Page History

Reaction of the problem bullets in chapter 5:

Bullet 1-3: We already do this, so agree a NRC must be able to perform this actions.

Bullet 4: Can be useful, it allows us to create intermediate primitive concepts and not just leave primitive concepts.

Bullet 5: When bullet 4 is possible, this also should be possible, to ‘remove’ unnecessary ISA-relations . But this only should be done by the classifier!

Bullet 6: When you want to add a relation to a concept to add definition (and not change definition), the first path is to request the addition with IHTSDO. I see 2 exceptions: 1) when bullet 4 is allowed, a extra parent is added, the inferred relations should be added by the classifier. 2) When a country creates his own attribute and wants to use it in a core concept. No idea if any country already has done something like that J. The additions are stored in the national extension.

Bullet 7: We don’t think you want to do that. When a concept contains an error or is inappropriate, request a change with IHTSDO and don’t use it in your refsets, ignore the descriptions. If IHTSDO takes too long to decide, create a new concept with the right content and use that concept. The only point is that you can’t create a concept with the same name.

We think it’s not the right way to inactivate a concept that others still can use.

So in summary: We agree with this paper except for the last bullet, retiring core concepts that are inappropriate. It must be stated that most additions or removing actions only should be done by the classifier (by adding newly created concepts as parent).

I must say that most of it is already be done by us, by using the classifier, and I don’t know whether we are violating the license with that. It is clear that clarifying the license text  is necessary.