Page History

Issues have been identified during the promotion of US extension nutrition content.  Currently a number of concepts in the US extension win the form "Inadequate intake of X" and "Excessive intake of X" are not modeled according to International editorial policy.  When these concepts are revised to conform to editorial policy, they generate equivalency errors with existing International concepts of the form "Inadequate dietary intake of X" and "Excessive dietary intake of X".  I have been informed that these are not equivalent concepts by the Nutrition group modeler (Lee Unangst).  

The issue lies with the modeling of the International concepts using an INTERPRETS value of "X intake (observable entity)" as opposed to a more specific "X dietary intake (observable entity)".  Since the international concepts do not specify dietary intake, the US extension concepts appear as equivalent concepts.  The International concepts were created in 2008 and it is unclear whether the intention of these terms is intake of nutrients from any source or were intended to be restricted to only dietary sources.  

We request the group to review this content and decide:

1.  Are the "Inadequate dietary intake" and "Inadequate intake" terms truly non-equivalent?
2. Should the International "dietary" concepts be converted to primitive concepts so they classify as subtypes of the US extension concepts?
3. Should the international concepts be inactivated as the intent is intake from any source?
4. Should new Observable entities specifying "Dietary X intake (observable entity) be created to appropriately model the international concepts?

Resolution of this issue must be made before the content from the US extension can be promoted to the International release.