

CSIRO's shrimp browser creates it's own 'navigational type' things, to just group stuff (example) - I think they autogenerate when a concept has too many subtypes.

Our internal tool (Lingo), also uses a few arbitrary "concepts" so that tree view/taxonomy doesn't crash. But these are build into the tool. (0-1, A-E, F-J etc...)

   

   
   
   
   
   
   
Member countries without a CMAG rep  

...