October 2021 BETA Version 7 (termMed build) vs October 2021 PRODUCTION Version 3 (termMed build) traceability
Differences found in package Comparison | Number of RF2 records impacted | Related JIRA ticket(s) | Rationale | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
AttributeValue files | 9 | 9 records added/updated : > 113fc653-4906-0536-299b-21b4294b977c 20211031 1 450829007 900000000000490003 2213271000209113 900000000000495008 | Ale Guillermo confirmed this was as expected, via email | on 06on 26/10/2021 at | 1904:35: | 37||
Language refset files | 10378 | 9508 records inactivated + 870 records added/updated | Ale Guillermo confirmed this was as expected, via email | on 06on 26/10/2021 | at 19:37at 04:35: An RVF run on beta version identified ~5000 cases violating the following rule: Term already exists within this hierarchy on concept <SCTID>. Two descriptions in the same hierarchy may only have the same term if they have different language codes or one description or concept is inactive. This was related to a change in the body structure SEP triplet pattern editorial policies that removed a synonym from concepts like “entire X” that was also used as synonym for “structure of X”. This was an old issue affecting the International Edition that was resolved recently, and after the rule was added to RVF it was evident that this would have to be addressed also in the Spanish Edition at some point in time. We reviewed the cases during the beta period, and prepared a batch update that handled 90% of the cases, and manually fixed the rest of the cases. Since one of the beta evaluations from the Spain NRC was partially related to this issue, we decided to promote the fix for this release instead of addressing it in the next one. The Spain NRC reported 44 cases of the rule “Active descriptions must not have the same term as another within the concept unless the language code is different. There is another description with the same term but different case. Please remove the other description or make it inactive.”, we didn’t act on them as in most cases there are acceptable exceptions in both English and Spanish. " src="cid:ii_kv7j87jz0" alt="" class="Apple-web-attachment Singleton" style="opacity: 1;"> While there were no critical reports arising from the beta evaluation feedback, we think the cleanup of the RVF results would facilitate future monitoring of new cases that would otherwise be obfuscated by the big numbers reported in the rule discussed above. | ||
Description files | 10537 | 9508 records inactivated + 1029 records added/updated | Ale Guillermo confirmed this was as expected, via email | on 06on 26/10/2021 | at 19:37at 04:35: An RVF run on beta version identified ~5000 cases violating the following rule: Term already exists within this hierarchy on concept <SCTID>. Two descriptions in the same hierarchy may only have the same term if they have different language codes or one description or concept is inactive. This was related to a change in the body structure SEP triplet pattern editorial policies that removed a synonym from concepts like “entire X” that was also used as synonym for “structure of X”. This was an old issue affecting the International Edition that was resolved recently, and after the rule was added to RVF it was evident that this would have to be addressed also in the Spanish Edition at some point in time. We reviewed the cases during the beta period, and prepared a batch update that handled 90% of the cases, and manually fixed the rest of the cases. Since one of the beta evaluations from the Spain NRC was partially related to this issue, we decided to promote the fix for this release instead of addressing it in the next one. The Spain NRC reported 44 cases of the rule “Active descriptions must not have the same term as another within the concept unless the language code is different. There is another description with the same term but different case. Please remove the other description or make it inactive.”, we didn’t act on them as in most cases there are acceptable exceptions in both English and Spanish. " src="cid:ii_kv7j87jz0" alt="" class="Apple-web-attachment Singleton" style="opacity: 1;"> While there were no critical reports arising from the beta evaluation feedback, we think the cleanup of the RVF results would facilitate future monitoring of new cases that would otherwise be obfuscated by the big numbers reported in the rule discussed above. | ||
ModuleDependency files | 1 | 1 record had UUID updated for October 2021 release, as expected | |||||
Readme file | n/a | All x prefixes removed, and PRODUCTION Naming convention applied to package, as expected |
April 2021 PRODUCTION Published (termMed build) vs October 2021 BETA Version 7 (termMed build) traceability
Differences found in package Comparison | Number of RF2 records impacted | Related JIRA ticket(s) | Rationale |
---|---|---|---|
Concept files | 0 | 0 files added/updated in Release package files - Ale confirmed this was as expected, via email on 06/10/2021 at 19:37 | |
AttributeValue files | 18427 | 18321 records added/updated + 106 records inactivated Ale confirmed this was as expected, via email on 06/10/2021 at 19:37 | |
Language refset files | 19112 | 2700 records inactivated + 16412 records added/updated Ale confirmed this was as expected, via email on 06/10/2021 at 19:37 | |
ModuleDependency files | 1 | 1 record added for October 2021 release, as expected | |
Readme file | n/a | updated for October 2021 + Beta "x" prefixes as expected PLUS 3 new files added as expected to bring format in line with latest International Edition:
| |
Description files | 18611 | 2637 records inactivated + 15974 records added/updated XXXXXXX Ale confirmed 18576 should be total amount according to his stats, via email on 06/10/2021 at 19:37 The good news is that this was simply because the Spanish terms now also include some ">" characters! So if I search in the diff file for the new effectiveTime+tab (in the case "20211031/t") instead of ">", then I also get 18576 changes instead! | |
TextDefinition | 375 | 34 record inactivated + 341 records added Ale confirmed this was as expected, via email on 06/10/2021 at 19:37 |