SNOMED CT Editorial Advisory Group

Page tree

Versions Compared

Old Version 3

changes.mady.by.user FCS Team

Saved on

compared with

New Version 4

changes.mady.by.user Jim Case

Saved on

Key

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

 This page contains the recommendations and final decisions for topics presented and discussed at the Editorial Advisory Group conference calls and face-to-face meetings.  Where decisions have been modified over time, a brief history of the changes will be included. 

AG recommendations from the


TopicDates of discussionRecommendationActionAction Status
Laterality

2015-10-27

face-to-face meeting in Montevideo:

  1. Restrictions on laterality be relaxed.

  2. IHTSDO should add lateralized concepts as needed and not proactively pre-coordinate every laterality.

  • SNOMED would need nesting in the future in order to properly model content, potentially including laterality, but until such a time as the IHTSDO is ready, the AG members recommended seeking alternative models.

    •  

    AG recommendation from the

    1. The AG unanimously recommended laterality Option 4, which is essentially the same idea as option 3 but implemented with a new attribute like “has laterality” that users add to the same role group instead of having it outside the same role group.

  • On temporal context/occurrence, remove from the range any values that overload the field (any concepts that overload the meaning of the attribute).

  • The public message on interface terminology should be that there are different ways to implement an interface terminology, but IHTSDO recommends using a content extension plus a dialect refset.

    • The decision to add a new attribute was further discussed and the addition of pre-coordinated structures using the existing "LATERALITY" attribute was approved in light of the timeframe for support of nesting.

    		Add pre-coordinated lateralized body structures to the terminology as needed to fully define concepts in other hierarchiesImplemented
    WAS-A relationships
    2015-11-30
    call:
    Add
    The AG decided to add
    to the Editorial Guide guidance on retirement of WAS-A relationships. The WAS-A should be removed and the target concept should be linked to the next proximal higher concept in the hierarchy.Inactivate WAS-A relationships and point to next higher concept as an IS-A relationshipPending batch update